Here's an article about Friends of Science http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...ial_calgary_billboard_is_laughably_wrong.html who claim climate change is due to the sun and have a long record of getting contributions from the oil industry.
so, your argument is...if I read that correctly...is that the oil industry has no place defending themselves from hucksters, just because...? And yes, Solar activity...has much to do with climate change. Good and Bad. Though, for the purposes of civilization warmer is invariably better. in the 1970's air pollution was supposed to be causing a second ice age. There is also the fact that we now more accurately record the temps. (Hey, Ebenezer, check the mercury for me, the hourglass says it's 10 in the AM, but I have to run to the outhouse)... or the proximity of those recordings to heat sinks...(you know urban areas full of concrete and devoid of vegetation...(yes that matters, particularly when a VAST majority of recorded temperatures are taken near.......drum roll.... AIRPORTS...)
The argument is and there really isn't a valid argument: that 97% of climate scientists say that climate change is significantly from carbon emissions and man made sources. This isn't supposed to be political but it is. And it's pretty obvious why. Big money from Big Oil. Why would average guys like us argue about it or deny it. It's a scientific fact. So let's get together before it's too late and fix the problem. At least Obama has addressed it but I'm sure the extreme right wing will battle him tooth and nail over this.
So you start out with a post that claims no oil from Keystone will stay in the U.S., I countered with a 50-70% figure of what refined product would stay here and then you came back with a Washington Post article claiming 50% and another that says previous exports were 55-60%. You are basically saying your first post was a complete bullshit party line. I may have been off by a little but your post was just talking points you regurgitated. Here is what The State Department has to say about it If you read the entire State Department Report it also covers the declining imports of heavy crude from Venezuela and Mexico which would need to be replaced by the refineries. The oil sands could help to replace those sources.
There are no conclusions on any of these reports. A lot of factors come into play. And the lefty blogs say Obama's comments were right on. I posted one of them. You tend to believe and search for what you want to believe. If something shows the opposite POV you conveniently ignore it. There is no conclusive evidence that Obama was wrong. And it isn't just him saying it either. But like all politicians they put out their own spin. Same is true for posters on this site. Me included.
Funny, I read the State Department Report and posted an excerpt from that. I may have posted from another source but the State Department Report was seeming to confirm it. The Department of State, run by the Secretary of State, a position appointed by President Obama. You on the other hand posted a statement with absolutely no basis in truth. I can see how you can confuse the two. The report did come to many conclusions, one of which was "As crude of foreign origin, Canadian crude is eligible for crude export license as long as it is not comingled with domestic crude. However, such an option appears unlikely to be economically justified for any significant durable trade given transport costs and market conditions.". Also, Obama was dead wrong, anyone that thinks otherwise is just blinded by their party allegiance. Seriously, he said “Understand what this project is. It is providing the ability of Canada to pump their oil, send it through our land, down to the Gulf, where it will be sold everywhere else.”. So not one drop of oil will be sold in the U.S., sure.
Every time I read an article on this I get differing reports based on the POV of the organization. Including on the percentage of oil (refined or crude) that will stay in the US market. So if you want to give Obama a couple of Pinocchios for saying all oil will be exported out of the US and give me a couple for parroting him ok. Anyways there is no conclusive number on that but it is over zero. It depends on many factors. Here's another POV on this question http://mediamatters.org/research/2015/03/02/wash-post-fact-checker-misstates-the-facts-on-k/202720 As for the State Dept report when he vetoed the bill http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ill-a-k-a-veto-bait-heads-to-presidents-desk/ earlier this year he said he was still waiting for more info from the State Dept on various issues like for example how much more carbon pollution because of the XL. Some say 17%. Others say it isn't important because the oil would be shipped by rail anyways. And rail transport isn't as safe as a pipeline. There's a lot of issues involved. For example jobs which the Repubs have been saying the pipeline will create. Well they will short term maybe 42000 of them. But after completion of the pipeline like 50 long term jobs. http://www.npr.org/2014/11/17/364727163/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-keystone-xl-oil-pipeline So maybe we can give the Repubs in Congress a couple of Pinocchios for being misleading, too.
So what I am seeing in most every one of your links is "almost half", 43%, 50% yet you claimed NO oil from this would hit the US market. Then you act as if I am being unreasonable for pointing out that your statement has absolutely no basis in fact. Sure my two links may have said over 50% or 70% but that is much, much closer to the truth than saying "no oil". And I don't give out pinocchios, I just pointed out where you and Obama were dead wrong based on every other believable source. Even if only 35% of the oil stays in the U.S., Obama and your statements are just examples of people saying things with no basis in fact because they are pushing a cause.
There's plenty of reasons to be against the XL mostly the 17% carbon emissions figure. The export stat is one of the least important ones. And again there's many ways of interpreting stats including the Obama Way. So what's your point that he's a liar. And me too.
First off the 17%, how is that going to be any different if they ship the oil to Asia, Russia, South America? It will be the same amount where ever. Does an Asian refinery change the molecular structure any different than a U.S. refinery? Absolutely not, the 17% figure means nothing. It is a ridiculous attempt to deflect from other issues. The oil is coming out, the only question is which direction it will head and by what transport mode. The export stat is what you brought up and what i replied to. It all of a sudden now becomes "the least important stat" because you were completely wrong? And there is no way to "interpret the stats" to come up with "no oil would be delivered to the U.S. market". Maybe you can try and interpret them that way, I'd like to see that. I am not saying you are a liar, just that you parroted a liar. Edit: I will amend my statement about the refineries, different refineries may change the molecular structure slightly different but not enough to change the amount of carbon emission from the same amount of oil by any significant amount.
The article I posted is from a liberal site. And they said that one of the many factors on exports would be the ports the oil is sent to. The ones that would most likely be affiliated with the KXL would probably export more of the oil. There are many factors and variables involved. Maybe Obama knew some of this or maybe he was exaggerating or lying. As for the 17% it's the most important stat of all of them. And the key reason people are against it. There are many others. The export issue is not a key reason.
Please explain how not building the pipeline is going to change the 17%. Edit: I am leaving the export issue alone since it is pretty clear Obama and your statements had no basis in fact.
On exports there are is no conclusive answer yet on % of exports because of all of the variables. Like price, the ports of call, etc. that figure into the equation. But it's not zero: that's a lie. Then what are the reasons for being against the pipeline. Adding an extra 17% in Carbon emissions because of the type of oil they would be transporting. ( Which is true. But some reports acknowledge this fact but say that even without KXL the oil would still be produced. So you'd get the carbon emissions anyways). Plus piping it through US territory. Using eminent domain to displace land owners who don't want to sell their property to build the pipeline. Not creating long term jobs even though the Repubs have claimed that and it isn't true (using stats the Obama Way).
Why is it every subject you deflect off to another? I have no problem discussing multiple items but when there is one question and you throw 5 different subjects back it seems as if you really have nothing to say. Back to the 17% figure you were throwing around. You say "But some reports acknowledge this fact but say that even without KXL the oil would still be produced. So you'd get the carbon emissions anyways", which is exactly what I pointed out to you. This makes it a non factor, just a point to deflect off to. Of course there are no conclusive export numbers yet but based on multiple reports it is going to be at least in the 35-50% staying in the country, that is the refined product. Most will probably be refined here as the state department report makes clear, it wouldn't make much economic sense to transport elsewhere to refine it once it makes it to the Gulf. As you admit Obama's claim was a lie and you repeated the claim. No need to go into it any further. As far as the jobs you are leaving out one big figure, what about the 10's of thousands working the refineries? The amount of oil coming in from Mexico and Venezuela has been decreasing and more oil is needed to keep those refinery workers going, the pipeline can help with that. The eminent domain issue I have not read enough about to comment. How many different land owners are involved that have not voluntarily sold?
Where's the deflection. It's a complicated subject and the export figures you state don't take into effect the entire picture and other variables. The point on refinery jobs: in all reports I've seen these are not counted. But it's a good point. To operate the XL: 50 people.
that number is BS pcl. even if I truly believed a figure that low it generates plenty of jobs elsewhere. those 50 oil refinery employees that move to town to work on the refinery have houses they live in and wives that want to buy and do stuff. That's jobs for plumbers, roofers, landscapers, etc. jobs for curtain makers and candlestick makers, etc. and restauranteurs to keep the ladies happy. the oil comes out the ground from the work of the 50 refinery workers but it stops there right? hell no it doesn't!- that means jobs for truck drivers to haul that stuff and gas station developments, etc. we are seeing the same thing with fracking in this country. say what you want about the environmental impact of fracking, there is no disputing what its doing economically to the areas that are allowing fracking in their communities. if you are fortunate to live near a fracking community you aren't having trouble finding a job, no matter what you do.
The deflection like the 17% in carbon emission, it is going to be there whether the pipeline is built or not. Anyway you keep throwing out the 50 people as if that is a definitive amount. Fact is there have already been 7000+ jobs created in producing the pipe and other associated items, there will be millions in additional property taxes in the counties where the pipeline runs, when rural counties add millions to their bank they can then add jobs, you have to think beyond 5 feet away from the pipeline. The 10,000 or 20,000 construction jobs may be temporary but most construction projects are. It is a 2147 mile pipeline and will probably take 2 seasons to build. That is a nice size construction job, while it is being built other projects will be in the works and then construction workers move on to those. That is how construction has always worked. As far as 50 people taking care of a 2147 mile pipeline, that seems like quite a bit of work for 50 people. The 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline employs 800 people, seems like 2147 workers would be more of a likely estimate for permanent workers. This part is just a guess of mine but you can see what I am basing it on which is more than the basis I have seen for the 50 or 35 people I have seen thrown around.
Look the 50 has been documented. To operate the pipeline not in refineries. We're talking jobs created specifically for the pipeline. You can look it up in multiple sources. I've posted a few of them here. If you are going to say that the tar sands oil is going to be pumped with or without the KXL and transported to the U.S. via rail, other pipelines etc. Which is the same argument being made against increased carbon emissions. Then you can't say more refinery jobs because of the XL. Same amount of oil just a different way of transportation. I am not supporting this idea that the 17% would happen with or without the XL. But you can't have it both ways.
The 17% is not a deflection or phony stat. It's based on the way tars sand oil is produced. The environmentalists say it shouldn't be produced because of long term environmental problems. But if the oil is produced the 17% difference in carbon emissions is still there. The question is does the XL accelerate it.
Since we don't have much to go off as far as direct workers after completion I'll concede the 50 workers but that is just a drop in the overall bucket of work that will come out of this. 17 of the 27 counties the pipeline will effect will see revenue impact of over 10%, there are 17 census areas the pipeline goes through that are minority and/or low income. So millions of dollars, every year, going to low income areas is going to be a tremendous boost creating jobs well beyond the pipeline. Keep putting that 50 jobs figure out there, it may be the number on the pipeline but it is nowhere near what it will actually create long term. Again the 17% carbon emission is going to be there either way but I never said more jobs in the refinery, I never said it was definitely coming to the U.S. via rail or other pipeline, they can ship it elsewhere, like Asia. I merely said that oil will help keep them working. I am sure they will find other sources if not for the tar sands oil but it would mean bringing more from the Middle East. The carbon emission argument is a circle jerk, they oil is going to come out of the ground, go to a refinery somewhere in the world and end result is more carbon emissions. The amount of carbon emission produced by Canadian Tar Sands Oil is not going to change whether the pipeline is built or not. Once again it is a point of deflection for opponents of the pipeline because the pipeline has absolutely no effect on the amount of carbon emissions from it.
