Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Canada-US pipeline may spark more emissions than expected.
A proposed pipeline from Canada to the United States may result in much higher greenhouse gas emissions than previously calculated as it could fuel greater oil consumption through higher production and lower prices, a study said Sunday.
Canada-US pipeline may spark more emissions than expected.
A proposed pipeline from Canada to the United States may result in much higher greenhouse gas emissions than previously calculated as it could fuel greater oil consumption through higher production and lower prices, a study said Sunday.
It all says the same damn thing; it’s a problem for the environment!
From Fox Business News source
………… Great Falls Tribune
Quote:
The department said this year that at most, the pipeline would increase world carbon dioxide emissions by 30 million tons.
Such emissions have been on the mind of President Barack Obama, who has said his administration would allow the pipeline to be built “only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”
The new estimates, from scientists at the Stockholm Environment Institute, were published Sunday by the journal Nature Climate Change. Peter Erickson, lead author, said his work implies that the pipeline could basically wipe out reductions from some potential pollution-cutting policies under discussion.
<snip>
I say we just ban lower income people from owning cars. Keeping the price of gas up in order to lower emissions does the exact same thing, but without the more direct wording. Why does it have to be done is such a sneaky manner?
One day we can also ban them from running the ac and heat at home as well.
Canada-US pipeline may spark more emissions than expected.
A proposed pipeline from Canada to the United States may result in much higher greenhouse gas emissions than previously calculated as it could fuel greater oil consumption through higher production and lower prices, a study said Sunday.
That's idiotic. The only issue is how to transport the oil to the refinery. Whether by truck, train, or pipeline the oil still gets processed.
Although, the (poorly written) article doesn't necessarily clarify it, I think the assumption is that the lower cost of moving the oil to the refineries via pipeline will mean it more economically feasible to process more of it which, in turn, means greater supply, lower cost and greater consumption.
Many "environmentalist" support higher priced gas since it will reduce the amount of poor people who can afford it.
Canada-US pipeline may spark more emissions than expected.
A proposed pipeline from Canada to the United States may result in much higher greenhouse gas emissions than previously calculated as it could fuel greater oil consumption through higher production and lower prices, a study said Sunday
So the truth finally comes out. They don't have a problem with the pipeline per se or leaks or other accidents. They just don't want us to see more oil out of the ground. Period. That is the end game, not concern for farmland getting flooded with oil. Stop wasting time with environmental impact statements and such.
Although, the (poorly written) article doesn't necessarily clarify it, I think the assumption is that the lower cost of moving the oil to the refineries via pipeline will mean it more economically feasible to process more of it which, in turn, means greater supply, lower cost and greater consumption.
Many "environmentalist" support higher priced gas since it will reduce the amount of poor people who can afford it.
Yes, but most people use unleaded gasoline for fuel. The tar sands aren't fit for much. Diesel maybe, but I don't remember all the science behind which type of oil we use for what. A pipeline wouldn't really lower the cost all that much. The tar sands are really dirty, nasty, hard to use, expensive to process, and in Canada's case, expensive to get to.
Besides, the Utah tar sands in Utah just got approval.
Yes, but most people use unleaded gasoline for fuel. The tar sands aren't fit for much. Diesel maybe, but I don't remember all the science behind which type of oil we use for what. A pipeline wouldn't really lower the cost all that much. The tar sands are really dirty, nasty, hard to use, expensive to process, and in Canada's case, expensive to get to.
Besides, the Utah tar sands in Utah just got approval.
The issue is that the opponents are concerned that lower prices mean greater consumption, and in most cases the middle class and the rich tend to maintain their use while the poor don't have that luxury.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
