[kilroy]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

kilroy kilroy:

It could have been a little clearer, it does make sense though, triggering global warming in the same sense as shooting yourself in the foot can happen more than once if you're not really bright.

Uhhhh yeah. So tell us Professor Environment, seeing as how the oil that is NOT currently going through the non-existent Keystone XL is instead being hauled by rail(aside from the other pipelines already in action), how would Keystone XL increase emissions in a way that rail doesn't??? In fact, it would seem that rail transport would create MORE emissions than a pipeline.

"Carbon bomb" , what a bunch of morons.

Thanks for the promotion, I think it depends on how serious President Obama is. He has said that now he wants to address climate change and The bombs that the oil coal and gas industry keeps wanting to throw at us. Terrorist fanatics who stop at nothing to pad their own nests.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

kilroy kilroy:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

kilroy kilroy:

It could have been a little clearer, it does make sense though, triggering global warming in the same sense as shooting yourself in the foot can happen more than once if you're not really bright.

Uhhhh yeah. So tell us Professor Environment, seeing as how the oil that is NOT currently going through the non-existent Keystone XL is instead being hauled by rail(aside from the other pipelines already in action), how would Keystone XL increase emissions in a way that rail doesn't??? In fact, it would seem that rail transport would create MORE emissions than a pipeline.

"Carbon bomb" , what a bunch of morons.

Thanks for the promotion, I think it depends on how serious President Obama is. He has said that now he wants to address climate change and The bombs that the oil coal and gas industry keeps wanting to throw at us. Terrorist fanatics who stop at nothing to pad their own nests.

He said he NOW wants to address climate change? Was that before or after he permitted the expansion of shale oil exploitaiton and the exploration and development of US oil sands?

[kilroy]

The story says the President made those comments on Tuesday so that would be after the actions you have mentioned. I don't know how much you should rely on that though for your argument that he doesn't mean his recognition of the need to combat climate
change. It would depend on whether he stipulated criteria for those developments that they should not worsen climate change.

This comment is a good indication of how twisted the oil industry leadership is getting.

"Wednesday's protest came hours before the American Petroleum Institute, the largest lobbying group for the oil industry, again urged Obama to approve the project. The group said it will pay for ads supporting the pipeline and will mobilize grassroots events across the country urging Obama's approval."

How do a bunch like the powerful petroleum institute organize and pay for something called a grass roots movement? . Let's see the ceos of the various oil companies lead by example. Let's see them out on the street standing up for their principles.

[Jonny_C]

These "greenies" should be protesting coal, not oil-sands oil...

$1:

Canada's oil sands are besieged with two myths: That a "clean" coal technology exists and that the oil sands imperil the planet as the world's dirtiest fuel.

Both statements are bunk and yet they inform an environmental movement that swarms the White House and Congress to fight the Keystone XL pipeline designed to bring more oil sands exports from Canada.

Meanwhile, for instance, they are not swarming around America's biggest carbon dioxide emissions culprit -- Southern Company's Scherer Plant. In 2007, the plant was the single largest source of carbon dioxide in the U.S. and 20th biggest worldwide, spewing out 27 million tons annually.

And while the environmental industry attacked Keystone during the 2012 election campaign with large protests and media noise, there were no dramatic sit-ins or mass arrests in Georgia or other dirty coal plants. In fact, that year the Scherer Plant hired KBR Haliburton to build yet-another gigantic smoke stack, increasing emissions.

Comparing a single plant with the oil sands sector may sound unfair, but consider the numbers. The Scherer Plant's emissions alone are equivalent to 75% of the carbon dioxide produced by Canada's oil sands and yet the filthy Georgia utility gets a pass while the oil sands are dubbed the pariah of polluters.

Digging deeper, the Georgia emissions are far worse using the "wheel to wheel" measure that environmentalists like to apply to the oil sands. This is because the Scherer is fed with coal from distant Wyoming and every day between two and five trains, with 124 cars each, are unloaded in Georgia. And there are dozens more plants like this one across the U.S.

But the greens pick on the oil sands even though a recent report stated that the oil sands have 9% more emissions than average crudes but roughly the same as most foreign crudes or California's heavy crudes. Canada's an easy target because Canadians don't vote in the U.S. and the Keystone XL Pipeline is even easier because there are so many jurisdictions to lobby.

What's most disturbing about oil sands bashing is that it may offer a distraction from smart energy/environmental policy. There are other benefits involved in importation of oil sands crude oil that are never acknowledged:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-fran ... 97253.html

[saturn_656]

Jonny_C Jonny_C:

These "greenies" should be protesting coal, not oil-sands oil...

$1:

Canada's oil sands are besieged with two myths: That a "clean" coal technology exists and that the oil sands imperil the planet as the world's dirtiest fuel.

Both statements are bunk and yet they inform an environmental movement that swarms the White House and Congress to fight the Keystone XL pipeline designed to bring more oil sands exports from Canada.

Meanwhile, for instance, they are not swarming around America's biggest carbon dioxide emissions culprit -- Southern Company's Scherer Plant. In 2007, the plant was the single largest source of carbon dioxide in the U.S. and 20th biggest worldwide, spewing out 27 million tons annually.

And while the environmental industry attacked Keystone during the 2012 election campaign with large protests and media noise, there were no dramatic sit-ins or mass arrests in Georgia or other dirty coal plants. In fact, that year the Scherer Plant hired KBR Haliburton to build yet-another gigantic smoke stack, increasing emissions.

Comparing a single plant with the oil sands sector may sound unfair, but consider the numbers. The Scherer Plant's emissions alone are equivalent to 75% of the carbon dioxide produced by Canada's oil sands and yet the filthy Georgia utility gets a pass while the oil sands are dubbed the pariah of polluters.

Digging deeper, the Georgia emissions are far worse using the "wheel to wheel" measure that environmentalists like to apply to the oil sands. This is because the Scherer is fed with coal from distant Wyoming and every day between two and five trains, with 124 cars each, are unloaded in Georgia. And there are dozens more plants like this one across the U.S.

But the greens pick on the oil sands even though a recent report stated that the oil sands have 9% more emissions than average crudes but roughly the same as most foreign crudes or California's heavy crudes. Canada's an easy target because Canadians don't vote in the U.S. and the Keystone XL Pipeline is even easier because there are so many jurisdictions to lobby.

What's most disturbing about oil sands bashing is that it may offer a distraction from smart energy/environmental policy. There are other benefits involved in importation of oil sands crude oil that are never acknowledged:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/diane-fran ... 97253.html

Makes perfect sense. That's exactly why it will fly over everyone's head at Mach 5 at 120,000 feet.

Easier to shit on Canada and the oilsands.