The Keystone Pipeline

[Lucas Durand]

Bob,
Seems like we may have to agree to disagree...
I just don't see the transition as you are describing it happening - it's a theory that I just don't think will pan out (unfortunately).
I would offer you a bet, but I'm already "putting my money where my mouth is" by making changes in my own life ;-)

On the issue of human "smartness"...
It's not that I don't "like" the idea that we have become smarter, it's that I don't think we have despite all the accumulated knowledge we have access to.
Yes, we are obviously capable of doing much more and understanding much more than ever before, but that doesn't necessarily equate to being "smarter".
Looking at the human race collectively, our "smartness" can really only be judged by what can be observed about our actions (good intentions don't count).

An individual example:
A PhD who studies her e-reader while walking and is subsequently hit by a bus is not "smart".

Some collective examples:
The bankers who set the banking system up for disaster in 07/08 had access to all the latest economic theory, risk evaluation models, technology, and they themselves would have been considered very "smart" people - so how is it that the stupidity of what they were doing escaped them and most everyone else until the damage became obvious in hindsight?
Not "smart".

The engineers that designed the reactor facilities at Fukushima and the managers that signed off on those designs made the assumption that the reactor facilities would never be exposed to a tsunami of greater magnitude than the highest ever recorded (at that time) at Fukushima.
Not "smart".

Edit to add:
http://www.truthdig.com/cartoon/item/iraq_lesson_20130319/

As a species, humans are perceptually blind to hidden risk within complex systems.
We therefore make decisions and take on huge risks naively, which is something technology and knowledge can't help us with.
Unknown unknowns - it's just part of the human experience.

[Bob Wallace]

Lucas, where your low esteem for the human race isn't convincing is when one looks at our successes as opposed to our very low failure rate.

We have flown.  We have sent humans into space and onto the Moon and brought them home safe again.  We have defeated smallpox and a large number of other diseases.  We have invented computers, the internet and zillions of other technological wonders.  Look back to the world of 1913, only 100 years ago.  Look at how much advancement we have made.

We have largely invented the technology we need right now that is needed to get us largely off fossil fuel.  We could have a fossil fuel free grid in 20 years were we to make a very strong effort.  We could cut our personal transportation use of fossil fuels to less than 20% of what it now is in 20 years if we decided to.

We could move half our air travel to electrified high speed rail.  We could produce a lot of the fuel we need for the remaining air travel from renewable sources.

We just need to decide that we are going to do it and get on with the job.  As we install the technology we have today we will almost certainly invent even better technology and make the total job easier than it seems today.

Will we start in time and work fast enough?  That I can't say....

[Lucas Durand]

Bob,
I think you may be misunderstanding me somewhat.

First of all, I'm not saying your vision of some kind of "techno-eutopia" (if I may call it that) is impossible, but I am skeptical that it is achievable - or that it won't result in some other harmful unintended consequences - or that it won't set us up for failure in some other unforseen way in the future.
 
Secondly, to acknowledge that we have (individually and collectively) certain inate limitations to how much of "reality" we are able to perceive is not being negative or pessimistic - it is being realistic.
What makes us not very "smart", in general, is that we largely fail to acknowledge that these limitations exist at all (I daresay that even suggesting the human mind has limitations is enough to ruffle many people's feathers).

Do you not see the paradox of our "progress"?
What has enabled us to achieve these successes is also at the root of some of our most dire problems and uncertainties.
The energy and industrial apparatus that enables the creation of our technology poisons our world.
The antibiotics we use to save lives have contributed to overpopulation and the evolution of antibiotic resistant bacteria.
Genetic modification helps feed an overpopulated world but at the risk of making our food supply more fragile and we know not what else.
Etc.

Who anticipated the consequences of these developments?
Some few individuals sure, but why were their warnings not heeded?
Does this not say something about the "smartness" of the "human anthill"?

That we tend to not see this paradox, but focus on the "successes" is dangerous to us all - we must use more wisdom.
My view in this regard isn't a "low esteem" of the human race, it is just that I realize how faliable we are and that, ultimately, there is no "safety net" to catch us when we fall.

Ugo Bardi made an interesting post a while back in a similar vein:
http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.ca/2012/12/the-unknown-unknowns-of-monoculture.html

Nassim Taleb's books "The Black Swan" and "Antifragile" are also very interesting reads.

[Bob Wallace]

You seem to focus on our very small number of missteps and I on our very large number of productive steps.

I suppose we won't sort that out....

[Lucas Durand]

You seem to focus on our very small number of missteps and I on our very large number of productive steps.

If you say so.

Agree to disagree it is then.

[AndrewP]

Bob,

Yes humans have done great things. We've also done terrible things. Even now, millions die from war, starvation, and curable disease. I don't think we in the developed world are immune from this. Capitalism has worked out well for our material wealth. But we have many dire social problems in the developed world that go unaddressed. Gun violence, drugs, mental health issues and pollution issues. We've been unable to solve them even though they are universally recognized as major issues (except perhaps pollution). We solve issues when it is profitable to do so. Those which are not profitable to solve (or in some cases are more profitable not to solve), don't get solved.

The fear is AGW will fall into that latter category until it is too late. Humans are adaptable, so no doubt we will survive in some form or another. But we are not immune from great economic and social damage.

Also, I think you underestimate the cost of the technologies that we can use to mitigate and/or adapt to AGW. Converting the grid to low/no emissions would be unimaginably expensive just to build the infrastructure, which we are running out of time to do. You're talking about replacing infrastructure that was built over the course of 50+ years and intended to last 50+ years. Nevermind the fact that most renewables still cost more per Kwh than coal or gas. Wind doesn't, but wind can only form a certain % of the grid before major issues arise.

And for transportation, all the alternatives are much more expensive.

These costs imply a substantial reduction in the standard of living. Not only might this cause major macroeconomic issues, but I very much doubt it will ever be politically feasible.

[AndrewP]

Bob,

Yes humans have done great things. We've also done terrible things. Even now, millions die from war, starvation, and curable disease. I don't think we in the developed world are immune from this. Capitalism has worked out well for our material wealth. But we have many dire social problems in the developed world that go unaddressed. Gun violence, drugs, mental health issues and pollution issues. We've been unable to solve them even though they are universally recognized as major issues (except perhaps pollution). We solve issues when it is profitable to do so. Those which are not profitable to solve (or in some cases are more profitable not to solve), don't get solved.

The fear is AGW will fall into that latter category until it is too late. Humans are adaptable, so no doubt we will survive in some form or another. But we are not immune from great economic and social damage. Economic and social chaos occurs widely today especially in the undeveloped world, but also in the developed world.

Also, I think you underestimate the cost of the technologies that we can use to mitigate and/or adapt to AGW. Converting the grid to low/no emissions would be unimaginably expensive just to build the infrastructure, which we are running out of time to do. You're talking about replacing infrastructure that was built over the course of 50+ years and intended to last 50+ years. Nevermind the fact that most renewables still cost more per Kwh than coal or gas. Wind doesn't, but wind can only form a certain % of the grid before major issues arise.

And for transportation, all the alternatives are much more expensive.

These costs imply a substantial reduction in the standard of living. Not only might this cause major macroeconomic issues, but I very much doubt it will ever be politically feasible.

[Bob Wallace]

Andrew, I will not argue that it is definitely not too late.  It might be.  But I will strongly suggest that it is important that we act as if it definitely is not so. 

We must move forward in an attempt to reduce our greenhouse gas inputs.  Throwing up our hands in defeat insures our defeat.

Now, as to your cost claims....

The true cost of burning coal for electricity is somewhere higher than $0.15/kWh due to the health costs created by coal pollution.  We don't pay those costs at the meter, we pay them with our tax dollars and health insurance premiums.  But we do pay them.

Add in the cost of climate change and the cost of burning coal is very much higher that that.

The cost of electricity from gas peaker plants is quite expensive.  And because we typically use merit order pricing that makes the price of peak hour power quite high. 

The price of natural gas is, luckily for us, low right now.  NG plants are cheap to build and NG is highly dispatchable.  That means that we have an affordable fill-in generation technology for when the Sun isn't shining and the wind not blowing.  As the price of NG rises we will replace it with storage.

Wind is currently producing electricity at $0.06/kWh.  That's the median, non-subsidized price.

Solar is currently selling contracts at $0.10/kWh.  That does include subsidies.  Were we installing solar at Germany's cost ($2/watt) then solar would run from $0.08/kWh to $0.10/kWh (sunny Southwest to less sunny Northeast).

Geothermal's median non-subsidized cost is $0.09/kWh.

Renewables are already cheaper than coal and their costs continue to fall.

EVs and PHEVs have higher up front/purchase prices but their operating costs are so low compared to liquid fuel vehicles that they pay for themselves well before the useful life of the vehicle is ended.  And their cost will continue to fall.

High speed rail will come with some significant up front costs but once in place will be significantly cheaper to operate than the moderate length air travel it will replace.  It will be an investment which we will recover via both with fuel costs and lowered CO2 emissions,

[Bob Wallace]

Now the "millions die from war, starvation, and curable disease" part.

Perhaps I'm older than you and have a longer term view of human progress.  I was born during WWII when major European countries were at war with each other, in fact, most of the world was at war. 


When I was young people still died of smallpox.  When I was young we greatly feared polio.  When I was young people routinely went to the hospital for "exploratory surgery, were opened up, found to be "eaten up" with cancer, sewn back together and sent home to die.  Children my age frequently died of contagious diseases like measles, mumps, scarlet fever.

I've been traveling to less developed countries for over 30 years.  I can see how even in some of the most remote, underdeveloped places people's lives have improved.  My first trip to India showed me thousands of people sleeping on the streets in Calcutta and hoards of very hungry people meeting each bus on the hopes that someone might give them a bit of money with which to buy food.

I've worked in mental hospitals where the mentally ill and incompetent were simply locked away and kept under control with brute force.  Where there were no drugs to control violent behavior, but straight jackets and attendants who used their fists to "keep people in line".

I know the job is not finished.  But at the same time I marvel at how much progress we have made.

[Lucas Durand]

Throwing up our hands in defeat insures our defeat.

Bob,
I don't read Andrew's comment like that at all.
I hope you aren't implying that anyone who doesn't agree with your dream is arguing that we throw our hands up in defeat.
Binary thinking will almost certainly not solve anything.

[Bob Wallace]

No, I don't read Andrew's comment as one of "we are defeated".

I'm simply trying to make the point that we must act as if we are not.

[AndrewP]

Bob,

First, I think looking solely at human progress misses my point. Most human progress has been driven by market forces. The problem is market forces are not and probably won't be for quite some time directed at mitigating AGW. Market forces will help us adapt to AGW, but the consequences may be catastrophic by that point. It was economical to solve polio, smallpox, measles, mumps, scarlet fever because you can sell vaccines and antibiotics. It was economical to cure cancer because you can sell chemo and surgery. It was economical to utilize the cheap labor force of the undeveloped world and lift them out of severe poverty. It is not economical to reduce CO2 emissions. Now we can direct market forces towards solving the problem with a carbon tax, but this seems politically unlikely. I vote for it, and I'll continue to vote for it, and everybody else could and should start voting for it, but I don't think enough people will vote for it any time soon.


Second, I think you're a bit optimistic on converting the grid.

Wind is cheap. On that we agree. However, I think you are underestimating the cost of unsubsidized solar. The DOE projects that the total levelized cost of solar in 2017 will still be 50% more than wind or traditional energy sources. Wind can only form about 25% of grid capacity before major problems occur. That still leaves us with 75% fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro.

After that, you either have to start paying the 50% premium for solar and/or installing major storage capacity. Or the 30-40% premium for CCS coal. Doable, it's just expensive, especially the faster you try to do it.


I definitely don't think we are defeated. I would say the right time for beginning to aggressively pursue an alternative energy policy was 20+ years ago. We've guaranteed ourselves major adaptation costs that would have been cheaper in terms of $$ and human life to mitigate years ago.

But I am far from an end of the world type. I'll outline three scenarios, "ideal" "realistic best case" "realistic worst case."

1. Ideally we started seriously mitigating 20+ years ago, or even today, which would be expensive and would require slower GDP growth and moderately lower standards of living. Efforts are made to assist the developing world where there is less capability for adaptation.

2. Realistically the best case scenario is, for political and economic reasons, we don't start serious mitigation for another 15-30 years. Climate sensitivity and the associated consequences lie on the middle or lower side of the current consensus. The mitigation and adaptation costs at this point are far more severe and require somewhat harsh standard of living reductions, which will be especially severe for the developing world.

3. The worst case scenario, which I do not view outside of the realm of possibility: mitigation is put off too long, and climate sensitivity and associated consequences lie on the middle or higher side of the consensus. The adaptation and mitigation costs at this point are catastrophic. Western civilization is seriously jeopardized by widespread chaos. Humans survive, but the modern civilization we are accustomed to is altered.

[Jim Hunt]

@Bob - Remember me telling you that I'm "a born optimist but a political pessimist"?

Will Renewable Energy "Solve Global Warming"?

@Andrew - Only last week I was endeavouring to explain to a nice lady from the Office for Renewable Energy Deployment at the UK's Department of Energy and Climate Change that "the sh1t will hit the fan" on the UK's grid in the not too distant future. She admitted that this wasn't her area of expertise, and read a brief statement prepared by somebody else.

She hasn't yet answered my subsequent voicemail either.

[werther]

Fatal details in the rising energy-climate stress economy…

Big disasters increasingly underline the stress. If not in extraction (the Deep Horizon Spill), then in distribution (Lac-Mégantique). While it is ever harder to pick the fruits for the fossil-fuel-industry, risks that are accepted rise and pressure to get the products into the market grows.

And thus,  little community in Quebec is now against the will of its inhabitants in the centre of this struggle. The dilemma is clear. The unfolding climate cliff urges us to leave the bloody stuff in the ground. So any investment in means to improve distribution of fossil fuel is opposed. Because that infrastructure will certainly mean the profit is litterally spewed into our atmosphere with comparable efficiency.

But because the products are pushed into the market anyhow, any means to do it is tried. I am very sorry for the inhabitants of that tiny Quebec village. My thoughts and prayers  are with them. And I can only hope that events like this will finally trigger an honest debate. And responsability taken by governments.

PS Maybe I didn’t inform myself a 100% well, but that train was heading for the Searsport Oil Terminal in Maine, and it may damn well have carried Bakken and Tar-sand oil products.

[ghoti]

It was oil being shipped from North Dakota from the Bakken.

[deep octopus]

Well here's a cynical perspective from the United States State Department.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/01/us/politics/report-may-ease-way-to-approval-of-keystone-pipeline.html?hp

The State Department released a report on Friday that could pave the way toward President Obama’s approval of the Keystone XL oil pipeline.

The long-awaited environmental impact statement on the project concludes that approval or denial of the pipeline, which would carry 830,000 barrels of oil a day from Alberta to the Gulf Coast, is unlikely to prompt oil companies to change the rate of their extraction of carbon-heavy tar sands oil, a State Department official said. Either way, the tar sands oil, which produces significantly more planet-warming carbon pollution than standard methods of drilling, is coming out of the ground, the report says.

In other words, the State Department is resigned to a preconceived conclusion that the tar sands are getting extracted no matter what, pipeline or rail, so, sure, what the hell difference does it really matter punching a pipeline through American prairie land? As if restricting transportation options would have no effect on the pace of production, profits, and so forth. And yeah, it is certain to increase carbon pollution, but since we've concluded the tar sands are coming out either way, the pipeline really has no bearing on that outcome, so... what say we approve that baby?

Bad enough was learning news of Australia's permission for the Great Barrier Reef to be a dumping ground for coal dredging. The State Department's review of the pipeline also seems to have only the interests of the short-term economy in mind. I'm sorry to say that this has been totally predictable from the get go. There will be another review regarding the project's "national [American] interests", which I'm sure will be even less critical than the environmental review. Then Kerry delivers a recommendation to Obama, and it will fall on Obama to make a final decision. Sometime this spring I presume.

[GeoffBeacon]

Try reading Hansen's latest without crying...
www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2014/20140131_Sophie1.pdf

[JimD]

Geoff

Very moving, but I think Hansen needs to read this.  His approach is not working and does not have much prospect of working in time. 

The below rings true to me more than anything I have read along the lines of Hansen's letter (maybe because it is a familiar approach that I used myself, but it works).

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/10/learning-how-to-die-in-the-anthropocene/?_r=1&

[Shared Humanity]

JimD........Thanks, a great read and accurate. The next stage of human evolution is philosophical.

[Sigmetnow]

Update: Nebraska raises a barrier.
Nebraska rules that Keystone pipeline eminent domain was taken illegally.
Two views:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/19/3309791/nebraska-keystone-pipeline-ruling/#

http://gazette.com/keystone-pipeline-faces-new-obstacle-in-nebraska/article/feed/91991

[JackTaylor]

Sigmetnow,

Thanks for the heads up on
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/19/3309791/nebraska-keystone-pipeline-ruling/#

Now it's waiting out appeals.

Regards

[Shared Humanity]

If the pipeline is effectively blocked, Canadian National will ship it by rail. They already are shipping the bulk of it.

https://www.cn.ca/en/your-industry/petroleum-chemicals

[JimD]

Not truly on topic but I think related.  If the Obama administration is moving towards allowing drilling off the Eastern seaboard it would seem that they will also approve the Keystone.  If our next President is a Republican both of these approvals are pretty certain.

Obama Administration May Open Up Atlantic to Seismic Testing

A report expected to be released on February 27 or 28 could allow the early stages of oil exploration to move forward on the U.S. Atlantic seaboard, which has long been off limits for oil and gas drilling. The Department of Interior will publish its final environmental analysis, which will clear a major hurdle on the way towards allowing the seismic testing off the East Coast in decades. The report is expected to be greeted with strong pushback from environmentalists.

At issue is whether or not Interior’s environmental analysis adequately takes into account the effect of seismic testing on whales, dolphins, and other marine animals. Seismic testing involves blasting sound waves to the seabed, which give engineers detailed 3-D maps that can inform where the best places to drill might be

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/02/obama-administration-may-open-atlantic-seismic-testing.html

[JimD]

Missouri Governor Jay Nixon Endorses Keystone XL Pipeline

Nixon previously hadn't directly weighed in on the Keystone project, but did previously support the expansion of another oil pipeline in Missouri. Last year, He praised a Canadian company's announcement to build a new 600-mile pipeline from Illinois to Oklahoma along an existing pipeline route running diagonally from northeast to west-central Missouri.
https://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/Themes/smf-curve1/images/bbc/quote.gif
Missouri's two U.S. senators — Democrat Claire McCaskill and Republican Roy Blunt — have also endorsed construction of the Keystone pipeline.

Cover as well as pressure.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/04/jay-nixon-keystone-pipeline_n_4896394.html

[JimD]

A significant majority of Americans support building the Keystone XL pipeline, according to a ABC/Washington Post poll released Friday.

Despite relatively widespread concerns about its potential effects on the environment, 65 percent of Americans said the government should approve construction of the pipeline, which would carry oil from Canada to Texas. That is an increase over a June 2012 poll that found 59 percent supported its construction.

For many, economic factors outweigh the environmental hazards: 85 percent said they think the pipeline will create a significant number of jobs. Although 47 percent said they believe the pipeline would pose a significant risk to the environment, those who said it's a risk are still split almost evenly on whether it should be approved.

The jobs item above indicates how well the pro pipeline marketing has gone.  It is a big lie.  the pipeline will only create a couple of hundred jobs after construction.  And it will not take long to build.  My bet is it is going to be built too as the politics demands it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/07/keystone-xl-poll_n_4919025.html

[JimD]

More tar sand oil pipelines being planned

Two massive pipeline projects with a combined value of $19 billion passed key hurdles this week — a striking reminder that the fight over Keystone XL is just the beginning of what promises to be a long debate over the future of the Canadian tar sands oil reserves.

The first giant west-to-east pipeline is from TransCanada, the same company that lays claim to Keystone XL. The company’s $12 billion Energy East pipeline would be the largest oil sands pipeline in North America, and on Tuesday filed its project description with Canada’s National Energy Board. Energy East would pump 1.1 million barrels of oil per day from Alberta’s tar sands to terminals in Montreal, Quebec City, and St. John, as well as for export across the Atlantic.
 
The second pipeline is from Enbridge Inc., which on Thursday got final approval for its Line 9 expansion project to bring tar sands to Montreal. But Line 9 isn’t their biggest approval this week. On Monday, the company announced it has received financial backing for its $7 billion Line 3 Replacement project. That project would replace an existing 46-year-old pipeline between Alberta and Wisconsin, and double oil flow from 390,000 barrels of oil per day to 760,000.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/03/07/3377161/two-more-pipelines/

[Sigmetnow]

Decision on the pipeline being delayed, probably until after the US mid-term elections in November.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/04/18/3428625/keystone-delay-midterms/

[Sigmetnow]

Another article attacking the KXL pipeline.

"Recently, the US State Department released yet another report on the environmental impacts of building the Keystone pipeline. The report is shocking in its ironic juxtaposition of real greenhouse gas emissions and the potential impact on the Earth's climate. It is also shocking because the State Department tells us the pipeline will be made to withstand climate change, but won't be responsible for those changes. The report reflects an incompetence of the authors of the report and a divorce of the report from common sense. It isn't just me who feels this way, other groups concur the State Department report is faulty."

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/apr/16/keystone-xl-cops-incompetent

[Shared Humanity]

It really does not matter what "other people" feel. The State Department report is exactly what you would expect from an organization which is "all in" with the efforts to preserve modern industrial capitalism.

We should expect to encounter an ever larger number of reports and statements that involve a level of cognitive dissonance that you would think would cause the heads of those making them actually explode.

[Sigmetnow]

Tom Steyer is vowing to throw his political weight and money behind any lawmaker in Congress who comes under attack for opposing the Keystone XL pipeline.

http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/218879375

[JimD]

So 3 of 4 sections of the pipeline are up and running.  Obama approved the southern half section in 2012.  The company says it is near the point of being able to bridge the gap waiting approval via a rail network and terminal setup.

I still think Obama will approve when the timing gets him the most political capital.  But that oil is coming one way or another.

For First Time, TransCanada Says Tar Sands Flowing to Gulf in Keystone XL South

TransCanada admitted for the first time that tar sands oil is now flowing through Keystone XL‘s southern leg, now rebranded the Gulf Coast Pipeline Project. The company confirmed the pipeline activity in its 2014 quarter one earnings call....

The Keystone Pipeline System — of which Keystone XL’s northern leg is phase four of four phases — is and always has been slated to carry Alberta’s tar sands to targeted markets. So the announcement is far from a shocker.

More perplexing is why it took so long for the company to tell the public that tar sands oil now flows through the half of the pipeline approved via a March 2012 Executive Order by President Barack Obama....

The prospect of moving tar sands oil by rail to Cushing was also discussed on the call.



“Our customers have asked us to look at a rail bridge between Alberta and U.S.points,” Bill Taylor, TransCanada’s Executive Vice-President and President of Energy, said on the call. “I’d say that since the delays, the intensity of those calls has gone up quite substantially.”

Girling echoed Taylor in discussing his company’s tar sands oil-by-rail chess move.

“It is something … that we can move on relatively quickly,” Girling stated. “We’ve done a pretty substantial amount of work at the terminal end and mostly at the receipt and delivery points and that’s really what our key role in here would be.

http://my.firedoglake.com/stevehorn1022/2014/05/05/for-first-time-transcanada-says-tar-sands-flowing-to-gulf-in-keystone-xl-south/

[werther]

JimD,
I had a same sort of sick feeling last week as the first Arctic oil from Prirazlomnoye in the Pechora Sea arrived in Rotterdam...

[JimD]

Try not to cry.  You know we need a song about BAU...I would lean towards the blues but gangsta rap might also be a good choice.

In this period of national gloom comes an idea -- a crazy-sounding notion, or maybe, actually, an epiphany. How about an all-Canadian route to liberate that oil sands crude from Alberta’s isolation and America’s fickleness? Canada’s own environmental and aboriginal politics are holding up a shorter and cheaper pipeline to the Pacific that would supply a shipping portal to oil-thirsty Asia.

Instead, go east, all the way to the Atlantic.

  Thus was born Energy East, an improbable pipeline that its backers say has a high probability of being built. It will cost C$12 billion ($10.7 billion) and could be up and running by 2018. Its 4,600-kilometer (2,858-mile) path, taking advantage of a vast length of existing and underused natural gas pipeline, would wend through six provinces and four time zones. It would be Keystone on steroids, more than twice as long and carrying a third more crude. ............

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-08/keystone-be-darned-canada-finds-oil-route-around-obama.html

[Bob Wallace]

We won't stop pipelines and oil extraction until we cut our oil use to the point at which it makes no economic sense to extract, ship and refine oil.

Buy an EV.

If an EV won't work for you then buy a PHEV.

At least drive the most fuel efficient vehicle you can afford.

And do what is reasonable to reduce your amount of driving.

Then check from time to time to see if things have changed so that you can buy and use an EV.

Both Tesla and GM should have a 200 mile EV on the market for about $30k within the next two years.  The average new car cost in the US is $32,046. 

Nissan is expected to increase the range of their Leaf while holding price steady.

There are low mileage used Nissan Leafs for sale starting around $12k.

Starve the beast.

[ccgwebmaster]

Try not to cry.  You know we need a song about BAU...I would lean towards the blues but gangsta rap might also be a good choice.

Something percussion based with very tiny violins might be appropriate.

[icefest]

That was my logic Bob. I'm driving a (for Australian standards) tiny car that produces less than 100g c02/km. Which is better than an EV here running or electricity.

I wish I could go fully solar + EV, but being both a student and a renter, (and moving around a lot) makes that too hard.

[Sigmetnow]

@insideclimate: RT @eschor: Keystone XL bonus: Republicans can take the Senate and still stay short of 60 votes on the pipe.

[Sigmetnow]

American Indian Tribe Calls Keystone XL Vote An 'Act Of War'
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/11/17/3592947/sioux-keystone-act-of-war/

[Bob Wallace]

short of 60 votes on the pipe

Short of 60 votes to pass it over a filibuster.  But the Republican Senate could do away with the filibuster.

That would still leave them short one vote in the White House.

And a lot of votes short of being able to override a veto.

That said, PBO might trade away the Keystone for something that would drive renewables and EVs forward faster.  The Keystone is just a sideways move in terms of carbon burning.  That oil, or some oil from another supplier is going to get burned as long as we continue to burn oil.

I'd readily trade the Keystone for a program that made EVs affordable for working people and greatly increased EV sales/manufacturing.  What we most need is higher sales levels to drive economies of scale.

To borrow a phrase, we didn't stop the stone age because we ran out of stones.  We moved on past stones because we found superior alternatives.

[icefest]

The difference is that keystone, once built, will keep making that heavy oil cheaper; as it will be a sunk cost. There is also the issue that if we are going to burn oil, it's sure as hell better to stick with oil that needs less reprocessing as that amounts to a large percentage of the co2 cost.
Making EVs more affordable is an ongoing cost, and one that can be reversed easily after the next presidential elections.

Supporting the building of projects sch as the gigafactory might help, but they'd have to be ones that wouldn't otherwise be built.

[Bob Wallace]

The price of EVs (really the price of batteries) is largely out of the hands of governments.  Private money, big corporations, are now driving the wagon.  Government subsidies gave the wagon a push to get it started.

Big money has smelled big profits and all sorts of projects are underway for both vehicle and grid storage.  There's an enormous fortune to be made as we (probably) see these industries mature.

I don't see how the fossil fuel industry could convince enough governments to put up roadblocks.  Multinational corporations will do their work where there are the least barriers.  And that knowledge would make it very difficult for a government to support fossil fuels at the likely cost of future jobs and tax revenue.

Keystone will bring oil from already developed projects to refineries.  The price of oil would have to be adequate to bring new projects on line.  The controller here is demand.  I truly think we are short years from 200 mile, <$30k EVs and only a few more years from being able to purchase those cars for <$25k.

At that point, likely less than ten years from now, we should see worldwide demand for oil start to drop.  In another ten years it is likely that many oil fields will be shut down with only the cheapest production sites in operation.

If we pay too much attention to the near future, when it comes to oil use, we are likely to be discouraged.  Instead closely watch the development of EVs and their batteries.  We have to fully develop the alternative before we will see meaningful oil demand decay.

[Sigmetnow]

So, the Senate vote was one vote short on KXL (now being called the "Keystone Export Pipeline").
Explainer:
http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble/2014/11/whats-happening-keystone-xl-week-explained

[Sigmetnow]

Humor from The Onion: US Republicans building Keystone XL pipeline themselves.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/desperate-gop-spotted-in-south-dakota-trying-to-bu,37499/

[Sigmetnow]

Keystone 'not even nominal benefit' to US consumers, President Obama says

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/227721-obama-keystone-not-even-nominal-benefit-to-us-consumers

[Sigmetnow]

"@CoralMDavenport: No #KXL [pipeline] verdict out of Nebraska today. Without a verdict, @BarackObama has ready-made excuse to veto forthcoming Senate Keystone bill."

Article: the personal side of Nebraska/Keystone.
http://www.npr.org/2014/12/16/371216129/on-nebraskas-prairies-keystone-xl-pipeline-debate-is-personal

[Sigmetnow]

The White House said on Tuesday that President Obama would veto legislation that approves construction of the Keystone XL pipeline if it passes Congress. "If this bill passes this Congress the president wouldn't sign it either," White House press secretary Josh Earnest vowed Tuesday of the pending Keystone legislation.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/228610-white-house-threatens-to-veto-keystone-bill

[Sigmetnow]

Why the Fight Over the Keystone Pipeline is Completely Divorced From Reality

Minor environmental benefits from a veto. Few gains for American business with approval. This is what all the fuss was about?

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-01-07/why-the-fight-over-the-keystone-pipeline-is-completely-divorced-from-reality

[Laurent]

Senate to Debate Keystone XL, Setting Stage for More Energy Battles
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/13/us/senate-votes-to-start-debate-on-keystone-bill.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

[Laurent]

Ground Zero for the Keystone XL Tar Sands Pipeline
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rocky-kistner/ground-zero-for-the-keyst_b_6465404.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green

[Laurent]

Senate Expected To Vote On Whether Climate Change Is Real, As Part Of Keystone Bill
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/13/climate-change-keystone-bill_n_6466380.html?utm_hp_ref=green&ir=Green