Keystone XL Pipeline

Discussions related to the issues of forest preservation and environmental conservation

Moderators: edfrank, dbhguru

#1)  Keystone XL Pipeline

Postby John Harvey » Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:04 pm

Many are saying that this may be the first, or one of the first concessions Obama makes to the new republican controlled congress. I don't know if anyone watched the press conference of Obamas today but he kind of slipped and said it was a good thing for Americans, after he expressed global warming concerns that I believe were more strategically placed talking points. As an independent who is wary of both parties, I don't mean to start a political discussion, but...how much of a threat is this? How bad would this be for the environment if it were approved?
John D Harvey (JohnnyDJersey)

East Coast and West Coast Big Tree Hunter

"If you look closely at a tree you'll notice it's knots and dead branches, just like our bodies. What we learn is that beauty and imperfection go together wonderfully." - Matt Fox
User avatar
John Harvey
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Northern California but from South Jersey
Has Liked: 353 times
Has Been Liked: 433 times
Print view this post

#2)  Re: Keystone XL Pipeline

Postby Larry Tucei » Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:57 pm

User avatar
Larry Tucei
 
Posts: 1853
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:44 am
Location: Southern Mississippi
Has Liked: 707 times
Has Been Liked: 591 times
Print view this post

#3)  Re: Keystone XL Pipeline

Postby Erik Danielsen » Wed Nov 05, 2014 8:35 pm

The tarsands developments that the pipeline is intended to service are and will continue to be very "bad" for the global environment, not to speak of how absolutely devastating they are to the localized environment that they're located in. It's true that the pipeline will probably not appreciably increase emissions or consequent climate forcings, but only because that oil will be extracted and moved one way or another whether or not that pipeline gets built. Without the pipeline, the industries involved will have to spend a lot more money to develop the tarsands, probably over a longer period of time, and certain companies that like to do their refining in Texas and have a lot of influence in DC might not get the cut of the business they would with the pipeline in place.

As a result, the pipeline is more a political and symbolic battlefield than an environmental one. If you're a concerned human compelled to do something, heading to the construction sites to put your body in the way of the machines, as many have done, is about as meaningful a statement as you can make in an era when most of us are voluntarily steamrolled by way of staying home to charge our iphones. At least by now we seem to know that directing explosives to the homes of those who decide to destroy our environment and/or society is just as stupid and ineffective today as it was back at the start of the 20th century. The paucity of more practically effective options for countering such insanity is the one big crack in my otherwise naturally optimistic viewpoint. When I'm out measuring and photographing and communing with beautiful and fantastic megaflora this is the train of thought I sometimes ride straight out onto the pale plains of anger - that these beautiful beings are now so threatened by our greedy turning of the global thermostat in pursuit of fries and frosty, constrained by habitat fragmentation never faced by their ancestors who moved in time with glaciation cycles. Even without the adelgid, could I still walk under hemlocks in the upper gorges of my home region's canadaway creek 50 years from now? The creek's name would be a fossil (after we burn all the fossils we can, I suppose we've got to generate new ones)- anglicized from gan-a-da-wao, seneca for "under the hemlocks." Many of the climate models being taken very seriously by now suggest that I could not.

If the pipeline is built, that will be unfortunate and saddening. But for its broader context of continued fossil-energy exploitation, it's hard to find words.
User avatar
Erik Danielsen
 
Posts: 584
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 6:46 pm
Location: NYC
Has Liked: 244 times
Has Been Liked: 312 times
Print view this post

#4)  Re: Keystone XL Pipeline - THE ANSWER ! ! !

Postby Don » Wed Nov 05, 2014 11:37 pm

John Denver sang out the answer, in the lyrics below:
"Blow Up Your TV"

"She was a levelheaded dancer on the road to alcohol,
I was just a soldier on my way to Montreal.
Well, she pressed her chest against me about the time the jukebox broke.
She gave me a peck on the back of the neck, and these are the words she spoke.

Blow up your TV, throw away your paper, go to the country, build you a home.
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches, try and find Jesus on your own.

I sat there at the table, and I acted real naive.
Cause I knew that topless lady, she had something up her sleeve.
She danced around the room awhile and she did the hoochy coo.
Yeah, singing a song all night long, telling me what to do.

Blow up your TV, throw away your paper, go to the country, build you a home.
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches, try and find Jesus on your own.

Well, I was young and hungry, and about to leave that place.
Just as I was going. she looked me in the face.
I said "You must know the answer," she said "No, but I'll give it a try."
To this day we've been living our way, here is the reason why.

We blew up your TV, threw away your paper, went to the country, build us a home.
Had a lot of children, fed 'em on peaches, they all found Jesus on their own."
Don Bertolette - President/Moderator, WNTS BBS
Restoration Forester (Retired)
Science Center
Grand Canyon National Park

BJCP Apprentice Beer Judge

View my Alaska Big Tree List Webpage at:
http://www.akbigtreelist.org

For this message the author Don has received Likes :
AccipiterGentilis
User avatar
Don
 
Posts: 1455
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:42 am
Location: Anchorage, Alaska
Has Liked: 69 times
Has Been Liked: 229 times
Print view this post

#5)  Re: Keystone XL Pipeline

Postby Joe » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:01 am

Most of us don't like Keystone and we don't like fracking- but we do like lower costs for energy- so it is a conundrum. Those who fight against these energy sources, to maintain their moral integrity, should drastically cut back their personal energy usage- if not, they are hypocrites.
Joe

For this message the author Joe has received Likes :
sungirlblue
User avatar
Joe
 
Posts: 1757
Joined: Sat Mar 13, 2010 9:26 am
Location: Massachusetts
Has Liked: 0 times
Has Been Liked: 171 times
Print view this post

#6)  Re: Keystone XL Pipeline

Postby John Harvey » Thu Nov 06, 2014 9:40 am

I'm torn on this subject all the time because I don't know what to believe. I want an end to oil. Obviously we have solar, wind, and biofuels but are these technologies to the point where they can take over oil? Some say they are not and some say they are but are suppressed by the rich oil companies. I just cant believe that with all of our technology we cant come up with a better alternative. Also without cooperation from countries like China, India, and Russia I fear that issues like climate change are a lost cause. We need progress and it seems all we have are lies and delay.
John D Harvey (JohnnyDJersey)

East Coast and West Coast Big Tree Hunter

"If you look closely at a tree you'll notice it's knots and dead branches, just like our bodies. What we learn is that beauty and imperfection go together wonderfully." - Matt Fox

For this message the author John Harvey has received Likes :
sungirlblue
User avatar
John Harvey
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Northern California but from South Jersey
Has Liked: 353 times
Has Been Liked: 433 times
Print view this post


Return to Forest Preservation and Conservation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron