Obama Rejects Keystone XL Pipeline!

[Williamsmith]

Solar power for me and those who live near me is of limited use. My weather on average has fewer sunny days than almost any other locality in the United States. That's why the Army Chose to built a munitions assembly plant here during WWII. The constant overcast was a deterrent to the likelihood that enemy bombers could pull off a succesful bombing run.

[ApatheticNoMore]

We have solar heat and part of our energy source is from solar-powered batteries. How many of you "Kill the Keystone Pipeline" crowd use solar?

To some extent it could be said I use wind. I buy the entirely green power option from the power company that goes to buy that much wind power. I pay a bit extra for it every month. But but .... are your actual electrons coming from wind? Uh, that's not how things work. But but ... can you prove they wouldn't buy that much wind anyway? No, I can not, but wind farming IS expanding and I hope in some small way I am encouraging that. But but ... shouldn't you install 10s of thousands of dollars of solar panels on rental apartments your in for a few years, I'm sure the landlord would agree right? Shouldn't you buy a house you can't afford just to install solar panels? NO. I try to be conscientious, but I am not a martyr. And yes I have been in the streets to protest even this pipeline itself, even though I put it in larger context here, and talked to the people protesting it (sincere as all get go, and often involved in many environmental causes, going to local talks on coal in the same day etc., but sometimes naive I think, as they trust Obama much more than I do).

As for whether solar is viable everywhere, I was talking to some people from Seattle the other day who seem to think it's viable there, which amazes me, but I don't really know the facts there

Meanwhile, Warren Buffett had the best ever quarterly profit - climbing to a record $9.43 billion. In part, thanks to Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad that hauls what the Keystone Pipeline was supposed to deliver - (which is also the 2nd biggest rail system) came up with a 12% increase. Crony WHAT!

Ok. To prove it was done for those reasons, you'd have to prove there was more money in denying it rather than approving it. I don't think that's proven but I accept it is possible, partly perhaps since gas is cheap now. But yes the tarsands oil may travel by freight, in fact I think WILL travel by freight or other pieplines. I think the question is whether this provides a speed bump (which is different than banning driving ), or not, plus protects some local ecosystems, not whether it saves the earth from climate change - that it does not I'm going to maintain.

[Gardenarian]

The environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline could have been quite severe.
But I think this decision is of great import because it sets a precedent and sends a message. That message being, we have hit the bottom of the oil barrel, and it's time to recognize that peak oil has come.

Solar panels and wind turbines require a lot of energy to be made, as well as rare metals that cause all sorts of problems to harvest. There is really no good alternative energy source.
What we need are real changes in our mindsets and in our world.
We need a new model for transportation.
We need to learn how to renovate our houses and other structures so that they can be passively heated and cooled (using wood for heat in rural areas.)
We need to practice permaculture, not just on a garden-by-garden basis, but as an entire society.
We need to recognize that our electrical grid is fragile and unsustainable, and figure out what we are going to do about that.

Accusing environmentalists of not having solar panels or driving cars or eating meat, that is entirely beside the point. The problem is systemic. The rejection of the Keystone XL is a seminal decision - one that says "Hey, this whole idea of supporting our wasteful lifestyles by wrecking the earth is not going to work!" At least that's how I choose to read it.

[freshstart]

well said

[Rogar]

The environmental impacts of the Keystone XL pipeline could have been quite severe.
But I think this decision is of great import because it sets a precedent and sends a message. That message being, we have hit the bottom of the oil barrel, and it's time to recognize that peak oil has come.

Accusing environmentalists of not having solar panels or driving cars or eating meat, that is entirely beside the point. The problem is systemic. The rejection of the Keystone XL is a seminal decision - one that says "Hey, this whole idea of supporting our wasteful lifestyles by wrecking the earth is not going to work!" At least that's how I choose to read it.

I have couple of geologist friends and when ever peak oil comes up they tend to inform me that we really don't know how much accessible oil reserves really are available. I've seen articles trying to define the time or volume of oil reserves, but I have become convinced that my friends might be correct. All the newer methods of oil extraction from the likes of fracking and tar sand oil have uncovered a large new source. It just costs more to recover.

That said, I agree that Obama's rejection of the pipeline makes a good statement about global warming and adding more sources to the global oil barrel. At some point, when and if the price allows, I think the tar sand oils will find a way somehow to a refinery.

[Mary B.]

I have couple of geologist friends and when ever peak oil comes up they tend to inform me that we really don't know how much accessible oil reserves really are available. I've seen articles trying to define the time or volume of oil reserves, but I have become convinced that my friends might be correct. All the newer methods of oil extraction from the likes of fracking and tar sand oil have uncovered a large new source. It just costs more to recover.

My understanding of peak oil is not that it is a discussion of all the oil there is, but that it is focused on oil that is reasonable to extract. The point that it costs more to recover is, i think, the point -- there comes a point when the energy return on investment is not viable, because more energy is required to extract the oil than is gained from its use.

[creaker]

Obama rejected a pipeline TransCanada said it doesn't want to build now anyway. And the issue could be revisited any time (like whenever TransCanada decides they do want to build it). So although I think it's a good thing, it's a pretty empty gesture.

[ApatheticNoMore]

My understanding of peak oil is not that it is a discussion of all the oil there is, but that it is focused on oil that is reasonable to extract. The point that it costs more to recover is, i think, the point -- there comes a point when the energy return on investment is not viable, because more energy is required to extract the oil than is gained from its use.

I suspect that is largely irrelevant as well though, as there is enough profitable (well it IS subsidized and subsidized massively by governments worldwide - so profitable when subsidized at least) fossil fuel to fry the planet.

Obama rejected a pipeline TransCanada said it doesn't want to build now anyway. And the issue could be revisited any time (like whenever TransCanada decides they do want to build it). So although I think it's a good thing, it's a pretty empty gesture.

If they decide to push it through in the future, watch for things like lawsuits under the Trans Pacific and Transatlantic trade agreements. Protecting the environment or anything else interferes with corporate profits, and so must be made illegal (subject to lawsuit).

[Rogar]

[QUOTE=ApatheticNoMore;220638]I suspect that is largely irrelevant as well though, as there is enough profitable (well it IS subsidized and subsidized massively by governments worldwide - so profitable when subsidized at least) fossil fuel to fry the planet.
[QUOTE]

Here's what the chief economist for British Petroleum said (if you can believe him). He pretty much agrees that peak oil will be eclipsed by global warming.

Physical peak oil, which I have no reason to accept as a valid statement either on theoretical, scientific or ideological grounds, would be insensitive to prices. ... In fact the whole hypothesis of peak oil – which is that there is a certain amount of oil in the ground, consumed at a certain rate, and then it's finished – does not react to anything ... Therefore there will never be a moment when the world runs out of oil because there will always be a price at which the last drop of oil can clear the market. And you can turn anything into oil into if you are willing to pay the financial and environmental price ... (Global Warming) is likely to be more of a natural limit than all these peak oil theories combined. ... Peak oil has been predicted for 150 years. It has never happened, and it will stay this way.

[JaneV2.0]

Germany is generating 75% of its energy from renewable sources. I think their weather and latitude are similar to Seattle's.