Skip to main content

View Diary: Keystone XL: Will the State Department's shameful dishonesty become Obama's climate legacy? (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Take that completely out of the equation (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    oregonj, 6412093, alphorn

    and the USA still reduced CO2 emissions.

    It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

    by Fishgrease on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 03:49:49 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  From what I could find from the EIA, electric (0+ / 0-)

      consumption has not increased since 08, coal use has dramatically decreased (net elec generation) and natural gas use has increased, but does not match the decrease in coal use (again net generation). There have to be other significant factors at work, including the drop in demand.

      As far as the debate over XL, if it was such a slam dunk from and environmental and CO2 perspective, why let the industry write the report?

      Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

      by the fan man on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:44:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ask whoever's decision that was. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LakeSuperior
        why let the industry write the report?
        And slam dunk? KXL? You did not get that from me, don't expect me to reply to it.

        When looking at something like KXL, the Obama Administration does what each of us do in evaluating change. They have a plus column and a minus column. I do fault the Obama Administration for not letting us see those columns. I can guess what's there with some fashion of accuracy but I can't understand why they don't just show us.

        Maybe when they make the decision -- which I can always be wrong about, by the way.

        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

        by Fishgrease on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:03:00 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Back to my reply: what else is at work in CO2 (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Fishgrease

          reductions?

          Don't misunderstand me, I have discussions beyond here where people are more concerned about other aspects of domestic NG drilling and discount both the environmental significance of getting off coal as well the drop in CO2 because of it's use. Looking at the net generation stats stats, I'm not necessarily reassured.

          Even if I knew that tomorrow the world would go to pieces, I would still plant my apple tree. -Martin Luther

          by the fan man on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:10:46 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I'm looking for the 90-9-1 (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            the fan man

            Numbers I quoted. They're about 2 years old and I cannot attest to their accuracy within a % or two. From what I could tell, they were accurate at the time.

            We've made progress with conservation at the same time. My new furnace uses half the NG my old one did. My washer and dryer, same thing, better efficiency. And I and most other people have made efforts toward conservation, not enough, of course.

            I have to think that accounts for some of the discrepancy.

            It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

            by Fishgrease on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:17:13 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Yes emissions are genuinely going down (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      joedemocrat

      And that is a good story on many levels, but mostly it demonstrates that we do have policy options to  make a real difference in our impact on the climate.  And become a force for leading the world, rather than being an obstacle to international efforts.

      "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

      by oregonj on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 04:44:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was involved in the very outer-most orbit (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        6412093, joedemocrat

        of sculpting emissions policy.

        mostly it demonstrates that we do have policy options to  make a real difference in our impact on the climate
        Here's basically how it went down.

        1) determined that moving coal-fired power plants from coal to NG would result in lowering CO2 emissions by x amount

        2) summed the total amount of NG available as fuel and project to be available as fuel, factored in price

        3) sculpted the regulations on the basis of those numbers

        So the truth is that the regulations were the result of the price of NG, not the other way around.

        It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

        by Fishgrease on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:09:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your story is completely implausible (0+ / 0-)

          given the timeline of the original regulations, the lengthy court battle, and the actions of several administrations.

          "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

          by oregonj on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 07:59:05 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The most recent regs address (0+ / 0-)

            coal-fired plants almost exclusively, or at least appear that way after the fact. And what court battles? Recent? Within Obama's tenure as President?

            Besides that, how would those affect the consideration of NG replacing coal?

            Your contention is the implausible one. That regulations reduced CO2 emissions irrespective of demand and a replacement for coal.

            Do you think government said, you have to reduce emissions by x amount and the power generators discovered they had just the right amount of NG handy and at a just-so-happens-to-be low price? No. Cheap NG is recent and the EPA is proud of producing regs that demand only what is possible.

            It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

            by Fishgrease on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 01:53:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  July 16, 1997 (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Fishgrease

              Clinton enacted the soot rules on 7/16/97.  That had very little to do with the price of natural gas today

               http://clinton5.nara.gov/...

              The rules have been in court since then ( along with the Clean Air Interstate Rule, etc...)..

              BTW, FG, I think you are the funniest writer on DK.  Thanks for that.

              "Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist."

              by oregonj on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 01:05:05 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The surveys I completed (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                oregonj

                and then the two conference calls I was on were nearly a year into the Obama administration. (I said outer orbit).

                No. Natural gas had nothing to do with Clinton era regulations. How could anyone think I was implying that? NG hit $16 per mmbtu in places back then. Today it is $3.50 where its been for about 3 years.

                Natural gas DOES have something to do with limits associated with current controls.

                One of the most frustrating things I've ever done is try to read some of those, btw, because they do apply to part of my job at times. It's the exceptions, oh jeez, the exceptions. There are exceptions where you can emit more tons of carbon and exceptions where you can emit less. Every one of those exceptions (my theory here, not my "story") is that those were fought for by individual Congresspersons and of course lobbyists.

                It rubs the loofah on its skin or else it gets the falafel again.

                by Fishgrease on Mon Mar 11, 2013 at 01:49:42 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site