Skip to main content

View Diary: Occupy the Tar Sands Pipeline literally (22 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The bigger point is that this will never (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    condorcet, limpidglass

    be stopped on the supply side.

    But that seems to be an easier approach than confronting demand.

    It's like 30 or 40 years of the "war on drugs" has taught us nothing!  (which of course it hasn't).

    •  stopping pipelines (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Horace Boothroyd III

      is about making it harder for supply to be exported to china, which is ultimately a strategic question of reducing their demand as well. see also: powder river basin, cherry point coal terminal.

      yes, we need to drastically reduce american demand, but not just so that the fossil fuel can be sent to china. it's a global problem and anything burned anywhere is a threat to everyone.

      •  Oil is a global commodity, it will just go (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        condorcet, Patrick is Lucky

        someplace else.

        for example, if the Canadians can't sell to China, they'll build pipelines (or re-fit existing pipelines) to central and eastern Canada to use the tar sands oil to displace oil that they currently import from the middle east.

        Canada has invested so much into the development of the tar sands that they are going forward one way or another, there is essentially zero political opposition (heck, even the NDP is on record favoring their continued development).

        The only way to thwart this is if demand for oil dropped so precipitously that it would be uneconomical to extract the tar sands oil.

        •  oil is a global commodity only if it can get (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Horace Boothroyd III, AoT

          to market. frustrating that process by opposing pipelines and export terminals to the best of our ability is one part of keeping that oil off the global market.

          obviously, getting our economy largely off of coal, oil and eventually natural gas is a critical part of crashing our carbon emissions and saving the planet from ecological and thus economic collapse. but to do so while allowing infrastructure that enables the slack we've created just to be turned around and sent to china merely displaces the problem.

          stopping coal exports is even more important, but the tar sands matter as well.

    •  a carbon tax is the only reasonable way (3+ / 0-)

      to affect demand that doesn't require governments to monitor every action undertaken by every human being on planet Earth that might possibly contribute carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

      Of course such taxes will have to be integrated into a binding international climate agreement to prevent carbon offshoring in nations with laxer enforcement standards.

      That and removing those outdated subsidies for development of fossil fuel energy. They were useful 80 years ago, not now.

      When fossil fuels are correctly priced in such a way that takes their true costs into account, then we will see a huge swing towards renewables (aided, of course, by subsidizing their development).

      Supply-side protests are useful for raising public consciousness of the problem, and then perhaps legislators will finally take notice and feel some pressure to solve the problem.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Mon Dec 03, 2012 at 01:22:39 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yes, exactly (0+ / 0-)

        and it could be phased in over time so that it is not immediately onerous, but will soon become that way if ignored.

        I suspect that an ever accumulating $0.25 a gallon per year (for gasoline - adjusted proportionately based on energy content for coal, diesel, ethanol, etc) would do the trick.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site