Mark Ruffalo wants you to fight the tar sands

[one...two...tree 2,762]

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Here are four disturbing reasons why you should fight the tar sands:

1. TransCanada’s 1,700-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline will stretch across the continent, from Alberta to Texas and into the Gulf of Mexico. If approved, it will be among the largest industrial projects in the world.
   
2. You know it’s bad when it makes conventional oil look good: The process to make liquid fuel from the tar sands generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel as conventional oil, earning the tar sands the nickname “carbon bomb.”
   
3. Extracting crude bitumen (the semisolid fossil fuel found in tar sands) pollutes the air and water of nearby boreal forests and wetlands that serve as natural carbon sinks. These same forests and wetlands also serve as breeding grounds and habitat for 30 percent of North America’s land birds (about 215 species) and are home to fragile populations of wolverines, caribou, lynx, and grizzly bears.
   
4. As Ruffalo notes, “This pipeline will travel over some of the richest farmland and most beautiful, pristine wilderness on the continent—and spills are inevitable.” Tar-sands oil gets pumped under high pressure, and high concentrations of chloride salts, sulfur, abrasive minerals, and acids act as corrosives.

President Obama will decide as soon as September on whether to OK the Keystone XL pipeline, so fast action is critical. Tim DeChristopher’s Peaceful Uprising will coordinate sustained protests and camping in front of the White House from Aug. 20-Sep. 3. Over 2,000 people have committed to participating in nonviolent, civil disobedience during these two weeks. Bill McKibben, James Hansen, Danny Glover, and many others are expected to attend to put “our values into action.”

[Obama 2012 1,714]

liberal lunatics in action.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

liberal lunatics in action.

Protecting land from the harm of others is right up Libertarian alley, you corporate shill.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Protecting land from the harm of others is right up Libertarian alley, you corporate shill.

the 'assumption' is that there will be pipeline spills.

Stopping the pipeline is silly.

Making sure proper materials are used in the pipeline to build it securely. THAT is the right thing to do.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Why no concern over these birds

Edited August 17, 2011 by lostinblue

[lostinblue 1,989]

[scandal 951]

Here are four disturbing reasons why you should fight support the tar sands:

1. TransCanada’s 1,700-mile-long Keystone XL pipeline will stretch across the continent, from Alberta to Texas and into the Gulf of Mexico. If approved, it will be among the largest industrial projects in the world.
   Cool - lots of construction jobs in Canada and the US. We need those jobs.
   
2. You know it’s bad when it makes conventional oil look good: The process to make liquid fuel from the tar sands generates two to four times the amount of greenhouse gases per barrel as conventional oil, earning the tar sands the nickname “carbon bomb.”
   Global warming is a hoax, didn't you know?
   
3. Extracting crude bitumen (the semisolid fossil fuel found in tar sands) pollutes the air and water of nearby boreal forests and wetlands that serve as natural carbon sinks. These same forests and wetlands also serve as breeding grounds and habitat for 30 percent of North America’s land birds (about 215 species) and are home to fragile populations of wolverines, caribou, lynx, and grizzly bears.
   Yeah, but that's just animals. Almost no humans live there. And those that do live in Fort MacMurray are all employed by extraction industry. They WANT this to go forth. Again - it's about jobs and economic development
   
4. As Ruffalo notes, “This pipeline will travel over some of the richest farmland and most beautiful, pristine wilderness on the continent—and spills are inevitable.” Tar-sands oil gets pumped under high pressure, and high concentrations of chloride salts, sulfur, abrasive minerals, and acids act as corrosives.
   Why are spills inevitable? We have other transcontinental pipelines and they don't all spill.
   

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Ron, we can create far more jobs by investing in sustainable energy then going down this route that is destructive to the environment and future generations. Job creation as the litmus test no longer makes it justifiable to destroy the planet. We need sustainable energy and it's attainable right now.

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

We need sustainable energy and it's attainable right now.

put all convicts on the giant hamster wheel!

[scandal 951]

Ron, we can create far more jobs by investing in sustainable energy then going down this route that is destructive to the environment and future generations. Job creation as the litmus test no longer makes it justifiable to destroy the planet. We need sustainable energy and it's attainable right now.

Every energy source has its drawbacks. Solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, nuclear, tidal, ... all of them have significant environmental impacts. Each of them is a partial answer but not a complete answer to our present and future needs. Anyone who believes we're going to get away from a hydrocarbon based future in the next 10 or 20 years is simply dreaming. I'm not against renewables - far from it. But frankly I'd rather see our carbon based fuels come from a friendly neighboring country than from Saudi, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Russia ......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Every energy source has its drawbacks. Solar, wind, geothermal, biofuels, nuclear, tidal, ... all of them have significant environmental impacts. Each of them is a partial answer but not a complete answer to our present and future needs. Anyone who believes we're going to get away from a hydrocarbon based future in the next 10 or 20 years is simply dreaming. I'm not against renewables - far from it. But frankly I'd rather see our carbon based fuels come from a friendly neighboring country than from Saudi, Iran, Venezuela, Libya, Nigeria, Russia ......

They all have their drawbacks, but that doesn't put them all on equal footing in terms of environmental impact. The cons of these tar sands far outweigh any of the pros. The amount of effort in terms of resources being invested into renewables in this country is pitiful. It's not that we can't achieve a drastic cutback in fossil fuel emissions, it's that there isn't enough political will to do so, and the amount of will that is there, is being fought against by the fossil fuel industry. They don't want to lose their market share, which makes sense. But lets not make up other excuses as to why we aren't more aggressively transitioning to renewables.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

They all have their drawbacks, but that doesn't put them all on equal footing in terms of environmental impact. The cons of these tar sands far outweigh any of the pros. The amount of effort in terms of resources being invested into renewables in this country is pitiful. It's not that we can't achieve a drastic cutback in fossil fuel emissions, it's that there isn't enough political will to do so, and the amount of will that is there, is being fought against by the fossil fuel industry. They don't want to lose their market share, which makes sense. But lets not make up other excuses as to why we aren't more aggressively transitioning to renewables.

See Steven, THIS is why you fail miserably in presenting what you want.

A truly marketable product will always succeed on its own. Investment comes from all sorts of people.

It doesn't take political willpower. It takes human willpower. It takes someone like you standing up and asking for investors, not forcing it upon people.

The market really works, you just have to promise and deliver a return on the investment you're asking for.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

See Steven, THIS is why you fail miserably in presenting what you want.

A truly marketable product will always succeed on its own. Investment comes from all sorts of people.

It doesn't take political willpower. It takes human willpower. It takes someone like you standing up and asking for investors, not forcing it upon people.

The market really works, you just have to promise and deliver a return on the investment you're asking for.

That's an oversimplification of the relationships between the public and private sectors. The fossil fuel industry benefits tremendously from policies that make it possible for them to extract fossil fuel. The renewable energy industry in comparison gets pittance. Change that dynamic and you change the game. The fossil fuel industry knows this potential threat on their turf, which is why they fight long and hard, often helping put politicians in office who work in their favor.

Edited August 17, 2011 by DFH

[Obama 2012 1,714]

That's an oversimplification of the relationships between the public and private sectors. The fossil fuel industry benefits tremendously from policies that make it possible for them to extract fossil fuel. The renewable energy industry in comparison gets pittance. Change that dynamic and you change the game. The fossil fuel industry knows this potential threat on their turf, which is why they fight long and hard, often helping put politicians in office who work in their favor.

It's not hard, buy land, get permits, create the energy you need to create.

As long as you aren't doing anything illegal, you'll be able to do it.

Just look at the wind farms we have here in Texas. Actually wind accounts for a lot of our energy here in Texas and is invested in by energy companies.

Solutions are out there, and it doesn't take politics to get where you want to go. It only takes time, patience, and willpower.