General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCanada says sees no net increase in emissions from Keystone
Canada does not think there would be a net increase in carbon emissions if TransCanada Corp builds its proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta's oil sands to Texas, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said on Tuesday.
Earlier in the day, U.S. President Barack Obama had indicated he would block the pipeline if it significantly increased the problem of carbon pollution and said the net effects of its impact on the climate would be a critical factor.
"On a net basis, we don't see any increase in emissions as a result of the construction of the pipeline," Oliver told reporters in Toronto. He said at least 20 percent of the oil transported by Keystone would be lighter grades of crude that would not come from the tar sands and would therefore not be carbon intensive to produce.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-climate-obama-canada-idUSBRE95O1EG20130625
NoOneMan
(4,795 posts)Its carbon sinking potential should balance out Keystone. So thats settled.
Mika
(17,751 posts)I wonder what Canadians think about this?
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Even those that are for it are pissed we're shipping raw materials out of the country rather than refining here.
I live in an area that would benefit immensely from the pipeline, and I'd say almost everyone I know who is for it has the attitude of "We need more green technologies, but in the meantime this will help the economy but gee, I wish they'd refine it here instead of shipping it to the US, and they are going to have to start investing in more green energy for the future because this is getting crazy." The caveat is most people I know are pretty educated - and believe in global warming. I just saw some statistic said on CBC during the Calgary floods that 40% of Albertans don't believe in global warming, or don't believe it is caused by man - apparently the same percentage as in the American deep south. I find this crazy - I'd say most of that 40% probably don't live where I do. It was really disappointing to hear that - it's amazing what people will believe when it benefits them the most. I can't tell you how many conversations I've had about green energy with my family (hard right conservatives, and I'm an NDP voter) where they start yelling, "but what about the JOBS!" And I say, "what good are jobs if there's no planet? No food? No air?" This conversation happens once a year at least. And these are conservatives that believe in global warming.
Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)See, nothing to worry about. They don't "see" the gas coming out, so it's good to go. Even with our knowledge of climate change that could somehow damage the pipeline, we carry on. Are these pipelines tornado debris proof? Flood proof? Leak proof? Well they could almost be like leak proof if they would install high tech equipment to let us know when there is a leak and WHERE. But they say they don't need no stinking back up. And apparently, we aren't regulating them to do so. This is a Gulf spill waiting to happen on land, and it will.
Autumn
(44,748 posts)Politicalboi
(15,189 posts)USA! USA! USA! If your neighborhood has storm drains, there's no problem at all.
Cleita
(75,480 posts)happened in Alberta and in Arkansas.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)The emissions come later, so it's a really stupid statement IMO.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)O just said he wouldn't approve KXL if it would cause an increase in emissions. But now he can just say "Well, the Canadians don't think it will."
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)PDJane
(10,103 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 25, 2013, 06:32 PM - Edit history (1)
1. The emissions are outrageous and continue to be outrageous. Getting the stuff out of the ground destroys forests and land, and that means that the forests aren't there to soak up any of the carbon emissions. Moreover, just getting it to market involves the burning of natural gas and the destruction of fresh water.
2. The net energy gain is negligible; further natural gas condensates and heating are necessary to get the stuff through the pipeline.
3. The tar sands oil has destroyed the environment of a huge swath of Alberta, which looks a lot like a Mordor theme park.
4. Pipelines leak, especially when badly welded and aging pipelines come in contact with an abrasive and corrosive substance. There have been 2 leaks a day for 37 years in Alberta.
5. The tar sands energy projects aren't putting money into the general economy, and in fact, those energy projects are ensuring further inequality in the general population.
6. No one knows how to clean the tar sands crud out of the environment, especially water. It sinks. While companies have been rushing to move this stuff to market, they haven't bothered to work very hard at finding ways to get rid of it.
5. If the pipelines aren't built, it will take Harper time to replace them, and the tar sands project will not expand during that time, maybe ever.
That is what we know. That is why we are trying to get Obama to kill this thing. We can't get the secretive and destructive Harper to open up the research or to kill the thing, because he wants the money to ensure re-election. If Obama will kill it, we might be able to breathe a little bit longer.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)hatrack
(59,439 posts)It's not classy, but hey, it's a living.