Skip to main content


Listen to this one-sided battle of Bluster vs Brains -- too bad it is only a lone newscaster who gives Joe "what for" on behave of his fellow environmentally-friendly Canadians ...

Joe Oliver vs. Scientist (James Hansen)

Apr 24, 2013


link to video


Oliver slams scientist's oilsands claims as 'nonsense'  (source of Video)

CBC News, www.cbc.ca/news -- Apr 24, 2013

[Canada's Natural Resources Minister, Joe] Oliver, in Washington, D.C., to shore up support for the Keystone XL pipeline, took aim at scientist James Hansen, who has been a vocal opponent of developing the oilsands. "It does not advance the debate when people make exaggerated comments that are not rooted in the facts. And he should know that," Oliver said to reporters, following a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In an op-ed piece for the New York Times last year, Hansen claimed that "if Canada proceeds [with oilsands development], and we do nothing, it will be game over for the climate."

Oliver countered that when a source of energy represents 1/1000th of global emissions, "to say it’s the end of the planet if that’s developed is nonsense."

He added that "crying wolf all the time" does not advance the serious debate.
[...]


PS. Joe Oliver is on a US tour today and tomorrow to persuade Congress and the new DOI Secretary -- that letting the KeyStone XL pipeline tread across ours lands is actually good for us and good for the planet.

Hmmm?  I wonder where his portfolio is invested?


NASA's James Hansen, Leaving Post to Fight Climate Change Full Time

'As a government employee, you can’t testify against the government.'

by Jon Queally, staff writer, Common Dreams -- April 2, 2013

[...]
In a letter to 350.org supporters Monday night, McKibben, always the activist, urged members to honor Hansen's commitment by submitting a personal comment against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline which is still under review at the State Department:
   Sending a message to the State Department might not seem like much, but I think it’s actually quite fitting tribute.

    One reason we’re fighting the pipeline is because Jim Hansen did the math to show that if we combusted the tar sands on top of all else we burn, it would be “game over for the climate.” So far that message hasn’t gotten through: the State Department hired a bunch of compromised oil industry analysts to ‘review’ KXL, and unsurprisingly they decided it would have ‘minimal’ environmental impact. We need to get them to take reality seriously, and change that assessment.


NASA's Hansen Explains Decision to Join Keystone Pipeline Protests

"Einstein said to think and not act is a crime," James Hansen tells SolveClimate News. "If we understand the situation, we must try to make it clear."

by Elizabeth McGowan, InsideClimate News, insideclimatenews.org -- Aug 29, 2011

[...]
SolveClimate News: You have referred to Keystone XL as the "fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet." What actual effect would it have on the amount of carbon dioxide in the air?

James Hansen: If released all at once, the known tar sands resource is equivalent to 150 parts per million. As is the case with other fossil fuel sources, the amount in the air declines to about 20 percent after 1,000 years. Of course, only a small fraction of the resource is economically recoverable at the moment. But if you decide you are going to continue your addiction and build a big pipeline to Texas, the economically extractable oil will steadily grow over time. Moreover the known resources would grow because there is plenty more to be discovered.

Every seller will tell you his pile of pollution is small compared to the total pile on Earth, and that is correct.  What makes tar sands particularly odious is that the energy you get out in the end, per unit carbon dioxide, is poor. It's equivalent to burning coal in your automobile. We simply cannot be that stupid if we want to preserve a planet for our children and grandchildren.
[...]

"If released all at once, the known tar sands" would kick our 390 ppm up to 540 ppm
-- the goal is 350 ppm ... 540 is another way of saying game over.


Post em if you got em -- Facts that back up Joe the Bureaucrat vs Facts that back up James the Scientist.




EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  well maybe (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, myboo

    this will spark something ...


    Joe Versus the Volcano


    http://youtu.be/...


    "You have some time left Mr Banks

    -- Live it well."


    Is it game-over for Joe or not ... Hmmm?
  •  Here are some highlights from an article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    at Worldwatch Institute from 2007:

    producing a barrel of synthetic crude oil from the tar sands releases up to three times more greenhouse gas pollution than conventional oil
    Tar sands mining operations withdraw 2-4.5 barrels of fresh water from the [Athabasca] river for every barrel of oil they produce
    and what happens to all that fresh water?
    tar sands mining effluent becomes so contaminated that it must be impounded
    There's a whole lot more bad news about this debacle at the link above, if you can stand to read it.

    If investments were made into alternative energy development at the same levels as those being spent on tar sands projects, we might actually have a survivable environment to pass on to our children.  Imagine that.

    Now I don't mean to incite an international incident or anything, but I really thought Canadians knew better.  They will become as much the victims as the rest of us.

    And what exactly will they call the 'Great White North' when it's no longer great nor white?

    Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

    by sjburnman on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:31:54 PM PDT

    •  thanks sjburnman (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sjburnman

      appreciate the info

    •  Canadians are against the Tar Sands development (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jamess

      and the pipelines. It's like blaming the people of Nigeria for what Shell is doing to their country in collusion with their corrupt government.

      The company that owns the pipeline Transcanada is an American company. The company that operates the Tar Sands is an international company with the US as the main investor.  

      Yes Transcanada headquarters is based in Houston Texas, with a branch office in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.

      Keystone XL Pipeline is NOT Canadian

      •  Good to know (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Agathena

        TransCanada, is kind of a misnomer then.

        thanks Agathena

      •  As far as the oil sands development goes, (0+ / 0-)

        this poll from last September is in direct contradiction to your claim, to wit:

        A majority of Canadians support the development of the oilsands, a new poll has found.

        The Montreal Economic Institute had Leger Marketing poll Canadians from coast to coast for their opinions on the country's oil industry.

        Most respondents (72%) said they have a favourable view of developing the oilsands and think the best approach is to develop the resource while limiting the environmental impact. Support for this position is greatest in Alberta, where 85% think it's the best approach, and lowest in Quebec, where 67% are in favour.

        There is no environmentally friendly way to extract that oil and Canadians are smart enough to know that, and while it is not unusual for the U.S. to throw caution to the wind when it comes to environmentally damaging energy extraction, the government and the people of Canada do not have such a reprehensible history of environmental destruction in pursuit of the almighty dollar, Canadian or U.S.

        I'm not trying to pit people against people, I'm trying to understand how so many Canadian citizens can basically look the other way while huge tracts of pristine arboreal forest, the birthright of every Canadian, is permanently and irrevocably destroyed.

        We need our neighbors to the north to save us from ourselves and in the process, save themselves as well, and Canadian citizens are not nearly so powerless as are the citizens of Nigeria.

        Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

        by sjburnman on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 11:03:02 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Your poll is from last September so with all the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          jamess, sjburnman

          protesting that has happened in between it's no longer valid. I don't trust just any poll, because our government and industry are putting millions into propaganda promoting the Tar Sands.

          My poll has 48% disapproval of tar sands. It's in my diary linked above.

          I live in a district that is turning Green, I'm surrounded by environmentalists. Some Canadians are looking the other way in the rest of Canada. They are believing the hype put out by our government and millions of dollars of industry money being spent on propaganda.

          We have a Prime Minister, son of an oil man who got in with only 37% of the vote and he now has a majority in the Parliament. He has stripped our environmental regulations that were built up over the last 20 years. He has silenced our scientists, they are not allowed to speak to the media directly or they lose their jobs. He has taken away protection of our water ways so the industry has no restriction on water use. It's tragic and we are living with this everyday. So to keep seeing all these accusations about the Canadian people is very painful.

          The Canadian people in the last poll gave Harper 20% approval rating. So you see he is losing even his own base. There will be an election in two years so he has two years to further wreck our country.

          I try to highlight the loss of the boreal forest whenever I can. Environmentalists here are painfully aware of what is going on.

          Watch this video of a renown photographer, he breaks down a few times as he tells the story of the Tar Sands.

          Then there is professor Andrew Weaver also from Victoria BC

          First Nations in Canada protest through IdleNoMore. They are Canadian people and they believe in protecting the environment.

          Then there is David Suzuki. These are Canadian people, so don't generalize that all Canadians are apathetic.

          •  I apologize for causing you or anyone any pain. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            jamess

            I want you to know how very much I appreciate your input on this.

            Please also realize that I have a great deal of respect for Canadians in general (there I go generalizing again, but I think in a good way).

            It's just that I expect Canadians to be able to see through all the propaganda (unlike most of my fellow 'Americans' who tend to have much better things to think about), and I know many like yourself do.  I just hope that enough of your fellow countrymen catch on to the truth in time to stop this whole thing, and I see more indications of that possibly being the case, based on the information that you have provided here.

            Thank you Agathena for helping to set me straight, or for at least trying to do so.  I am once again impressed by a Canadian.  You surely had better things to do than spend your time trying to educate the likes of me.  I am grateful that you did.

            Skeptical scrutiny is the means, in both science and religion, by which deep thoughts can be winnowed from deep nonsense. Carl Sagan

            by sjburnman on Thu Apr 25, 2013 at 12:31:24 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  at 5:14 Joe Oliver says (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamess

    that the Canadian tar sands will produce an equivalent CO2 emission footprint as the Venezuelan heavy crude that it will displace.  This is from the earlier cited study that showed only a .3 C increase in the fully developed tar sands.

    In doing so he effectively says that the amount of CO2 produced by the Tar Sand development is zero because it would have been produced by Venezuela instead.  

    This is how he gets to such a small number.

    in addition, that value is completely false as it stands due to the production of PetCoke which is a coal-substitute produced from the bitumen refining process.  This is a valuable substance that is sold to the coal burning electrical power plants and produces MORE CO2 than the equivalent amount of coal.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site