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

Ron Force rforce2003 at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 9 20:14:31 PDT 2010


I remember reading, many years ago, a book by an economist who claimed we would never run out of energy because we could always grind up the entire Rocky Mountains and extract Thorium to power reactors. Compared to that, strip-mining 54,000 square miles of Alberta (the size of England)  seems somewhat trivial. After all, "We need power."

Ron Force
Moscow ID USA




________________________________
From: Ted Moffett <starbliss at gmail.com>
To: Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com>
Cc: vision2020 at moscow.com
Sent: Wed, June 9, 2010 5:22:29 PM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway


You responded to my claim that the development of the Alberta tar sands was "short sighted" by disagreeing that it was short sighted, calling it "realistic," earlier in the recent "Alberta Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway" thread regarding Nick Gier's article, that appeared under the title of that subject heading, as an op-ed in today's Wednesday Moscow/Pullman Daily News.  
 
Your last response on this issue stated you "...haven't done my homework on it."
 
If you choose to not answer questions, that's your choice.  Why you responded angrily (if your profanity is a sign of anger) as though posting here is some sort of dire obligation, I do not know.  Vision2020 of course is completely voluntary and no one has to respond to anyone if they do not want to... Many questions go unanswered, which is why I posted that sometimes the theme music for Vision2020 should be Charles Ives' "The Unanswered Question"

Below is the previous post I am referring to, specifically on the Alberta tar sands development, as the subject heading states, where you stated you thought it was "realistic:"
 
[Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway
 
http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/2010-June/070385.html
 
--- On Tue, 6/1/10, Ted Moffett <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

On Sun, Jun 6, 2010 at 9:02 PM, Paul Rumelhart <godshatter at yahoo.com> wrote:


>Jesus Christ, I've been gone all fucking weekend visiting family.   I wasn't aware there were time pressures involved here.
>
>If developing US oil shale would make us less dependent upon the vagaries of Middle Eastern politics, then yes, I think it should be developed.  Having said that, I'm not trying to push the idea of just developing everything we've got in some sort of global mass-ignition of all oil-stock everywhere.  I would prefer that if we are going to use oil that we use our own or at least use that of countries that are nominally our friends instead of our enemies.  Even if we have to put up with the downsides of such production locally.
>
>I have no idea if oil from shale can compete with oil from Saudi Arabia on price, though.
>
>I'll have to beg for an extension on your Alberta Tar Sands production question, since I haven't done my homework on it.  I would like to say generally that people seem to want the best of both worlds all the time.  They want alternative energy, but don't want unsightly windmills to clutter up their view.  They want to get us off of coal for energy production, but block nuclear power with bureaucratic bullshit.  They want us not to be involved in Middle Eastern wars with oil being the elephant in the room, but they don't want to deal with the downsides that domestic production would bring with it.  There is no perfect solution.  Just give up on that particular pipe dream.  Welcome to the real world.
>
>Am I free to go, or do you need anything else from me?
>
>Paul
>
>Ted Moffett wrote:
>
>Sometimes the theme music for Vision2020 should be Charles Ives' "The Unanswered Question."
>> http://www.charlesives.org/ives_essay/index.htm
>>>> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6co3j_charles-ives-the-unanswered-questio_music
>> Unanswered question from previous post below:
>>
>>Do you approve of development of US oil shale?
>>
>>
>>On 6/3/10, *Ted Moffett* <starbliss at gmail.com <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>   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/
>>>>    ), 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
>>
>>   <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
>>
>>              <mailto: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>
>>
>>           <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com
>>           <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>>"
>>>>              nickgier at roadrunner.com
>>           <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>
>>
>>           <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com 
>>
>>           <mailto:nickgier at roadrunner.com>>, Ted
>>              Moffett starbliss at gmail.com
>>           <mailto:starbliss at gmail.com> <mailto: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>
>>              <mailto: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/20100609/f499f905/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the Vision2020 mailing list