Skip to main content

View Diary: The U.S. is ground zero for climate change (172 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I await your diary that explains what exactly (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    play jurist, AoT

    that we should be doing, because all I see you doing is complaining that stopping keystone is a waste of time.

    great - what wouldn't be a waste of time ?

    big badda boom : GRB 090423

    by squarewheel on Sun Feb 17, 2013 at 10:55:39 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  BTDT (0+ / 0-)

      although granted in comments not in diaries.  Can't help it if you don't read them, and really, it shouldn't be necessary for me to even explain . . . if I can figure it out other (smarter) people can (and many have).

      The "problem" with oil (from a climate perspective) is not the production, but the consumption.  Stop Keystone and the oil will be mined somewhere else.  Stop burning the stuff and Keystone won't matter.

      Did you really need me to tell you that?

      The "Keystone" alternative?  Tax extracted oil.  $1/gallon immediate (on gas, diesel and heating oil), incrementing up by 25 cents/year, ongoing.  Exempt carbon-neutral syn-fuel.  The result, I expect, would be a rapid adoption of more efficient cars (and transportation in general), and a proliferation of sources of "alternate" (carbon neutral) fuels.  And no pipeline . . .

      Not much different for coal . . . alternatives exist, so shut it down.

      And we need to get cracking on large-scale sequestration . . .

      Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

      by Deward Hastings on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 06:56:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  ok - a carbon tax - that works (0+ / 0-)

        I think you are missing the point that keystone, and tar sands, are a particular disaster environmentally because it requires putting carbon into the air to mine it.

        and sequestration ? really ?  never gonna work.  it's a way to make the coal producing states feel like they will always produce coal - when it's one of the first things we should get rid of.

        gotta find the replacement energy though - and instead of doing that we're screwing around wasting valuable time and money and idiocies like sequestration.

        big badda boom : GRB 090423

        by squarewheel on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 08:58:45 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You don't seem to grasp (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          squarewheel

          either the meaning or the necessity of "sequestration".  400 ppm is too much.  350 ppm is probably too much.  We have to remove what we have dumped into the atmosphere already.

          It is not enough to just stop adding more.

          Oh, and, "putting carbon into the air to mine it"?  I guess you've never seen a well-head flair.  Sure, tar sand mining wastes even more, but it's a marginal issue.  Stop oil consumption and it goes away anyway.

          Fake Left, Drive Right . . . not my idea of a Democrat . . .

          by Deward Hastings on Mon Feb 18, 2013 at 09:11:28 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site