Sure there are. The successful solar projects in Arizona, the installation of wind farms in Wyoming, the restoration of the Everglades, the opening of wetlands along the Mississippi — and the project of keeping tar sands oil that will do nothing for America and create less than 80 permanent jobs the heck away from the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies most of Nebraska’s farms, cities, and agriculture.
Most of the “keystone” already exists, along with thousands of additional miles of natural gas, oil, coal slurry, and other pipelines. Don’t folks see all those kindly ads from the energy folks telling us how good all those pipelines are?
Envrionmental issues are complex, which is why minor projects only require “Categorical Exclusions”, others “Environmental Analysis”, and others Environmental Impact Statements. NEPA was passed in ’69 and signed by Nixon to try to stem disasters, and at least call for analysis. Interestingly, the law calls for analysis of impacts on the “human environment”.
Not all solar projects, or wind are “good” either, some have terrible consequences for the natural environment. Fossil fuels being increasingly used however, are just “worse”. Even with increasing populations, conservation, and maintaining a REASONABLE “lifestyle” are possible. The question is: does everyone in the world having a 96 inch TV, a 6,000 square foot house, and a fleet of 4 mile per gallon cars, “reasonable”?
While the argument that much (not all) starvation around the world is largely “political” is to a degree still true, the reality is that long before sea levels wipe out all those coastal cities, agricultural production to keep up with population, and demands, due to climate change, WILL begin to fail. Even those “wonder crops” we here so much about have a slight problem of having less “food value”. Growing corn that produces its own pesticide, to kill bugs, so that the corn can be made into automotive fuel, isn’t the most “brilliant” thing science has given us either.
I’m sure you would all be ecstatic if it leaked tarry oil all over your property. Short term jobs sending dirty Canadian oil to texas to ship to be sold on the world market. But hey, it’s energy independence for America, right?
Odon Premium Member about 11 years ago
“Cut Here”
ARodney about 11 years ago
Sure there are. The successful solar projects in Arizona, the installation of wind farms in Wyoming, the restoration of the Everglades, the opening of wetlands along the Mississippi — and the project of keeping tar sands oil that will do nothing for America and create less than 80 permanent jobs the heck away from the Ogallala Aquifer that supplies most of Nebraska’s farms, cities, and agriculture.
Dtroutma about 11 years ago
Most of the “keystone” already exists, along with thousands of additional miles of natural gas, oil, coal slurry, and other pipelines. Don’t folks see all those kindly ads from the energy folks telling us how good all those pipelines are?
Envrionmental issues are complex, which is why minor projects only require “Categorical Exclusions”, others “Environmental Analysis”, and others Environmental Impact Statements. NEPA was passed in ’69 and signed by Nixon to try to stem disasters, and at least call for analysis. Interestingly, the law calls for analysis of impacts on the “human environment”.
Not all solar projects, or wind are “good” either, some have terrible consequences for the natural environment. Fossil fuels being increasingly used however, are just “worse”. Even with increasing populations, conservation, and maintaining a REASONABLE “lifestyle” are possible. The question is: does everyone in the world having a 96 inch TV, a 6,000 square foot house, and a fleet of 4 mile per gallon cars, “reasonable”?
While the argument that much (not all) starvation around the world is largely “political” is to a degree still true, the reality is that long before sea levels wipe out all those coastal cities, agricultural production to keep up with population, and demands, due to climate change, WILL begin to fail. Even those “wonder crops” we here so much about have a slight problem of having less “food value”. Growing corn that produces its own pesticide, to kill bugs, so that the corn can be made into automotive fuel, isn’t the most “brilliant” thing science has given us either.
CorosiveFrog Premium Member about 11 years ago
The oil sand may be bringing money to one province, but they are screwing up Canada socially, economically, politically and environmentally.
Don’t ever do anything to help that industry, please!
kaffekup about 11 years ago
I’m sure you would all be ecstatic if it leaked tarry oil all over your property. Short term jobs sending dirty Canadian oil to texas to ship to be sold on the world market. But hey, it’s energy independence for America, right?