The Carbon Footprint of the Keystone XL...

[Triana]

[rgbecker]

1. Hey, I'm against building a pipeline through the US so Canada can make a bunch of money....

But WTF is this sign supposed to mean? "Carbon Footprint"?

Is that how much carbon it produces as they build it? Is that how much all the oil going through it produces during the next 20 years.....

Sorry, statements like this don't help the dialogue.

That said, 6 and a half million homes are a lot. I'm impressed.

[Triana]

2. You can use google as easily as anyone else can. n/t

[Adrahil]

5. Well, if you post something, you probably ought to provide context.... nt

[Triana]

6. If people want additional info, they can google for it.

I'm not going to do their research for them.

[RobertEarl]

3. I agree, becker

This is almost disinfo.

The reason why there is such opposition is that opening up a new fossil fuel source for mass consumption is just dumb.

Were this source to be left in the ground, other cleaner sources and less consumption of dirty energies, would be in our future.

But that all leads back to the smaller 'Carbon Footprint' idea, does it not?

[FarCenter]

4. The carbon footprint is just about 0

Without the pipeline, the US will consume approximately the same amount of hydrocarbons as it would with the pipeline. They will just be sourced differently. We will import more from other countries than Canada, use more natural gas, and use more coal.

Without the pipeline, Canada will still extract and sell their hydrocarbons. The mode of transport will be different, and their export destinations will be different. It may also take longer, but since prices will go up, they will make more money and may more thoroughly extract them due to the higher prices when they do.

[ProSense]

7. Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, issued the following statement:

<...>

Michael Brune, Sierra Club executive director, issued the following statement:

“Reports of an industry victory on the Keystone XL pipeline are vastly over-stated. The final environmental review that the State Department released today sets the stage for President Obama to reject the Keystone XL pipeline. The State Department wisely walked away from its earlier contention that Keystone XL would have ‘no significant impact’ on climate disruption. Now the report concludes that Keystone XL will create the equivalent climate pollution of the exhaust of nearly 6 million cars each year, which the president cannot fail to recognize as significant and not in the nation’s best interest.

"Tar sands crude are more toxic, more corrosive, more difficult to clean up, and more carbon intensive than conventional oil. It’s the dirtiest form of crude oil in the world, and we just don’t need it.

"What the report fails to consider is just as significant. The market analysis assumes that over the next twenty years there will be no new efforts to curb carbon pollution and stimulate advanced batteries, fuel efficiency and clean energy – which, if true, would prevent us from meeting the challenge of climate disruption.

"Carbon pollution is the test for Keystone XL, and Keystone XL is the test for President Obama’s commitment to protect this and future generations from the worst impacts of climate disruption. We should not spend billions on a pipeline that will deepen our dependence on dirty oil when advanced batteries and clean energy are affordable and already meeting our energy needs in record amounts."

http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2014/01/statement-state-department-walks-away-significant-impact-new-keystone-xl

‘Approximately 50 total employees’
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024423143

[Triana]

8. I also found this...

TransCanada’s Keystone XL pipeline will increase carbon emissions by the equivalent of 51 coal-fired power plants or 37 million new cars on the road, says a new report from a coalition of environmental groups.

. . .

“If Canadian heavy [crude oil] is forced out to the world market, this will encourage more tar sands development, and release more climate-disrupting pollution,” the report said.

It estimates that Keystone XL would increase carbon emissions by 181 million tonnes per year — or the equivalent of roughly a quarter of Canada's current carbon emissions, which stand at around 700 million tonnes.

The report contradicts a U.S. State Department study released earlier this year that said Keystone XL would have no significant impact on emissions, largely because oil that isn’t carried by Keystone would end up getting to market by other means.

But the green groups behind the report — which include the Sierra Club, Friends of the Earth and the National Wildlife Federation — cite data from financial analysts and Keystone backers to argue the pipeline would increase emissions by allowing increased production.

SOURCE: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/08/30/keystone-xl-emissions_n_3844981.html

If you want to calculate how much carbon emissions of 181 million tons is, go here (a link given in the graphic) and plug in 181,000,000 tons in the first line:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/calculator.html

Multiply the results by the number of years the Keystone XL is expected to be in production.

I'm certain though, this is all just hyperbole and these whiney environmentalists and the EPA are just full of shit.

[ProSense]

10. Thanks. n/t

[Loaded Liberal Dem]

9. Let's Compromise!

Build the pipeline, but, instead of oil, have the Canadians pump Molson this way!

[rgbecker]

11. I still don't get it.

Are we against the pipeline or against the mining and using the tar sands?

Will the tar sands still be mined and used even if the pipeline isn't built?

Who gave the permits to mine the tar sands?

Is there any hope of stopping the mining and using the tar sands?

Is the fight against the pipeline just symbolic?

Why aren't we spending the time and money seeking divesture which proved very effective in the apartheid fight in S. Africa?



Rereading everything on this thread tells me the issue is the increased speed of using the tar sands would allow more Carbon build up faster.

Got it...Thanks.