Joe's Garage

[Joe's Garage]

Rejection of the Keystone Pipeline is a small step in the right direction. Climate Change cited as the reason why. Pipeline capacity would have been 800,000 barrels/day from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Lead by example, not just rhetoric.

[Tim7139]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Rejection of the Keystone Pipeline is a small step in the right direction. Climate Change cited as the reason why. Pipeline capacity would have been 800,000 barrels/day from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Lead by example, not just rhetoric.

Translation, " the far left wing of our democratic donors, will not abide"
Those thousands of jobs..... Not his problem. Who would have thought we 'd finally get somebody that makes Jimmy Carter look good in comparison?

By the way the oil still gets pumped, it still gets used, it still gets shipped.....only more by those clean burning deisel tank trucks. There's your "step in the right direction".

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Rejection of the Keystone Pipeline is a small step in the right direction. Climate Change cited as the reason why. Pipeline capacity would have been 800,000 barrels/day from Canada to the Gulf Coast. Lead by example, not just rhetoric.

KXL was rejected due to politics, not environmental protection. The oil will still get to market - Canada will either ship it via rail, or by pipeline either the west or east coast then via ships. Both rail and ships are less efficient, generate more CO2 and pose a greater risk of environment damage.

The reality is Hillary Clinton has finally publicly stated she's opposed to KXL and Barack Obama's rejection of KXL shows his support for her candidacy.

If you want to protect the environment the best way to do it is to reduce demand, not force silly or artificial solutions.

[Joe's Garage]

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

KXL was rejected due to politics, not environmental protection. The oil will still get to market - Canada will either ship it via rail, or by pipeline either the west or east coast then via ships. Both rail and ships are less efficient, generate more CO2 and pose a greater risk of environment damage.

The reality is Hillary Clinton has finally publicly stated she's opposed to KXL and Barack Obama's rejection of KXL shows his support for her candidacy.

If you want to protect the environment the best way to do it is to reduce demand, not force silly or artificial solutions.

I just pulled that info from the New York Times -
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/07/us...line.html?_r=0

Originally Posted by cycleguy55

... If you want to protect the environment the best way to do it is to reduce demand, not force silly or artificial solutions.

Normally I would say yes but to reduce demand means implementing alternate fuels for energy which no one will do willingly, after all it costs money. I say stick it to 'em in a way that forces action, reduce supply so it becomes so damned expensive they have to move to alternate fuels

[cycleguy55]

Originally Posted by Joe's Garage

Normally I would say yes but to reduce demand means implementing alternate fuels for energy which no one will do willingly, after all it costs money. I say stick it to 'em in a way that forces action, reduce supply so it becomes so damned expensive they have to move to alternate fuels

The method used by a number of governments to reduce demand is simple - taxation. I know many will resist any increase in the price of fuel, but look at Europe, the price of fuel at the pumps and what that has done to change the mix of vehicles on the road and buyer behaviour. Canada is, in many ways, very similar to the U.S., yet higher fuel taxation over a period of years has resulted in different buyer consumer behaviour. For example, for many years the most popular vehicle was smaller than in the U.S. (e.g. Honda Civic vs Toyota Camry or Ford Taurus). Compact CUVs / SUVs are far more common than larger ones, etc.

Canadians probably also purchase more diesel vehicles than Americans, at least partially due to the fact diesel typically costs less, not more, than gasoline. It may also have something to do with lower population density, longer trips, and idling vehicles for long periods in cold weather to keep the vehicle warm.

There is no doubt higher fuel taxes, resulting in higher costs at the pumps, drive consumers to select vehicles with lower fuel consumption. Politically it's a hot potato, but there is no doubt it works.