Keystone XL’s Collapse Leaves Canada’s Oil Heartland Seeking Payback

The improvement in lives that industrialization brings to emerging nations is something that the US stands FOR, not against. Where did you get the idea that the US should strive to keep other nations down?

We should be helping these nations to grow their economies through use of clean energy. When we ignore their needs, the result is that they either align with China and its clean energy outreach or they continue with directions that are worse. They use COAL, because they have it. Or, they use oil, because they have it.

You are RIGHT that it is simple:

We are concerned about greenhouse gas pollution, and thus we need to USE LESS OIL!!!

But, YOU keep postulating using MORE oil! And, THAT is the problem. THAT is what caused the USA to become the world's worst emitter of greenhouse gas on a per capita basis.

Spending our dollars/resources/freedom on making oil artificially cheaper than other fuels is destructive. It is a losing strategy. It plays directly into the hands of China, Germany and others who are ahead of us in producing, exporting and installing clean energy technology.

We need to be working on clean energy - like Iowa.

We need to be growing clean energy as a major market sector - like China has done. And, we need to be installing that here at home and abroad - like China is doing.

 

The environmental concerns are entirely besides the point to me. That oil is a strategic resource that the USA is going to need in the coming decades. Enabling the Canadians to move the oil via high speed, large volume pipelines to the global markets is foolhardy. Short term profit replacing long term security. The oil will go to the Chinese Communist Party to aid in building their military, which they seek to apply globally.

The USA should be negotiating with Canada to prevent their oil reaching major deep water super-tanker terminals, or them building one of their own on their Pacific coast.

 

Great post!

There won't be any time in the future when oil is worth as little as it is worth today. I don't mean the market fluctuations that cause oil to have zero value once in a while or $100/bbl once in a while.

No clean energy solution has been determined that would mean oil isn't needed for fuel. AND, oil is needed for an AMAZING array of other needs - from fertilizer to God knows what.

So, our speedy elimination of this precious resource is just one more way our ridiculous policy on oil is damaging future generations.

 

You are aware that purely electric heat, particularly heat from electric heat pumps, is now cheaper than oil. A heat pump is not cheap but is competitive with a new oil furnace which I think it can be put in pretty much just the same as an oil furnace vis-a-vis ductwork etc. Everybody has an oil furnace go up from time to time, normal maintenance.

 

Industrialization is root cause of the increases in CO2 and Ocean Pollution.. China being the biggest Polluter of all at now 28 % of Global pollution .. thanks to industrializing roughly 300 million people over the last 25-30 years.

China is a leading exporter of most everything .. How does this change the fact that industrialization is the #1 pollution problem -

Take a person from the third world - to the first world - and their consumption and byproducts of consumption increase by 36X ..

 

The number one pollution problem is oil.

Having America put their efforts into denying billions of humans access to the very things that we covet for ourselves is just plain morally corrupt in perhaps the most serious way possible.

And beyond that, WE are the country that is the worst offender on a per capita basis. Blaming China when the ONLY excuse is that they have a higher population is really just plain pathetic.

 

Your just lost - and not able to ingest new information - you keep making these ridiculous statements

I am not Postulating. I am telling you the fact .. we are going to use 20 million bpd - this year - this is a fact - not a postulate .. not some fairy tale world where we are not using so much fossil fuel .. a world that hopefully exists in the future sometime soon .. but as of Today - we have to figure out how to do as little enviro damage as possible - from that which we do consume.

Crying " Lets Consume Less" over and over - in a hundred different variations from all these bandwagon pundits - as a solution to the problem .. is logical fallacy on steroids.

What part of this is not getting through.

Second Fact "US is for Industrialization" - Yes .. that is the platitude along "freedom and democracy" the former being the only one that is true

It is as you say. All I am telling you is that is what is causing the problem - along with population growth ... industrialization being the most pressing of the two .. although both are way out of control.

Pollution is increasing every year Mate - not decreasing .. and you say ... More .. More .. More consumption .. and we will figure out how to do it cleanly along the way somehow.

This is not what is happening .. oh .. we are consuming more alright .. stressing the Planets capacity to the max - to put up with the biproducts of that consumption .. but we are not doing it cleanly.

and now you tell me .. you want to export our pollution problems to Nigeria .. and incentivize and finance further more and more rapid indusrialization .. in the most dirty way possible.. this is your solution

Canada and the US don't dump "Sht" into the oceans .. "Sans - Nitrogen .. which is a huge problem"

You have yet to explain to me how what we are to do when the anoxic regions of the Ocean - which do not produce oxygen - grow to a size where it starts to become significant ?

No need to look it up .. and good luck finding it if one were to try I would think - The point here - is that this is a real - measurable thing - that is happening right now ...

Google Ocean Dead Zones .. I told you .. put off this prima facie pretense of having a clue w/r to this issue -and go become aware. You seem a generally bright fellow .. will not take you but a few minutes to be going WTF.

Point being - that industrializing 500 Billion people - has put us to the point where we are dumping into the Ocean .. pretty much as much as it can take..

For example .. in North America - Mercury levels are going down .. cause we don't dump that sht into the ocean.. but - Mercury levels in Tuna around Hawaii .. they are going up .. this is due to smokestacks in Asia - Lets not even go to see what goes on in Nigeria ..

2 cans of tuna a week and you exceed the mercury guideline for pregnant women .. which is admittedly low .. but - we are hitting lines... crossing boundaries .. and this is right now - from industrializing 500 Billion over 25 years. taking us from roughly 1.4 to 1.9 .. call it 2 Billion industrialized right now (although I think this is a little high) and you say .. OH .. well lets hurry up and industrialize the 6.5 Billion not yet industrialized .. and turn them first world.

this is - "Death to the Planet" .. never mind Global Warming - we won't get there -- gosh is another 50 years out before Sea levels rise a few inches they tell us .. I think it will be quicker - given the increasing rate of Sea Ice Melt - but .. we won't make it - if we try to industrialize .. at the current rate .. say another 300 Billion by 2030 .. never mind getting the to the other 6.2 Billion anytime soon .. a number that keeps growing as pop growth rate is faster than the rate at which we are industrializing people...

So mate .. even though we industrialized a Billion people by 2030 - over roughly 30 years .. Population growth has increased from 7 to 8,5 Billion in that time .. so at this rate .. which is a rate that is already killing the planet .. and the rate of pop growth .. we will never get everyone industrialize .. and in fact the non industrialized portion will continue to grow.

So what .. your solution is to do it faster ? .. ramping up the rate of CO2 and Ocean Pollution .. ?

I told you I was a Subject Matter Expert - I take this subject seriously .. and have published papers to prove it - and a couple journal articles.

Have personally developed new - innovative technology for clean-up of contaminated soil and groundwater .. and implemented this technology - working for the largest Engineering forms .. was the Domain for alternative remediation options - but that was long ago. There was little money in saving the planet .. so I went into a different area.

 

1) you have no clue what the number one pollution problem is
2) even if this were true - you want to increase oil pollution . and oil related pollution - and increase industrialization

3) You want to destroy the planet by not denying billions of humans first world status. - and it is not really denying .. rather not encouraging - like you want to do.

Your values are twisted - and you can not handle the reality that industrializing the other 6.5 Billion on the planet - will destroy the planet.

 

electricity is expensive in much of New England and electric heat is not a good primary source. We're talking needing heat 6 months or more per year. There is a reason that gas and oil are used when it's 10 below zero

 

Heat pumps work well in nearly every climate if they are provided with supplemental heat in extreme conditions. The government can and should provide financial help for those who need it. New England is a beautiful area with many benefits but comfortable winters have never been one of them

 

that's why I moved. Man was not meant to live with 112 degree temperature swings between summer and winter. When it hurts to breathe, you know that it's cold out.

 

Minnesota is that way too. "Forty below keeps the riffraff out" is what Minnesotans say and it certainly worked on me

Large parts of America are actually desert steppe or Arctic tundra but I guess when you add them all up is why they call our overall climate "temperate"

 

Wow! I must have hit a nerve!

Anyway, we're not going to run short of oil. Don't worry.

And, we as a nation ARE going to work on using less oil.

The most rational first step is to end the tax benefits we hand out specifically to oil companies - thus allowing for the free market to make better decisions.

Obviously, we're going to be using oil for a long, long time. But, there is NO reason that we have to keep our usage at the rate that it is today - let alone grow that rate of consumption.

 

I have major respect for First Nations people who made that their home - with no oil, no gas, no electricity, or any of the other technologies we use in the effort not to die.

 

Ya did indeed hit a nerve Matey .. it is troubling for me to see folks in such denial of reality - when that reality when with ingested propaganda Kool-aid.

Hopefully we do get to less oil some day -and we should certainly not be subsidizing companies like Exxon who are drilling in "botswanna" and other such places.

In the mean time .. someone needs to slap these anti Science Blue Scoundrels in office upside the head - time is short and we have no time for this stupidity and hypocrisy on the basis of maintaining the bandwagon position.

But hey - you already inferred that you don't care about the environment or perhaps you just disbelieve the science.

as it sits though - your position is hypocrisy.

You can't decrease CO2 and Ocean Pollution and increase industrialization at the same time.

Sorry you missed that memo -- but it is simply not possible... increasing industrialization "Increases" Air/Ocean Pollution .. and in fact is the main reason for the increase.

So -take what ever side you wish - but, don't be in hypocrisy with yourself - as that is self deception.

It is not that I am happy to be the bearer of this unfortunate pickle the world faces ... its quite grim - and little being done about it.

 

When?

 

Most heat pumps do not function below 20 degrees. Likely why they don't usually have them up north.

Hope they have an emergency back up if they have one, we do, and we are south of the Mason-Dixon.

 

Are those tankers gonna run on electricity? Shipping the oil via tankers instead of via a pipeline will only add more pollution to the environment bringing us closer to the ravages of climate change. Do you think that’s really the route to go (no pun intended)?

I don’t blame Canada for being ticked off about the pipeline cancellation. I hope they prevail and the US has to pay for Biden’s shortsightedness. I can see it being a good campaign ad in 2022 and 24.

 

Obviously, that's hard to determine.

However, in 2016 the market share of electric cars was 1%. In 2020 it was 3%. There really is nothing to slow this growth curve.

And, that's with comparatively few recharging stations (which are less and less needed), increasing range, acceptance of the new technology as it proves itself, etc.

Today, every auto manufacturer has committed to electric cars as the future - a big change from today where sales numbers are affected by electric vehicles being seen as something of a niche market.

This is true even in sectors such as performance (like with Porsche) and in trucks. It's way true in special purpose vehicles, especially those used indoors.

The idea tht this is a fad just makes no sense. Electric cars are really great!

They have features people love - far lower maintenance, cheaper fuel, faster accelleration, no more service stations, quiet, no more exhause and car oil in your garage, good for the planet, etc.

Auto manufacturers are well aware of their markets.

 

Yes. We have a home in WA well north of where we live in Seattle that is heated by heat pump. It's a pretty robust unit and does well in our climate year around. Sometimes we get snow, and below freezing weather and it's not so great then. There are various techniques that keep us warm when we're there - the most expensive being that the heat pump system can be switched to electric heat. We have a gas fireplace that does a great job.

But, a heat pump alone isn't going to work on a day like today in the upper midwest!

 

I was only using the heat pump as an example. Conditions change and people have to change with them, that's called normal building maintenance and it shouldn't be a reason we wreck the environment we all have to live in forever.

 

None of us will have to live in it forever.

 

This is another reason our policy on Oil is so bad. Oil is a chemical storehouse, the basis of almost all our plastics industry and a lot of other things, like medicine. We shouldn't be burning it up

Now Coal can sub for most of the Chemicals and we have enough of that for several thousand years. Coal also CAN be burned cleanly (like oil) but in both cases it's expensive. The thing I note now is that renewable and FREE (once you have the infrastructure) sources are actually costing LESS than Fossil Fuels.

My brother has heat from geothermal gradients in the ground, (and no, he doesn't live in Iceland or Yellowstone) and lots of solar power grids. He still has electric and heat bills but they are much less than mine and his house is much bigger

So why are we still SUBSIDISING oil companies to the tune of several Billion a year? Couldn't we use that money to buy solar power for people like me?

 

Our descendants will. And the harm AGW is causing may be catching up to us faster than we think. Most experts say that the USA has the worst weather in the world because it is so changeable. You can get used to or obviate most anything that is steady and predictable, but variation is what is the most difficult to deal with and storms are the main engines of change in the weather. If we have to start dealing with several Katrinas or Sandys annually large parts of the US might become uninhabitable in a short time