[Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway

[Dave]

More reading on this here:

http://www.fightinggoliath.org/

Dave



On 06/02/2010 01:35 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:
> I suppose the analysis, "Plan B," at the website below, from the Earth 
> Policy Institute, is not worth reading, compared to the "critique" you 
> praise, given that you "don't think anyone has said it better?"
> http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf
> To more fully flesh out the tax issue regarding fossil fuels:  "Taxing 
> everything that uses fuel... is economic suicide" the no one has said 
> it better critique states. */Yet the Earth Policy Institute analysis I 
> reference advocates what is regarded by prominent economists as a 
> reasonable economic policy to assist the transition away from fossil 
> fuels to other energy sources, "tax shifting./*"
> Income taxes, for example, are lowered, to offset taxes on fossil fuel 
> emissions.  The tax burden on the consumer and the tax revenues to the 
> government can remain stable.  The full economic implications require 
> a professional economic analysis, beyond the scope of this post.
> But to make broad and hyperbolic statements about "economic suicide" 
> from taxing fossil fuels is to not address the complexities of some of 
> the proposals on this issue from professional economists.
> There are several other oversimplifications, misrepresentations and 
> logical errors that should be addressed.
> But this thread once again so far is just restating from the same 
> participants the same positions in general terms that have been parsed 
> over and over on Vision2020.
> I'll offer a proposal for fossil fuel oil domestic security that I do 
> not recall being advocated often, if ever, on Vision2020.
> The argument is that we cannot "realistically" lessen our dependence 
> on fossil fuel oil soon enough to avoid these more environmentally 
> damaging developments, such as the Alberta tar sands.
> */Therefore, given this logic, why not open the oil shale in Utah, 
> Colorado and Wyoming to full scale development?  This is the largest 
> fossil fuel oil deposit in the US, by far.  Why is there no advocacy 
> for this from those arguing on Vision2020 for the saneness of the 
> Alberta tar sands development?   Would they rather Canada shoulder the 
> environmental damage, rather than the US, if we developed our domestic 
> oil shale?/*
> I understand from my reading that one of the problems with shale 
> development is the huge amount of water required.  But for those who 
> are "realistic" about our needs for fossil fuel oil, they won't object 
> to Idaho's water resources being diverted to Wyoming for shale 
> development, assuming this is feasible, correct?
> The most "commercially attractive" oil shale are mostly on federal 
> land (read "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS" info at website 
> below).  But if we can stop those big government regulators and 
> bureaucrats and environmentalists, who might block development, the 
> free market can work it's magic for domestic oil security.
> Info on the immense US oil shale at websites below, with arguments 
> that this resource can be "realistically" developed:
> From "Oil and Gas Journal":
> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
> From "Oil Shale and Tar Sands Program EIS":
>
> http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/oilshale/
> Domestic fossil fuel oil, more than Saudi Arabia!
> After all, let's be "realistic."
> ------------------------------------------
> Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
> On 6/2/10, *lfalen* <lfalen at turbonet.com <mailto:lfalen at turbonet.com>> 
> wrote:
>
>     Paul
>     An excellent critique. I don't think anyone has said it better.
>     Roger
>     -----Original message-----
>     From: Paul Rumelhart godshatter at yahoo.com
>     <mailto:godshatter at yahoo.com>
>     Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 13:34:48 -0700
>     To: "nickgier at roadrunner.com <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>"
>     nickgier at roadrunner.com <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>, Ted
>     Moffett starbliss at gmail.com <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>
>     Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's
>     Wilderness Gateway
>
>     >
>     >
>     > --- On Tue, 6/1/10, Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com
>     <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>     > Some argue that it is a matter of national security and economic
>     necessity to develop and gain access to this huge oil resource
>     that can reduce oil dependence on other foreign oil sources, while
>     we work on alternative energy sources.  But this is short sighted,
>     given that climate change is a national security and planetary
>     wide risk that is increased with continued greenhouse gas
>     emissions, while time is running out to prevent climate change
>     tipping points that will be difficult to stop.
>     >
>     > I wouldn't call it "short sighted", I'd call it "realistic".
>     >
>     > Here's how my logic goes:
>     >
>     > 1.  We need power.  We need it for a lot of
>     things.  Transportation of goods, heating and cooling, powering
>     factories, running our financial systems, gathering resources,
>     military defense, etc.
>     >
>     > 2.  It would be better, for a lot of reasons, if we weren't
>     dependent upon fossil fuel use.
>     >
>     > 3.  There are no alternative energy solutions of sufficient size
>     that we could turn to today to completely remove our dependence
>     upon fossil fuels, except nuclear (which the same people that are
>     telling us to get off of fossil fuels are throwing bureaucratic
>     roadblocks in the way of).
>     >
>     > 4.  There is no way that we could nix fossil fuel use within 20
>     years, maybe even 50, even if we had the will to do it.
>     >
>     > 5.  Using fossil fuels produced in politically insane countries
>     that are politically our enemies is unwise.
>     >
>     > 6.  Given all the above, it would be better (in my opinion) to
>     switch our fuel usage as much as possible to local fuels or fuels
>     from politically sane countries in the short term, build up a
>     network of nuclear power plants to handle our minimum energy
>     needs, switch over to electric cars, implement a "smart" electric
>     grid, and supplement with alternative energy as needed and as they
>     are developed.
>     >
>     > If the right incentives were given at the right times, it might
>     be the quickest way to remove our fossil fuel dependence.  Taxing
>     everything that uses fuel, which is everything of any use to
>     anybody pretty much, is economic suicide.  I'd rather that the
>     government implement a Manhattan-style project to bring up nuclear
>     power, preferably using breeder reactors and the latest
>     technologies, and quit naively hoping that if we tax the hell out
>     of everybody they will magically find a better alternative instead
>     of just doing without and reverting to an agrarian
>     society.  Meanwhile, China and India will continue to burn fossil
>     fuels and (assuming anthropogenic global warming is as dire as
>     they say it is) we won't have the resources or ability to handle
>     the disasters as they happen.
>     >
>     > Anyway, that's my take on it.
>     >
>     > Paul
>     >
>     >
>     >
>
>
>
> =======================================================
>   List services made available by First Step Internet,
>   serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>                 http://www.fsr.net
>            mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================

-- 
Windows, OSX, or Linux is the same choice as:
McDonald's, Burger King, or a (real) Co-Op.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100602/585ef340/attachment.html