[Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway
Ted Moffett
starbliss at gmail.com
Thu Jun 3 13:58:38 PDT 2010
I went along with what I understood to be your basic argument when I asked
why large scale development of the oil shale in Utah, Colorado and Wyoming
is not being proposed on Vision2020, to expand domestic oil reserves and
potential supply, given realistically our economy is going to be oil
dependent for decades, and questionable international sources of oil. This
is a oil resource multiple times the size of Saudi Arabia's reserves.
Do you approve of development of US oil shale?
Though oil from oil shale is expensive, it is only a matter of time before
oil becomes more scarce and much more costly, and then oil shale may be
economically profitable. Also, developing the oil shale now could be viewed
as a matter of national security (
http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf
). I received an "Off List" response from an Idaho legislator about my
suggestion, and they agreed that the huge amounts of water required for
shale development are one of the problems, with environmental contamination
also. They said the water laws of the west would need to be rewritten for
oil shale development.
Of course, Alberta tar sands production is also an environmental problem.
I thought you were defending the Alberta tar sands production, even with its
negatives, given the necessity for access to oil from friendly allies, and
the reality of our oil dependence continuing for decades.
Are you defending the environmentally destructive Alberta tar sands
production, or did I misunderstand?
I also sourced "Plan B" from the Earth Policy Institute ( *
http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf*<http://www.earth-policy.org/datacenter/pdf/80by2020doc.pdf>
), though even if it is possible to some extent, I do not think it is
politically likely. Too many very powerful entrenched economic interests
are making a killing on the global fossil fuel economy. And many people
simply do not want to change how they live, or even believe there is any
substantial reason why they should. Anthropogenic climate warming is a
hoax!
I agree that next generation nuclear power should be greatly expanded, but
again, this does not appear to be promoted to the extent required to largely
replace coal as the US number one electrical power source.
I don't realistically think these problems will be addressed in a timely
fashion, and that as climate change, oil depletion, overpopulation,
environmental degradation, etc. come together in a perfect storm during the
later decades of this century, with numerous nations armed to the teeth...
But for anyone who cares about the next generation etc., there is no time to
waste to move civilization off fossil fuels, to a sustainable way of life,
with all that implies. There is no other sane choice but to promote these
goals, even if the odds of success this century are meager.
And I don't mean a return to ox driven agriculture and horse drawn buggies.
One critical reason we should reduce our dependence on fossil fuel oil is to
save them for energy needs difficult to replace by alternative energy, along
with all the other products from oil. Powering a combine with fossil fuel
oil might be one of those necessities, rather than wasting fossil fuel
oil on a horsepower fiend race car to impress the co-workers in the commute
to work.
I do not agree that addressing climate change now is so costly it is not in
the long term economically reasonable. The long term costs of allowing
climate change to accelerate by not now addressing it, are greater that the
costs of taking action now. Arguing that China and India won't
cooperate, therefore let's continue contributing to a problem that is
inevitable anyway, is a fatalistic and irresponsible approach. If the US
makes substantial progress to address climate change, China and India, who
both face dire consequences from climate change, will be encouraged to also
address the problem. It is in their long term interest also.
Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman addresses how we can afford to address
climate change in this analysis at the website below:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/11/magazine/11Economy-t.html
-----------------------
The Stern Report on the economics of climate change is one of the most often
referenced reports arguing that taking action now is less costly than
allowing climate change to accelerate. Below is a reference to the Stern
Report, followed by a critical academic analysis that finds merit and fault:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http:/www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/sternreview_index.htm
http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/weitzman/files/JELSternReport.pdf
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett
On 6/2/10, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> You don't like my plan. *sniff*
>
> Well then, what would you suggest?
>
> Paul
>
> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20100603/ac411546/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list