Harper warned not to pester Obama about Keystone in Mexico
andyt @ Sun Feb 16, 2014 9:49 pm
Thanos Thanos:
Vehicles are incredibly more efficient in fuel consumption that they were even two decades ago, and are constantly improving.
Because of CAFE standards, so widely derided by the right. But still way more that could be done using current tech. Many cars are still way overpowered, and marketed as some sort of freedom machines to schlubs who will chug along in gridlock. That power could be put into milage instead.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:34 pm
andyt andyt:
Thanos Thanos:
Vehicles are incredibly more efficient in fuel consumption that they were even two decades ago, and are constantly improving.
Because of CAFE standards, so widely derided by the right. But still way more that could be done using current tech. Many cars are still way overpowered, and marketed as some sort of freedom machines to schlubs who will chug along in gridlock. That power could be put into milage instead.
At least 20 years ago now, and likely more, some university students in Britain made some modifications to an MG motor. Carefully measuring in a single gallon of gas, that MG went 100 miles on it. I dunno what mods were made but they sure proved it could be done with existing parts and technology, or what existed at that time anyway.
PublicAnimalNo9 @ Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:48 pm
I find O'bummer's "environmental" objections absolutely hilarious. It's nothing more than another example of protectionism. The US has it's own tar sands in Cali. It has oil sands it's going to explore in some of the northern states close to Alberta. They're looking at wholesale fracking and are already partially engaged. (Yeah, that'll help with the sinkhole problem).
But goddammit, the Keystone XL is exactly the thing that's going to fuck up the environment, not the tons of diesel fumes spewing out as train after train after train rumbles south from Alberta. 
commanderkai @ Sun Feb 16, 2014 11:51 pm
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
So anyone that disagrees with wide bipartisan support in the US is a radical wing nut?
Did I say that? Nope. But, I know where this is leading...
$1:
No, I don't buy that. There was wide bipartisan support for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 as well. But, in fact, protests aginst that war were actually much larger in number than those against Vietnam. Those protestors weren't necessarily radical wingnuts.
I knew it. Yeah, this is a perfect analogy for the Iraq War. Why not? Certainly these two political issues are completely parallel with one another.
$1:
POliticians, particular in the US are a vain and venal lot. I don't think they define, in any way, how a lot of folks think, globally or even in their own country.
And yet, American politicians, especially those in Congress exist to represent the interests of their constituents. Even more importantly, the United States doesn't have the strict party solidarity you expect in other Western countries, like Canada. That's why you see such flexibility on who is deemed a Democrat and a Republican, and why a Republican senator from New York would be considered a Democrat senator in Texas.
Most American Congressmen will give fuck all about what the world thinks globally, because, guess what? They're not there to represent the global populace, but rather the population of their district/state. You know why? Only their constituents can vote for them.
But say, let's assume your presumption is correct that the US Congress does not accurately reflect the views of their constituents, even though that's their intended purpose, what then? How can you gauge the views of the American people over Keystone XL?
The only adequate, relatively unbiased position is going with opinion polls. Not a perfect solution, but, what would be? We'll get to those soon.
$1:
My point was that environemtnalists are not necessarily radical leftists, and those opposed to Keystone are radical leftists. It looked to me like that was the point you were trying to make.
Oh obviously environmentalists do not need to be radicalized. However, a lot of the most vocal opposition to the Keystone XL, in my view, is done by more extreme elements who are against oil development wholesale.
Just a quick example, the "No Tar Sands Oil Coalition", consisting of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, 350.org, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, and other environmental NGOs, stated clearly
"The 2,700-kilometre pipeline will transport "the world's dirtiest oil through America," and slow a transition into a cleaner fuel economy, according to the coalition.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/08-6
Even though, at this very moment, the "world dirtiest oil" is still being transported to the United States using the rail network.
The Nebraskan aquifer that was another major issue brought up by environmentalists clearly ignores that it has been already been crisscrossed by numerous oil pipelines before the proposed Keystone XL. Now, with the adjustment in course purely to cater to the environmentalist fears, they're still against it.
$1:
This is just ludicrous. I haven't seen any overwhelming support for Keystone in the US. A quick google showed a mild level of approval in the first few hits.
Let's see, bipartisan support from Congress, continued support from the general populace for years in favor of Keystone XL, even with the rise of anti-Keystone advertisements and lobbying, and yet, it's ludicrous to say there hasn't been rather strong support for Keystone compared to the opposition?
I think there is far more evidence to support my assessment that the American people are in favor of Keystone, over your statement of
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
the general level of mistrust Amercians have with respect to Keystone.
Beyond environmental organizations and their supporters, the Obama administration, and some wealthy individuals who gain from the delay of the Keystone, there is far less mistrust of the Keystone pipeline, and still continued support, with Pew having support in the mid 60s, Harris Interactive going higher, and with this most recent one still placing it in mid 50s by the most recent polling.
Yep, I have the ludicrous view here.
$1:
Again, this is just that attempt to try to taint environmentalists as radicals. Why would Obamam be playing this game if it were just a tiny percentage of the populace opposed, as you seem to be trying to say? It wouldn't make any sense.
I'll use an Iraq analogy, since you're fond of those. Why did George W. Bush invade Iraq, and continued to stay there long after popular support collapsed?
The Keystone XL opposition, and environmental groups in general, are a highly active part of the Democratic party, with significant economic resources to throw around. On top of this, a number of important figures who financially support the Democratic party are benefiting from the delay in the Keystone XL.
$1:
Harper has convinced everyone in the US except the Obama administration? I don't think so. Most Amercians probably don't even know who Harper is.
Right, that's why you attest Harper's cynicism to help further the general mistrust in Keystone XL, as, again, you claimed. Most Americans aren't aware of Harper, but those who are really don't like him much...because of issues that even less Americans would know about.
$1:
I happen to think that there concern for climate change is well placed, though their concern about pollution from the oil sands is overestimated. But, where are they supposed to get their information from? Politicians? Corporations? Media? Scientists? The same folks telling them that the oil sands are nothing to worry about, are the ones telling them that climate change is a pile of crap.
This sounds like you have considerable sympathy for environmental NGOs. That's not a bad thing, in particular, but, I would not exactly view them as a unbiased view of the American population's views on Keystone XL, and on environmental issues in general.
Pray tell, what exactly is the environmental issue right now? Climate change? The oil sands in particular? The oil will still be harvested, and will still be shipped to the refineries in the United States. Just by means that have a bad tendency to derail and catch fire. The aquifer? That's now being bypassed by the revised route. What's left that is the pressing environmental issue, in your eyes?
andyt @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:03 am
PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:
At least 20 years ago now, and likely more, some university students in Britain made some modifications to an MG motor. Carefully measuring in a single gallon of gas, that MG went 100 miles on it. I dunno what mods were made but they sure proved it could be done with existing parts and technology, or what existed at that time anyway.
I remember that, but they also drove it to optimize fuel economy on a track - nobody would get a figure like that driving normally. They were driving a steady 25 mph or whatever it was for the whole distance. Don't know what mechanical mods they made, but I'm sure they tuned it for low end torque, ie very small, restrictive carburetor and exhaust and so forth.
But still, it's a tradeoff to a large degree - power vs mileage.
Zipperfish @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 1:30 am
commanderkai commanderkai:
I knew it. Yeah, this is a perfect analogy for the Iraq War. Why not? Certainly these two political issues are completely parallel with one another.
No, just demonstrative of where a lot of people weren't necessarily lined up with the idea of "bi-partisan support." Meech Lake is another example.
$1:
And yet, American politicians, especially those in Congress exist to represent the interests of their constituents. Even more importantly, the United States doesn't have the strict party solidarity you expect in other Western countries, like Canada. That's why you see such flexibility on who is deemed a Democrat and a Republican, and why a Republican senator from New York would be considered a Democrat senator in Texas.
Most American Congressmen will give fuck all about what the world thinks globally, because, guess what? They're not there to represent the global populace, but rather the population of their district/state. You know why? Only their constituents can vote for them.
But say, let's assume your presumption is correct that the US Congress does not accurately reflect the views of their constituents, even though that's their intended purpose, what then? How can you gauge the views of the American people over Keystone XL?
The only adequate, relatively unbiased position is going with opinion polls. Not a perfect solution, but, what would be? We'll get to those soon.
Most American Congressmen will give fuck all about what the world thinks globally, because, guess what? They're not there to represent the global populace, but rather the population of their district/state. You know why? Only their constituents can vote for them.
But say, let's assume your presumption is correct that the US Congress does not accurately reflect the views of their constituents, even though that's their intended purpose, what then? How can you gauge the views of the American people over Keystone XL?
The only adequate, relatively unbiased position is going with opinion polls. Not a perfect solution, but, what would be? We'll get to those soon.
Yeah, Tip O'Neill: "All politics is local." Probably true. My point is, though, that environmentalists are not a fringe radical element. There may well be opinion polls indicating most Americans support Keystone, but I certainly wouldn't refer to it as "overwhelming," as you did. If 30-40% of people polled oppose, that doesn't make them some radical fringe. If that 30% were homogeneously distributed, they would be a minority everywhere. Pandering to the opponents of Keystone is not pandering to the extremem left--that's where I disagree with you. It's pandering to an appreciable minority, according to polls.
$1:
Oh obviously environmentalists do not need to be radicalized. However, a lot of the most vocal opposition to the Keystone XL, in my view, is done by more extreme elements who are against oil development wholesale.
Just a quick example, the "No Tar Sands Oil Coalition", consisting of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, 350.org, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, and other environmental NGOs, stated clearly
"The 2,700-kilometre pipeline will transport "the world's dirtiest oil through America," and slow a transition into a cleaner fuel economy, according to the coalition.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/08-6
Even though, at this very moment, the "world dirtiest oil" is still being transported to the United States using the rail network.
The Nebraskan aquifer that was another major issue brought up by environmentalists clearly ignores that it has been already been crisscrossed by numerous oil pipelines before the proposed Keystone XL. Now, with the adjustment in course purely to cater to the environmentalist fears, they're still against it.
Just a quick example, the "No Tar Sands Oil Coalition", consisting of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, 350.org, National Wildlife Federation, Friends of the Earth, and other environmental NGOs, stated clearly
"The 2,700-kilometre pipeline will transport "the world's dirtiest oil through America," and slow a transition into a cleaner fuel economy, according to the coalition.
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/12/08-6
Even though, at this very moment, the "world dirtiest oil" is still being transported to the United States using the rail network.
The Nebraskan aquifer that was another major issue brought up by environmentalists clearly ignores that it has been already been crisscrossed by numerous oil pipelines before the proposed Keystone XL. Now, with the adjustment in course purely to cater to the environmentalist fears, they're still against it.
That Nebraskan aquifer is the Ogalla Aquifer, that covers about 8 states and upon which about 30% of agriculture relies. And it supplies drinking water to around two million people. So yeah, level of concern there. That doesn't strike me as a radical or fringe concern.
$1:
Let's see, bipartisan support from Congress, continued support from the general populace for years in favor of Keystone XL, even with the rise of anti-Keystone advertisements and lobbying, and yet, it's ludicrous to say there hasn't been rather strong support for Keystone compared to the opposition?
I think there is far more evidence to support my assessment that the American people are in favor of Keystone, over your statement of
I think there is far more evidence to support my assessment that the American people are in favor of Keystone, over your statement of
Yes, they may well be…and to get to get back to my original point…environmentalists shouldn't be characterized as radicals or some fringe element. Sure polls may show support, but that level of opposition can't be classified as extreme.
$1:
I'll use an Iraq analogy, since you're fond of those. Why did George W. Bush invade Iraq, and continued to stay there long after popular support collapsed?
Because Bush had made a decision and based his political future on it. He was invested. This is the exact opposite. Obama isn't invested. It seems to me he doesn't see much of an advantage either way. This idea that he is catering to some extreme fringe makes no sense. He's not going to get re-elected.
$1:
Right, that's why you attest Harper's cynicism to help further the general mistrust in Keystone XL, as, again, you claimed. Most Americans aren't aware of Harper, but those who are really don't like him much...because of issues that even less Americans would know about.
I was mostly talkig about Harper's reputation in Canada, but from those that are aware of him, it's probably not much better. He's not exactly considered a staunch green kind of guy.
$1:
This sounds like you have considerable sympathy for environmental NGOs. That's not a bad thing, in particular, but, I would not exactly view them as a unbiased view of the American population's views on Keystone XL, and on environmental issues in general.
No you're wrong. I have strong sympathies for the environment, not NGOs.
$1:
Pray tell, what exactly is the environmental issue right now? Climate change? The oil sands in particular? The oil will still be harvested, and will still be shipped to the refineries in the United States. Just by means that have a bad tendency to derail and catch fire. The aquifer? That's now being bypassed by the revised route. What's left that is the pressing environmental issue, in your eyes?
[/quote][/quote]In my opinion, overfishing--the state of the oceans. Agricultural practices would be second. Climate change is not so much an existential issue, more of a Great Exacerbator of already existing problems. You asked.
stratos @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 3:56 am
$1:
But, in fact, protests aginst that war were actually much larger in number than those against Vietnam. Those protestors weren't necessarily radical wingnuts.
Yet when Obama was elected president the protests stopped. The war continued on for more than a year. Thus one can conclude that these people were only using the war as a front for their ant-Bush stance. Interesting that all those bring them home people are not seen today protesting the continued military presence in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. Wingnuts, probably not, liars and hypocrites, sure looks that way.
bootlegga @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 6:57 am
Thanos Thanos:
Zipperfish Zipperfish:
Yes, it seems nobody can complain about the environment unless they live in a cave. Neil Young seems to go out of his way to reduce his carbon footprint adn his impact on the environment. But never mind him, I know tons of folks growing their own fruits and vegetables, shopping locally, recycling everything they can, watching their consumption habits adn maybe now and then peeping up that the decline of the world's fisheries should be of some concern, or that significant changes ecosystems for bees and butterflies bears some scrutiny. You don't have to be a black-bloc anarchist to care about these things.
- Give me Captain Nemo's Nautilus and I'll have the entire Japanese, Norwegian, and Icelandic whaling fleets sunk to the bottom of the ocean by the end of the year. Ditto with any of the rest of the fishing fleets that leave nothing but devastation behind them with their dredging nets and dozens of miles of driftnets that kill every sea creature (including dolphins, sharks, whales, and seals) that are unfortunate enough to get caught in them. If I was King Of The World, the first thing that would happen would be that I'd impose (by military threat if necessary) a 20 to 25 year long moratorium on all fishing activity in all the world's oceans.
- Every nation on the planet that's contributed to the creation of it has to drop a minimum of $5 billion NOW into a fund designed with the express purpose of cleaning up the Pacific garbage gyre. We helped make the fucking disgusting thing, so everyone has the obligation to pitch in to clean the fucking disgraceful thing up.
- To combat excessive CO2 production, tree-planting and reforestation efforts should be quadrupled be the end of this decade. Buy back as much land as possible from farmers and landowners everywhere, from the Rockies to the Great Lakes to the plains running from France to western Russia and on to the Amazon, to restore as much of the old primeval forests as possible.
- No one here at CKA made a more vigourous and angry case than I did that the BP and Halliburton executives that were responsible for the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig disaster should have all been put in prison for what they deliberately did.
- Dick Cheney's a rotten and evil bastard, and not just for putting the US into two failed wars and for greenlighting torture of prisoners by the US military. He's also the one who's directly responsible for American drilling companies using known toxic and poisonous chemicals that destroy water tables as these guys go about their fracking frenzy. A person in the US who tries to find what's in the fracking fluid that's poisoning their community can actually see more jail time than anyone who destroys an aquifer or water table with this hideous chemical brew. Dick Cheney is the one who pushed for this revolting system to be be put in place so IMO he too should be put in prison. Or worse.
- I recycle vigourously. I have for about 25 years now. I go as far as to bring superceded documents and drawings home with me from the field jobs I do just so I can toss them in the green bins because the field offices don't set up their own recyclable collections. I once came back from Ft. McArsehole with five huge plastic bags in the back seat of my car filled with pop cans and water bottles. I didn't do this to make a buck (I actually gave them all to the Girl Guides when they came to the door doing a bottle drive), I did it because the dumb fucks at the site I worked on weren't collecting them; they were just throwing the damn things out in the trash, and this pissed me off to no end.
- I put one 5-to-7 lb. bag of household garbage out once a week for collection. Sometimes more, but usually that amount or even less. I throw every conceivable eligible object I can into the blue bin for recycling.
- I was so horrified by what happened to a duck here in Calgary years ago that got a plastic holder from a six-pack wrapped around his throat that, ever since I saw it in the paper, I shred those holders completely into about a dozen pieces so no loop of it is left that any animal could get stuck in.
- I detest "recreational" activities like ATVing and 4x4ing. I think it's idiotic and is completely destructive against the landscape. If I could I'd ban the retarded nonsense altogether.
Don't tell me I don't care, dawg. Or that I'm not doing my bit to help the place be cleaner. On half of this shit I'm more radical than the global warming hysterics are with their schtick. Just because I don't believe that an entire civilization that was essentially built by fossil fuels can be taken off of it cold-turkey, with absolutely nothing else currently in place that can provide the energy and industrial/technological base that oil & gas does, doesn't automatically mean that I'm some sort of caricature of an earth-raper. This is what I mean by the puritanical shit that gets pushed by clowns like David Suzuki and Neil Young. They're just rich pricks who have the money and options to live in a way the vast majority of other people simply can't. Real solutions for the real world, and no more listening to wealthy "activists" who are pushing some fantasy-land ideology far more than they are any realistic and doable changes in human behaviour.
Get rid of the F-150 and you'll do even more! Just kidding, good job.
I'm of the opinion that if everyone did a little here and there (like you do), it would add up to a lot - even though some cynics here have told me it's worthless to do so because of China and India. Still, like you, I do what I can and hope for the best.
andyt @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 8:57 am
bootlegga bootlegga:
I'm of the opinion that if everyone did a little here and there (like you do), it would add up to a lot - even though some cynics here have told me it's worthless to do so because of China and India. Still, like you, I do what I can and hope for the best.
Nope, if you're talking about CO2, everyone has to do a lot, especially Canadians, who are such ferocious emitters. Doing a lot is going to hurt. We'll never do it. And with us taking in so many people from the breeding parts of the world our total output will just keep rising too, even if we reduce our per capita output..
Then there's water - we have lots, but US doesn't, same with many parts of the world - could get real ugly. Arable land and salination and desertification. Chemicals in our water supply -the list goes on. All these will just get worse as we get more and more people, and if you think we can close our borders to refugees from these events, well just look at the US's struggle with Mexico now.
saturn_656 @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:30 am
andyt andyt:
bootlegga bootlegga:
I'm of the opinion that if everyone did a little here and there (like you do), it would add up to a lot - even though some cynics here have told me it's worthless to do so because of China and India. Still, like you, I do what I can and hope for the best.
Nope, if you're talking about CO2, everyone has to do a lot, especially Canadians, who are such ferocious emitters. Doing a lot is going to hurt. We'll never do it. And with us taking in so many people from the breeding parts of the world our total output will just keep rising too, even if we reduce our per capita output..
Then there's water - we have lots, but US doesn't, same with many parts of the world - could get real ugly. Arable land and salination and desertification. Chemicals in our water supply -the list goes on. All these will just get worse as we get more and more people, and if you think we can close our borders to refugees from these events, well just look at the US's struggle with Mexico now.
The US has the ability to largely eliminate their illegal immigration problem, they just don't want to.
andyt @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:38 am
By going after the employers, yes. That won't work when millions of Americans push across our border thirsty for water. Or, they just decide as a country to take it.
saturn_656 @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:47 am
andyt andyt:
By going after the employers, yes. That won't work when millions of Americans push across our border thirsty for water. Or, they just decide as a country to take it.
If things ever got that bad, a nuclear insurance policy would be advisable.
For us I mean.
andyt @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:58 am
Won't help. You can't nuke millions of desperate people flooding across the border. As far as deterring the US as a country, we'd better get an awful lot of nukes. At some point taking some casualties might seem worth to 300 million (and breeding) thirsty people.
$1:
Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks.
Muffley: I refuse to go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.
Turgidson: Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books.
Muffley: I refuse to go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.
Turgidson: Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books.
Zipperfish @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 9:59 am
stratos stratos:
Yet when Obama was elected president the protests stopped. The war continued on for more than a year. Thus one can conclude that these people were only using the war as a front for their ant-Bush stance. Interesting that all those bring them home people are not seen today protesting the continued military presence in Iraq or the war in Afghanistan. Wingnuts, probably not, liars and hypocrites, sure looks that way.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, as far removed from reality as that might be.
saturn_656 @ Mon Feb 17, 2014 10:15 am
andyt andyt:
Won't help. You can't nuke millions of desperate people flooding across the border. As far as deterring the US as a country, we'd better get an awful lot of nukes. At some point taking some casualties might seem worth to 300 million (and breeding) thirsty people.
$1:
Turgidson: Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed, but I do say no more than ten to twenty million killed, tops, uh, depending on the breaks.
Muffley: I refuse to go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.
Turgidson: Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books.
Muffley: I refuse to go down in history as the greatest mass murderer since Adolf Hitler.
Turgidson: Perhaps it might be better, Mr. President, if you were more concerned with the American people, than with your image in the history books.
All hope is lost eh Andy?