Keystone Pipeline

[_Bond James Bond]

We don't need to spend money to produce alternative energy.....
All that has to be done is governments simply mandate that all new homes must have a windmill and solar shingles and siding or otherwise. Homes would be entirely energy self sufficient.

You claim to be a conservative and yet you willing advocate government mandates that tell people how to power their homes?

We already have Hybrids which are getting popular, and new cars gas only can be phased out.

Hybrids are still a tiny percentage of motor vehicles.

We should be recycling ALL trash.

I agree. As much as possibly can be used.

These simple things which wouldn't require any new taxes, over burdened regulations, etc. can all be done right now, and oil would become much less needed. In the meantime, if they think they need that pipeline, then let them.

You say you want less regulation and yet in this same post you said that government should mandate house's should have self-sustained energy through solar and wind. Do you know what mandates and regulations are?

[_Bond James Bond]

I'm talking about "personal" versions, not these stupid farms which still makes us have to pay a power bill, still looses energy with distance, takes up land, etc. etc.

Communes are a far left ideology that most liberals would shun. Liberals like their television and technology as much as the next person. In fact most minimalists/survivalist types (the ones who want to live off the grid, self-reliant, etc.) are conservatives or libertarians.

[_Brackite]

When did North Dakota's name become The Conservative State of North Dakota?

The Following information is from Wikipedia:

The 2008 United States presidential election in North Dakota took place on November 4, 2008 throughout all 50 states and D.C., which was part of the 2008 United States presidential election. Voters chose 3 representatives, or electors to the Electoral College, who voted for President and Vice President.

North Dakota was won by Republican nominee John McCain by an 8.7% margin of victory. Prior to the election, most news organizations considered this a state McCain would win, or otherwise considered as a red state. The state has not been won by a Democratic presidential nominee since Lyndon B. Johnson's landslide election in 1964. Interestingly, polls showed Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama running unusually close in a state that gave George W. Bush a 27.4% margin of victory over John Kerry in 2004. In the end, McCain kept North Dakota in the GOP column but by a much smaller margin than Bush's landslide in 2004.

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Sta ... kota,_2008



The State of North Dakota has a Republican Governor. I would say that North Dakota is indeed a Conservative State.

[_EAllusion]

I'm aware that North Dakota leans conservative. What I was pointing out that you were saying "The Conservative State of North Dakota" with capital letters and all instead of North Dakota in a highly polemical and awkward way. It would be like saying "The Liberal Country of Norway has a higher per capita income than the US." It's lame. If you want to draw a connection between North Dakota's low unemployment rate and its conservative politics (as opposed to its massive fossil fuel wealth per capita), go for it. Don't do a goofy rename of the state. No doubt if it turned out that North Dakota had the highest rate of serial killers in the country, you wouldn't announce this news by saying, "The Conservative State of North Dakota has..."

[_Bond James Bond]

If you want to draw a connection between North Dakota's low unemployment rate and its conservative politics (as opposed to its massive fossil fuel wealth per capita), go for it.

This. Please understand this Brackite. I told my friends in Wyoming this the same thing when I lived there, although they were oblivious. It's easy to have low unemployment and low taxes when you're sitting on huge reserves of fossil fuels and/or excellent farmland and only a few hundred thousand people to work those resources. by the way farm subsidies (i.e. agricultural bailouts) are very popular throughout the Great Plains.

[_honorentheos]

http://www.governing.com/topics/energy-env/north-dakotas-oil-boom-blessing-curse.html
Forwarded to me today by a colleague.

[_Rambo]

Rambo - I think Obama made the right decision in not approving the pipeline, but also in re-inviting for permit resubmittal. The unanswered questions about impacts it may have caused justified not rushing in to a decision that, once made, would be impractical to reverse.

What were the unanswered questions? From what I heard a study was done and it showed a pipeline was perfectly safe.

Yes it would be a good idea to have more wind power, solar, and nuclear. However; that is going to take it least 50 years without destroying the economy. In the meantime the US needs oil and I think it would be better to get it from Canada than from the middle east. Rather give your friends money over your enemies. Like I say we have tons of government regulation and who the hell knows what those countries have. Plus I highly doubt a pipeline is not as safe as oil tankers.

In the end, I think the bigger issues are related to the idea of "The Tragedy of the Commons". Some (many?) economists and sociologists suggest that there must be a mechanism for punishing actions that are not in the collective best interest or reward actions that are in order to prevent drop off in voluntary participation. Otherwise, people take the short view most of the time over the long one. But if one is inclined to believe the long view (i.e. - in this case leaving the world as good or better for our children's generation is more important than maximizing my immediate gains) then it can move from a technical question to one of ethics in a hurry. Unless a person is a climate change denier, it seems practically immoral to suggest that since oil will get burned one way or the other we might as well be the ones to burn it. Since I'm pretty sure human-related climate change is real and - like the US military believes - will have negative impacts on our well-being I'm glad the President found a way to take a breath before making the decision. Rather cleverly, too, in my opinion.

in my opinion I don't think he wanted to make a decision before an election. Doesn't really show much guts to me.

Yes we do need to take care of the planet for the future but like I said it's going to take realistic time to change from fossil fuels.

[_Rambo]

This might be interesting to some of you.

http://www.cenovus.com/news/a-different-oil-sands.html

You may have seen images of the oil sands mining operations on TV or in magazines. It's unlikely, though, that you've seen oil sands drilling operations. What's the difference between mining and drilling in the oil sands?

Mining is used when the oil is close to the surface. About 20% of the oil in the oil sands is close enough to the surface that it has to be mined.
Drilling is used when the oil is deeper under the ground. About 80% of the oil in the oil sands is so deep underground that it has to be drilled. Drilling projects don't require tailings ponds and disturb very little land.
Cenovus has no mining projects. In fact, the oil on all of Cenovus's approximately 1.3 million net acres of land leases in the oil sands (includes 0.3 million net acres that we have exclusive rights to lease) is deep underground, which means it requires specialized technology, like steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD), to drill and pump the oil to the surface.

[_Rambo]

[_honorentheos]

Rambo -

My company writes environmental impact statements (EIS), the type of study you mentioned. Pres. Obama did the right thing in not allowing the permit because the EIS did not adequately address all of the issues it needed to and left some serious consequences on the table.

I don't care if you think he was weak in doing so, or sending jobs to China, etc. It was a serious decision that required time and the Republican party in the US made a move that derailed the ability to resolve those issues so it could be permitted.

If you'd like to read more on the decision, please see here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/79336703/Keystone

You can also read the entire Final EIS here: http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open

Taking a step back was the right thing to do. It just was. He didn't close the door on the project, which actually made many environmentalists angry as well. All of which reinforces to me that people are dumb when it comes to issues that they can't distance themselves from enough to see both sides. Obama, for whatever faults people attribute to him, is taking the long view and I support that.