[Vision2020] Alberta's Tar Sands and Idaho's Wilderness Gateway
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Wed Jun 9 22:15:53 PDT 2010
Just what is it that you're dying to know?
I'm not an expert on the science and engineering involved in extracting
oil from tar sands, nor am I an expert on the history or potential of
the Alberta Tar Sands project in general. That's the homework I was
referring to.
I made an off-the-cuff remark about how expanding our domestic oil
production might be considered "realistic" rather than "short-sighted".
You responded a couple of times with posts I regret that I have not had
the time to delve into in detail. I simply threw my opinion out there,
and moved on. May it bless all that happen upon it. I did not realize
that you were awaiting with baited breath my in-depth and timely
responses to your posts. Couple that with just having arrived home
after six hours of driving while not feeling well with a pounding
headache, and you get my honest but admittedly rude response that
included profanity, and, depending upon your particular religious
leanings, blasphemy. I apologize for that.
My impression from your "unanswered questions" post was that you were
awaiting my answers and hearing no immediate response were concluding
that I in fact had no worthwhile reply and you could thus mark this one
off on your side of the "win" column since I'd taken a few days to
reply. I normally don't care much about that, but as I say you caught
me at a particularly bad time.
Paul
Ted Moffett wrote:
> 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
> <http://mailman.fsr.com/mailman/listinfo/vision2020>> 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
> <mailto: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> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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>> <mailto: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>>
> <mailto: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
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list