[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', 'I')f dohboi et al didn't use the stuff then Rockman wouldn't have a job looking for it...nor would anyone else. But even if dohboi didn't use the stuff other consumers would so it doesn't make any difference if he didn't produce GHG by consuming hydrocarbons...it would still happen anyway. So he continues participating in the process.

The refuge of scoundrels. Kinda like gang rape mentality: the fossil fuels are going to get burned by other consumers anyway so why not participate. LOL.

[dohboi]

lore +2 ^100

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he climate legacy of President Obama is one of failure after failure. Personally I had great hopes when the Democrat party took the Presidency that we would see a lot of Environmental improvements. Instead we have had 7 years of lip service with almost no actual measurable progress. So much could have been done, but wasn't. Rhetoric does not help anything except appearance over substance.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he climate legacy of President Obama is one of failure after failure. Personally I had great hopes when the Democrat party took the Presidency that we would see a lot of Environmental improvements. Instead we have had 7 years of lip service with almost no actual measurable progress. So much could have been done, but wasn't. Rhetoric does not help anything except appearance over substance.

[ROCKMAN]

"Which is the perfect logic to stop making the stuff, or making it so expensive it becomes impractical to use versus alternatives. Then nobody would be using it." Exactly since neither Lore. dohboi nor the vast majority of fossil fuel consumers are unwilling to let loose of the fossil fuel tit voluntarily. LOL.

Thus it's up to the govt to increase the costs since it's a violation of federal law for ExxonMobil et al to collude in order to increase costs to the consumers. But then why hasn't the govt done one of the easiest approaches: increase motor fuel taxes significantly since the "energy crisis" of the late 70's? Easy answer IMHO: because those politicians knew they wouldn’t get re-elected if they did that. And they wouldn't get re-elected because the majority of the US citizens refuse to let go of that sugar nipple. LOL.

Y'all can try to duck the reality and point fingers at XOM et al all you want. But it is the fossil fuel consumers who are the primary producers of climate change. Until their attitudes change the situation will only get worse.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')
Y'all can try to duck the reality and point fingers at XOM et al all you want. But it is the fossil fuel consumers who are the primary producers of climate change. Until their attitudes change the situation will only get worse.

[Cid_Yama]

Prosecution of the Tobacco industry went a long way towards a huge reduction in smoking in the US.

Prices on Tobacco products went way up, and alternatives quickly filled the market.

[ROCKMAN]

"You're not changing attitudes by making cheap fossil fuels available." And you and the other consumers aren't changing the attitudes of the energy companies by paying them to produce fossil fuels, are you?

"How else would you suggest we radically reduce the use of fossil fuels?" It would easily be done as Cid just offered: significantly raise the taxes on you and the other fossil fuel consumers. But the consumers wouldn't tolerate the govt doing that. Lots of folks didn't have a problem with raising tobacco taxes: they didn't smoke.

So how many letters have you written to your congress critter demanding the govt increase the fed motor fuel tax...say 500%? That would only add about $0.90/gallon and bring prices back to where they were about a year ago. If the public could handle that same price one year ago they should be able to handle it now, right? And that would increase govt revenue by $116 BILLION PER YEAR. Just think if the govt used that extra income to subsidize alt energy? A win-win, right?

So there's your easy solution. You happy know that I've fully answered your questions? LOL

Again back to the same problem you cannot get around: you and the other consumers are primarily responsible for the direct production of most of the GHG. And you and the other consumers refuse to accept policy changes that would change the dynamics. IOW you and the other consumers can go on blaming anyone/everyone for the problem. But it will never change the fact: Y’ALL are the cause of our continuing climate problems and Y’ALL are unwilling to change.

[Cog]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', 'T')he climate legacy of President Obama is one of failure after failure. Personally I had great hopes when the Democrat party took the Presidency that we would see a lot of Environmental improvements. Instead we have had 7 years of lip service with almost no actual measurable progress. So much could have been done, but wasn't. Rhetoric does not help anything except appearance over substance.

[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'b')lame that on a Republican Congress which is dead set against moving forward with any kind of environmental agenda. The President can only put forth policy suggestions. It's up to our lawmakers to put such lip service into action.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '&')quot;You're not changing attitudes by making cheap fossil fuels available." And you and the other consumers aren't changing the attitudes of the energy companies by paying them to produce fossil fuels, are you?

"How else would you suggest we radically reduce the use of fossil fuels?" It would easily be done as Cid just offered: significantly raise the taxes on you and the other fossil fuel consumers. But the consumers wouldn't tolerate the govt doing that. Lots of folks didn't have a problem with raising tobacco taxes: they didn't smoke.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Cog', '
')
Please cite the exact policy that the Republican majority voted against. Do you have a Senate or House bill number that the rest of us could read where the Republicans voted no on?

Thanks for your efforts.

[Tanada]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'h')ttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/gop-assault-on-environmental-laws.html?_r=0

[ROCKMAN]

T - Good comments as always. But a little correction from the Rockman before other less gentle ones are flung at you like monkey poo. LOL. There are just 6 pipelines that come across the border from Canada. And they capacities have been increased thanks to PRESIDENT OBAMA'S ADMINISTRATION APPROVING THOSE PEMITS. But new pipelines have been built (like Flanagan South and the southern leg of KXL) to accommodate the increased production through the existing border crossing pipelines but that has all been done on the US side of the border.

Also a factor that's rarely reported in detail: huge transit train depots (than can fill/unload 100+ tank cars in a few hours) have been built just on either side of the border. They receive/ship the oil they carry from/into pipelines. IOW not all the rail transported oil is shipped a 1,000+ miles. Much is just shipped a very short distance across the border from one pipeline connect to another. Just one dynamic adjustment the anti-KXL folks helped to obscure by getting everyone to focused on that one permit issue.

BTW if it's alright with you we might as well back off pointing out the obvious about this issue. Some folks are so invested with perpetuating their "truths" they'll never really admit the reality of the situation. I know it will be difficult to not respond to such silly posts but let’s try so we can stop wasting space here. Any newbies will just have to go back to the archives to catch up.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tanada', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Lore', 'h')ttp://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/08/opinion/gop-assault-on-environmental-laws.html?_r=0

[ROCKMAN]

Once again the Rockman has to apologize for making faulty assumptions. Such as believing everyone here understands how much the US govt, under the authority of President Obama, DIRECTLY facilitates the production of the “dirtiest oil on the planet” that’s exported to the US from Canada.

But first some background for folks who don’t fully understand the entire process. Oil sands production is too thick to flow. Not one bbl of it could be shipped to US refineries in its natural state. It has to be diluted with condensate…essentially light oil. The blend is called “dilbit”…DILuted BITumine. From the Canadian govt website:

A National Energy Board study assumed a standard dilbit containing 33% condenste. By selecting different diluent types and blend ratios, bitumen shippers attempt to lower component costs, increase blend value, and maintain pipeline transportability. The blend ratio may consist of 25 to 55% diluent by volume

But the Alberta producers have a big problem: not enough condensate. From the Canadian govt website:

“Energy producers in western Canada churned out about 145,000 barrels of condensate per day in 2013, according to the National Energy Board. However, oil sands companies use about 350,000 barrels of condensate per day. The difference (205,000 bbls per day) is made up largely by U.S. producers that ship diluent to Canada via pipeline or rail.”

IOW the US is currently exporting 75 million bbls per year our light oil to Alberta so they can blend it to make the dilbit they then export to the US. But how can that be: the US govt “bans” the export of our oil? Oh...I forgot: under the authority of President Obama the govt can approve exceptions to our oil export “ban”. Thus about 60% (205k bbls/day of the 350k bbls/day) of the condensate needed to make the dilbit exported to the US (340 million bbls/year) is made possible by the US govt PERMITTING the export of our oil to Alberta.

IOW the US govt oil export PERMITS allow 200 million bbls per year containing the “dirtiest oil on the planet” to be consumed by its citizens.

OK Greenpeace: I’ll see your bet with President Obama not approving the KXL permit and raise you with all the condensate export permits to Alberta approved by President Obama. BTW during the term of the current POTUS US oil exports to Canada have increased 1000%: from 10 mmb in 2007 to 121 mmb on 2014.

IMHO these facts destroy the spin that while the denial of the KXL permit might not have an impact on oil sands imports it does have “symbolic value”. That value only exists with the ignorance of the fact that the current POTUS, by issuing oil export exceptions, DIRECTLY ENABLES the US consumption of the 200+ million bbls of the exports from the oil sands fields.

[Lore]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('ROCKMAN', '
')IOW the US govt oil export PERMITS allow 200 million bbls per year containing the “dirtiest oil on the planet” to be consumed by its citizens.

[Cid_Yama]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')f dohboi et al didn't use the stuff then Rockman wouldn't have a job looking for it...nor would anyone else.

[ROCKMAN]

Cid - "Since Exxon knew that the burning of fossil fuels leads to dangerous climate change as early as the 1970's (per internal Exxon memos and presentations), then they also knew that what they had already found couldn't be extracted and sold, lest it be burned and do irreparable harm through dangerous climate change."

Stop, take a breath and think about what you just said. First, and most important, if XOM had disclosed whatever their analysis may or may not have revealed...so what? It had no legal requirement to stop doing their thing. If the CEO stood before Congress and swore on a stack of bibles the company had irrefutable evidence that burning hydrocarbons would cause climate change it still had no legal requirement to stop doing its thing. IOW there is absolute certainty that history would not be any different.

And how can I say it is absolute certain? Very easy: it's what XOM and all the other fossil fuel produces are doing today. Seriously: you could obviously post countless reports proving (at least in your opinion and that of many others) climate change is being caused by ff consumption. But why just point a finger at the energy companies? Do I have to remind how much ff come from federal leases? IOW not only does the govt allow fossil fuel production it directly encourages it.

Did you even read what I just posted: President Obama, by allowing exceptions to the US Oil "export ban", is permitting enough US condensate exports to Alberta making to it possible for 60% of the oil sands (the dirtiest oil on the planet) production to be exported to the US. So tell me: why are you trying to bust XOM's balls when: first, it isn't illegal for any US company today to produce fossil fuels; second, it isn't illegal for any company to not release any study they conduct; third, if President Obama publicly states that fossil production and consumption are absolutely the cause of climate change and he yet he still DIRECTLY FACILITATES the consumption of more fossil fuels in the US then ExxonMobil then isn't he even more to blame for the situation since he's a "believer" and XOM which still has doubts?

Every energy company can post stories on the front page of every newspaper in the country CERTIFYING that fossil fuel consumption (by the public, BTW) is causing climate change how would the future be any different: the govt and the vast majority of the public still support the production of fossil fuels.

In your own words: evil triumphs... even today... with the DIRECT SUPPORT of President Obama ...a true believer of AGW.

[Synapsid]

ROCKMAN,

The US does export oil to Canada, as you say, but I don't think those exports require permits--or rather, the permitting is automatic. Canada is special! The stipulation is that the oil be consumed in Canada, and it is: it's used to make dilbit, as you mentioned, which is sent to the US where the diluent can be recovered, I believe, and exported to Canada (permitting is automatic) where it's used to make dilbit which is sent to the US...

Not sure who's cleverer: the US oil exporters to Canada or the Canadian oil exporters to the US.

Corrections welcome.