Quote:
Originally Posted by Tinordi
If you are really interested in learning on the marginal GHG impacts of whether oilsands pipelines are built or not, read this article. It's a good scenario analysis of whether blocking pipelines will reduce GHGs. It's certainly up in the air but it's not nearly as simplified as you make it. My statements throughout this thread are that you can expand oil production with pipelines so long as you reduce GHG emissions from that expanded production. It's possible with regulations.
http://theenergycollective.com/jesse...ts-keystone-XL |
So you want to block a pipeline in which the negative impacts are up in the air and that the solution to these negative impacts are ghg regulation which is in the hands of the government and can be implemented at any time regardless of whether or not the pipeline is built.
I assume you are against all pipelines then? Keystone, the Eastern line and expansion to burnaby on the same grounds? Even the NDP supports the eastern line with no regards to ghgs.
From your article from the us state department study
Quote:
|
Even if environmentalists managed to block all new pipelines out of Alberta, State’s EIS concluded that it would reduce tar sands production by just 2 to 4 percent by 2030. (The State Department must ultimately bless the international pipeline project as “in the national interest” before construction can commence, placing the agency in the crosshairs of environmental activists, who have blasted State’s draft EIS.)
|
And since all pipeline expansion has been blocked rail will be used at higher intensity. On a tailpipe basis tarsands (which emmission intensity is decreasing) is 17% more polluting than average US refined crude. Note that any crude which replaces existing production will not be averge in intensity so the gap is less wide than the 17%.
Enviromental groups should be focused on moving to nuclear and getting rid of coal. Instead the tarsands gets the dollars thrown at it for something that will have marginal affect.