overthere Posted May 10, 2014 Report Posted May 10, 2014 Cool story bro. But I never said anything about any of that. Yes, you did. Your post was a commentary about oil supply in the US. The Obama non-decision has nothing to do with that. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
bush_cheney2004 Posted May 10, 2014 Report Posted May 10, 2014 Latest polls show 60-70% of Americans support the project. Yes...and the American Petroleum Institute (API) is now spending on media to target U.S. democrats, who are in a precarious position for 2014 elections over the KXL pipeline: The American Petroleum Institute is running television and radio ads urging Sens. Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar to support the Keystone XL pipeline. According to filings with the Federal Communications Commission, API is planning to spend more than $68,000 on TV ads on three major networks in the Twin Cities. An API spokesperson declined to give the total amount of the ad buy. ...Franken and Klobuchar were among Democrats who voted against similar measures in the past. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Shady Posted May 10, 2014 Report Posted May 10, 2014 It just goes to show you how far out of the mainstream Obama is, when George W Bush and Bill Clinton both support the project. It goes to show you that Obama is nothing like Clinton, and therefore, not finding any of the same economic winfalls as he did. Obama's policies on the economy are in contrast to his Democratic successor, and the middle class feels it the hardest. Quote
monty16 Posted May 10, 2014 Report Posted May 10, 2014 The fringe supports the pipeline Shady? More like 60/40 for right now and support is fading. Sometimes the political right need to consider that the economy doesn't benefit immediately and a better outcome may be realized later by not rushing into a pipeline. Sort of like your comment on Bush2 who everybody knows now was one of the worst. He would have never bothered to risk his presidency on a health care system for his people as Obama has done. See? Quote
Shady Posted May 10, 2014 Report Posted May 10, 2014 The fringe supports the pipeline Shady? No, the fringe opposes it. Nobody's rushing into the pipeline. I'd been 5 years. That's hardly a rush. All it would do is add one more pipeline, to the some 4 dozens already existing pipelines arcoss the continent. Apparently something like 84 pipelines is ok, but adding 1 to make it 85 is just unacceptable. So instead, that oil's being shipped by train, and transport, which costs more, and is much more environmentally unfriendly. Btw, they're not "his people" anymore than they were "Bush's people" when he was president. Just like we're not "Harper's people." Quote
Shady Posted May 10, 2014 Report Posted May 10, 2014 So Michael Mann, of the famed "hide the decline" has come out against the keystone project, claiming it's a climate change generating project. Question. Does he not know that the oil, if not transported by the proposed pipeline, will be transported by train and truck, which will generate 40% more carbon emmissions? I don't get it, or him. Quote
monty16 Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 OH, it's pretty easy to understand Michael Mann if you want to. He's of the opinion that building more pipelines and transporting more oil by train car are both the wrong approach for our future. Obama understands too of course. The whole idea is to lower our dependence on fossil fuels that are destroying the environment. And I do know that some people don't believe in global warming or auto exhaust emissions or smoke stack scrubbers or mandatory safety standards for cars or seatbelts or just about anything that's good for us but costs money. Harper and his friends, you know. Quote
Argus Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 OH, it's pretty easy to understand Michael Mann if you want to. He's of the opinion that building more pipelines and transporting more oil by train car are both the wrong approach for our future. Obama understands too of course. The whole idea is to lower our dependence on fossil fuels that are destroying the environment. The problem is nothing else is economically viable yet. If you take the province of Ontario as an example, it produces energy at 5.6 cents per kwh for nuclear energy, and about 8c per kwh for gas power plants. We subsidize solar producers by paying between 44-80c per kwh. Is that the way you think things should go? We should pay ten or twenty times more for electricity than we need to or than other countries in the world do? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
monty16 Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 Whatever it take Argus, whatever it takes. I keep trying to tell the righties that it can't be the cheapest option forever when global warming (anthropomorphic kind) has turned into their nightmare reality. Attitude Argus, that's what it begins with. Not quoting inflated figures and attempting to take solar or wind out of the equation. Take a trip down along the Columbia river and have a look at what attitude can do! Quote
Bryan Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 Whatever it take Argus, whatever it takes. I keep trying to tell the righties that it can't be the cheapest option forever when global warming (anthropomorphic kind) has turned into their nightmare reality. Attitude Argus, that's what it begins with. Not quoting inflated figures and attempting to take solar or wind out of the equation. Take a trip down along the Columbia river and have a look at what attitude can do! "Whatever it takes"??? Who is supposed to pay for that? Will you? How about you just voluntarily send in double or triple whatever your total tax load was this year? Quote
Argus Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 Whatever it take Argus, whatever it takes. I keep trying to tell the righties that it can't be the cheapest option forever when global warming (anthropomorphic kind) has turned into their nightmare reality. Attitude Argus, that's what it begins with. Not quoting inflated figures and attempting to take solar or wind out of the equation. Take a trip down along the Columbia river and have a look at what attitude can do! So you're okay with electricity bills going from $100 a month to $1000 a month? You think that's not a problem? As for the Columbia River, the Us has already tapped all its hydro resources unless you want a fight to the death with environmentalists to destroy more rivers. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
monty16 Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 No Argus, I'm not okay with that, I'm saying that it's your red herring that you have created through an attitude problem. And the Columbia river reference was to the wind energy being produced there. You really must try to wrap your mind around the idea that we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Once you do that your attitude will change and you will have positive thoughts on what we can do. I can try to help you do that if you wish? Quote
Shady Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 No Argus, I'm not okay with that, I'm saying that it's your red herring that you have created through an attitude problem. And the Columbia river reference was to the wind energy being produced there. You really must try to wrap your mind around the idea that we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Once you do that your attitude will change and you will have positive thoughts on what we can do. I can try to help you do that if you wish? You need to wrap your head around the idea that right now, oil and natural gas are the best sources of energy for a growing, vibrant economy. Which affords the best standard of living. Cheaper energy through new energy technology such as fracking etc can be responsible for our energy independence from unstable areas of the world, as well as a manufacturing renaissance, which will significantly help the squeezed middle class. For example, the only counties that saw the median income increase above the national average were counties that were either in Washington DC, or in counties that are part of the new energy revolution. That's real dollars in middle class pockets. Quote
Argus Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 No Argus, I'm not okay with that, I'm saying that it's your red herring that you have created through an attitude problem. And the Columbia river reference was to the wind energy being produced there. You really must try to wrap your mind around the idea that we need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Once you do that your attitude will change and you will have positive thoughts on what we can do. I can try to help you do that if you wish? I'm a realist. I don't deal with pie-in-the-sky nonsense about magical fairy dust powering our anti-gravity cars. I'm all for pumping money into research to develop energy sources, but I'm not all for eliminating the ones which work until we can find others which work as well. Solar power costs too much. Wind power costs too much and is unreliable. And that's all there is to it. Anyone who dismisses the economic requirements of energy sources if not a serious or credible person to discuss anything with. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
monty16 Posted May 11, 2014 Report Posted May 11, 2014 Argus, It's not an all or nothing thing with energy requirements anymore. Most of the first world understands that and some are approaching self sufficiency on green sources! But I've noticed that those who don't take green energy innovation into consideration are the same people who talk about fairy dust and sky fairies the most. The sky fairy thingy is my first test for credibility. Quote
Argus Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 (edited) Argus, It's not an all or nothing thing with energy requirements anymore. Most of the first world understands that and some are approaching self sufficiency on green sources! But I've noticed that those who don't take green energy innovation into consideration are the same people who talk about fairy dust and sky fairies the most. The sky fairy thingy is my first test for credibility. My first test for credibility is whether someone advocating an environmental strategy takes economic necessities into account. When you said "whatever it takes" you failed. Edited May 12, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
On Guard for Thee Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 I'm a realist. I don't deal with pie-in-the-sky nonsense about magical fairy dust powering our anti-gravity cars. I'm all for pumping money into research to develop energy sources, but I'm not all for eliminating the ones which work until we can find others which work as well. Solar power costs too much. Wind power costs too much and is unreliable. And that's all there is to it. Anyone who dismisses the economic requirements of energy sources if not a serious or credible person to discuss anything with. I'm sure Exxon Mobil can supply you with all the economic BS you need to carry on your argument until the last drop of oil is sucked up. Unfortunately we may not be able to breath by then. But hell, you can't argue with economics! Quote
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 Argus, Some of us who are concerned about the environment think that it completely trumps financial necessities. We also are of the opinion that we can work to improve the environmental catastrophe that is pending and also survive economically. Don't you believe in anthropogenic caused climate change and global warming? I understand if you don't because there are still a few who won't accept the facts that mainstream science has presented. If you're not angry then maybe we could find a common ground on the issue? Quote
Argus Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 I'm sure Exxon Mobil can supply you with all the economic BS you need to carry on your argument until the last drop of oil is sucked up. Unfortunately we may not be able to breath by then. But hell, you can't argue with economics! I don't need Exxon. I have the stats from what the Ontario government pays for each type of electricity generation. And until wind and solar come appreciably closer to nuclear and gas, they are simply not an option. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 Argus, Some of us who are concerned about the environment think that it completely trumps financial necessities. Let me put this in a way which doesn't make you recoil in disgust at the mere thought of how important money is. How many people are you willing to kill in order to get more environmentally clean energy into the system? Because damaging the economy means killing people. It means higher unemployment, higher alcoholism and drug use, higher family breakdowns, higher rates of depression and suicides. It means old people eating cat food, shivering in the dark in their unheated apartments. That's the reality of ignoring financial neccessities. Hey, I can afford $1000 a month for electricity. No problems here. But what about the senior living across the street Don't you believe in anthropogenic caused climate change and global warming? I accept things are getting warmer because the scientists say it is (though I sure haven't noticed). The cause is immaterial given no one seems to know any real way to do anything about it without having us all living in mud huts and riding oxen to work. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 Argus, Why won't you state your position? Do you not believe in anthropogenic climate change? If you can't accept that wind and soar have become viable options then it would make it easier to debate you if we knew what motivates you. Sometimes, in order to be good Canadians we must depart from the US political right dogma that insists that economics always comes first. In the 21st. century that's not always the case and a look at all the thousands of wind energy systems installed throughout the world should cause you to not continue to doubt! Quote
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 Argus, Canada is a socially responsible capitalist country and unlike the US we look after our people. We don't choose to knowingly 'kill' people when we make what we believe are responsible choices. You'll have to go to the US to find that kind of attitude you are accusing us of having. There, they are still dying of curable diseases and treatable injuries for want of access to their health care system! Quote
Argus Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 Argus, Why won't you state your position? Do you not believe in anthropogenic climate change? If you can't accept that wind and soar have become viable options then it would make it easier to debate you if we knew what motivates you. Sometimes, in order to be good Canadians we must depart from the US political right dogma that insists that economics always comes first. In the 21st. century that's not always the case and a look at all the thousands of wind energy systems installed throughout the world should cause you to not continue to doubt! My position is the keystone pipeline should go through, since it's needed to convey oil to refineries. I'm not going to get into a global warming debate on this thread. That would be inappropriate. If we're talking about the difference between using and not using fossil fuels then you have to show that we can get enough energy to keep the country going at a price which won't bankrupt us. Until that is done we will continue to have a need for fossil fuels, and that means they have to be moved around. Period. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 Argus, Canada is a socially responsible capitalist country and unlike the US we look after our people. We don't choose to knowingly 'kill' people when we make what we believe are responsible choices. You'll have to go to the US to find that kind of attitude you are accusing us of having. There, they are still dying of curable diseases and treatable injuries for want of access to their health care system! If you damage the economy, you kill people. There really isn't a way around that. It's like saying, if you increase the speed on the highways, more people will die. It's statistically inevitable. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
monty16 Posted May 12, 2014 Report Posted May 12, 2014 If you damage the economy, you kill people. There really isn't a way around that. It's like saying, if you increase the speed on the highways, more people will die. It's statistically inevitable. If you damage the environment you kill people. Probably a lot more people than you will kill by damaging the economy. But still, it's not one against the other, it's one carefully considered and weighed against the other. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.