Nearly every mainstream climate scientist has said that a big portion of the fossil fuels now in the ground must remain there if the world is to avoid the worst consequences of global warming. That simple fact lay at the heart of President Obama’s decision on Friday to say no to the Keystone XL oil pipelinefrom Canada. The decision, which ends seven years of legal and political wrangling, was correct, on moral as well as scientific grounds. The pipeline, when completed, would have carried about 800,000 barrels of oil a day from tar sands in Alberta, Canada, to refineries on the Gulf Coast. In the grand scheme of things, this would add little to a global output that now exceeds 90 million barrels a day. But the cumulative impact could be huge: The tar sands contain 170 billion barrels of oil recoverable with today’s technology and perhaps 10 times that amount in potential resources. Because the proposed pipeline was seen as crucial to the exploitation of these resources, allowing it to go forward would have put the United States in the position of enabling a project that, over time, would add significantlyto already dangerous levels of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. So Mr. Obama chose to draw a line. As he put it, “Ultimately, if we’re going to prevent large parts of this earth from becoming not only inhospitable but uninhabitable in our lifetimes, we’re going to have to keep some fossil fuels in the ground rather than burn them and release more dangerous pollution into the sky.” Mr. Obama touched on several other factors that played into his decision. One is that the United States does not need the oil. For various reasons, including big discoveries in Texas and North Dakota as well as stronger fuel economy standards, oil imports have dropped substantially over the last few years. Canada’s tar sands oil would thus add little to America’s energy security and make very little difference in the price of gasoline at the pump, which is already falling and is, in any case, determined largely by the global price of oil. Nor would the pipeline create meaningful, lasting jobs. A State Department analysis estimated that it would provide 3,900 construction jobs over a two-year period, plus thousands of support jobs, but no more than 50 permanent jobs thereafter. Next month, Mr. Obama will join other world leaders at a global summit meeting in Paris aimed at brokering an agreement among more than 190 nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because of various initiatives undertaken or proposed by his administration to promote energy efficiency, cleaner fuels and a lower-carbon economy — most recently a new rule that would greatly reduce power plant emissionsof carbon dioxide — Mr. Obama already has strong credentials on climate change. They have been made stronger still by his success over the last year in extracting pledges to reduce emissions from reluctant Chinese leaders. Rejecting the Keystone pipeline should further enhance his credibility and that of the United States on this issue. “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change,” he said. “And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.” http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/opinion/no-to-keystone-yes-to-the-planet.html?_r=0
Thankfully the NYT came up with this piece so that FC now knows how to respond. So now the left admits the whole thing was about show. Obama needs "credibility" and will now show America as "serious leader" in the fight against climate change. Never mind that this policy actually adds more pollution to the atmosphere. Completely disregard the fact that more oil will be spilled onto the land from truck and rail accidents. Totally ignore the idea that any "pledge" from the Chinese isn't worth the paper it's written on. We got ourselves a showman who can now push more empty rhetoric, and that's all that matters. And this is what the left calls victory. Stupidity of this magnitude is truly what American politics is made of. It's a race to the bottom folks, and we're going at warp speed.
No, the cost of extraction from tar sands / shale is actually cheaper than traditional drilling. This is why many companies such as Marathon are dropping traditional drilling sites (with layoffs) and shifting to shale. The Keystone pipeline only means that the cost of transportation is higher and that rail will continue to be used. Railroads will be happy to scale if shale production goes up (they have already ordered more oil tanker cars), the lack of a pipeline will slow down nothing. Here is today's press... Energy giant details job cuts, asset sales as it shifts to shale http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/...ils-job-cuts-asset-sales-as-it.html?ana=yahoo Marathon's announcement comes only days after the company confirmed that it plans to sell off at least $500 million in traditional exploration assets to focus on shale plays, which it believes will offer better returns and be more cost-effective. Meanwhile, the company detailed that it plans to cut 200 jobs in November as it makes the shift to shale, the Houston Chronicle reports. The company will consolidate employees and restructure its upstream business into separate shale and Gulf of Mexico exploration units, with shale receiving the majority of the funding, according to an internal memo sent to employees and obtained by the Chronicle. Individuals who believe that stopping the Keystone pipeline is a major "climate victory" that will slow down shale oil extraction and shipment while reducing CO2 emissions are severely deluded.
Well, looks like one smart investor isn't buying that.............. (Bloomberg) — Here's how big Berkshire Hathaway has gotten: At the end of the third quarter, a subsidiary of one of its subsidiaries bought some 25,000 tank cars from General Electric and didn't bother disclosing the purchase price. Turns out that the unit, Chicago-based Union Tank Car, paid about $1 billion. The company is part of the Chicago-based Marmon Group, which Buffett bought from the Pritzker family in 2008.
Futurecurrents and his ilk posted many comments and articles stating that stopping Keystone would reduce tar sands extraction. Many articles in the papers made that assertion also. The reality is that stopping Keystone will not reduce tar sand / shale extraction at all. In fact it will increase the extraction because the pipeline was tied into the business interests of a small number of Canadian extractors. Eliminating the pipeline effectively opens the Canadian tar sand / shale market to all competitors because using rail shipment for all extractors makes it cost competitive for all. Many U.S and foreign firms are jumping into the market now that Keystone has been rejected. Nor did stopping Keystone slow down CO2 emissions (they will now increase due to more rail shipments). Shortly "stopping" the Keystone pipeline will be considered the most Pyrrhic environmental "victory" in the last several decades.
It was a Buffett, GE and banker crony (they own the democrats) victory and an environmental loss painted as a victory by the crony owned press. Supported by drones who don't understand.
What's the data on "gallons spilled from tanker derailments" vs "gallons spilled from pipeline breaks". ?? Also, "cost of oil transport via rail" vs "cost via pipeline"??