President Obama's recent remarks on climate change contained a comment about the heavily politicized Keystone Pipeline project that many found surprising. Mr. Obama said he would approve the remaining portion of the 1,700-mile pipeline from Alberta to Gulf Coast refineries only if it would not “significantly exacerbate” the problem of carbon pollution. He added that the pipeline’s net effects on the climate would be “absolutely critical” to his decision whether to allow it to proceed.
What's interesting about the debate over this project is that it doesn't really take the usually left-right argument. There are people on the left that support it for the increase in jobs as well as people who are against it for environmental concerns. There are people on the right that support it for oil profits as well as people that are against it for reasons of eminent domain. It's a mixed bag.
It's also important to note that the State Department’s most recent environmental assessment of Keystone concluded that the pipeline would not result in a major increase in carbon emissions.
The report said that the oil would be extracted whether the pipeline was built or not, and that it could be transported by other, more carbon-intensive means like trucks or rail cars in the absence of Keystone.
Critics say that is an unrealistic conclusion, citing studies saying Canada does not currently have the rail or highway capacity to move the 830,000 barrels of oil a day that Keystone XL is designed to carry. Factcheck has a great piece on how this surplus in oil will actually be a surplus on top of surplus. Just because we build more mailboxes doesn't mean we are going to get more mail.
Given all of this, it's easy to see that there is much to weigh here before making a final decision. I don't envy the president and think it prudent to not rush in like an (ahem) adolescent and support this just CUZ IT'S OIL AND MONEY AND SHIT, FUCKERS!! At the same time, I don't think having a knee jerk reaction against does anyone any good either.
A thorough cost-benefit analysis is the order of the day and I will reserve my judgement until that process plays out.
21 comments:
And then there are those who think if they stick their heads in the tar-sands, the oil won't matter anymore because someone will develop plentiful non-polluting energy from unicorn farts.
I suspect the companies actually building the pipeline have done far more extensive cost-benefit analysis than the State Department and EPA could even dream of doing. After all, it's their money on the line. If it's not cost-effective, it will get shut down and there's a 3' diameter pipe running through the countryside waiting to be scrapped. So what?
For Canada not being able to transport that amount of tar-sands oil to the US, you do realize that that's just for now? Infrastructure can be built, after all. Just like a pipeline. Though if Keystone isn't approved, Canada will likely build a pipeline to the Pacific. One way or another, they'll sell the oil.
For the existing pipelines, where are they located? Are they already in locations where tar-sands oil is being extracted? No, they're not. Pipelines will have to be built from the tar-sands to these other pipelines. How many pipelines add up to this aggregate 1,000,000 bbl/day unused capacity? How many feeder lines would have to be built? Would this actually be more expensive than just building Keystone XL? What about the very desirable property of excess capacity? Pumping stations can go offline, maintenance must be performed from time to time. If everything is running at 100% capacity, that's a precarious situation because there's no margin at all for problems.
juris, I am truly going to enjoy our advances in technology in the next ten years. Will you?
Larry, do you think that they did an assessment on the social costs?
Will you?
Hell no. If you ask me they haven't improved on whale oil with all this newfangled nonsense. If I need to cook, burning wood is what god himself intended for us to use.
You are a very dull child, I trust you know that.
Yet more fallout on PPACA.
The goal here is plain as day. The Obama administration is laser-focused on making sure that enough Americans enroll onto Obamacare-subsidized health insurance platforms, because if they do, it will be politically impossible for Republicans to repeal Obamacare in the future.
Politics ain’t beanbag, they say. But deliberately encouraging tens of billions of dollars of waste, fraud, and abuse in order to achieve a political objective is profoundly immoral. It’s a breach of faith with the hard-working taxpayers whose paychecks are being harnessed to a cause many of them don’t support.
Standard operating procedure for Team Obama.
Please strictly define "social costs". That's such a vague concept it's almost meaningless. Of course, that's why social engineers and other statists (both left and right) love such nebulous phrases, since they can be made to mean whatever they need/want them to mean at any given moment.
Social costs would be any sort of pollution to the area as result of the pipeline. One should also consider people who are losing their property as a result of the pipeline's northern route as well as where exactly the oil is going to go. Here or abroad?
Calculating social costs is ECON 101, btw, and not some vague concept. Principle #7, Mankiw and Chapter 10 of his MicroEcon book.
Social costs are a macro-econ concept. The more you claim to have learned from Mankiw, the less I respect the man.
Well, Mark, based on long experience reading you, nailing down what definition you're using before proceeding any further is absolutely necessary. Your 'definitions' are often, shall we say, idiosyncratic -- even when they're not downright eel-like in their writhing slipperiness.
The vast majority of land required has been freely purchased. I think the use or threat of use of eminent domain is highly questionable. However, your favorite Supreme Court justices voted against Kelo's rights to her property as opposed to "rights" of the town to get more taxes by forcing sale to someone else, so I'm wondering what you might think the problem is? Didn't land and home owners of land drowned by great government dams have to suffer for the greater good?
Would you rather have the tar-sand oil moved by expanded railroads? Because it will be moved, one way or another. Warren Buffet's Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railroad is making LOTS of money hauling oil from the Bakken deposits, and also the Alberta tar-sands. Huh, one of Obama's biggest supporters/boosters wins big on this? Does it mean anything? I don't know, but it seems he knew something other people didn't when he bought BNSF for more than analysts thought it was worth. He turned out to be right. Lord knows if it the President and Buffet were both Republicans, you'd be whining and moaning and bitching, and Nikto would have to peeled off the ceiling with a metal spatula.
I don't like the way Texas handles eminent domain for oil/gas pipelines, but that's a matter for Texans to resolve, not Minnesotans.
Well, maybe you should read his textbook, juris. Or you could just dither and continue to offer criticism for work with which you are unfamiliar as you have been doing with Stiglitz. Are you worried that if you read either you might (gasp!) change your mind about your set in granite ideology?
Your 'definitions' are often, shall we say, idiosyncratic -- even when they're not downright eel-like in their writhing slipperiness.
Meaning, you don't like the facts of what I have presented so we're back to an examination of my alleged traits (what do you call that again?:)and not the actual material. Every time with you guys...
Would you rather have the tar-sand oil moved by expanded railroads?
See? Now if you had just left out the first paragraph you would have made a comment that actually addressed the issues. Actually, I'm not sure about railroads...
http://news.yahoo.com/40-still-missing-deadly-canada-141824123.html
Meaning, you don't like the facts of what I have presented so we're back to an examination of my alleged traits (what do you call that again?:)and not the actual material.
Meaning asking you to define WHAT YOU USE AS A DEFINITION is necessary because YOU like to have words mean what you say they mean when you mean them....
So before one can like or not like the 'facts' that you present, one must figure out exactly what YOU mean and define as those 'facts'. Otherwise, after arguing for weeks, you throw out some BS 'I meant that all along' line....
That's not an alleged character trait, that's a long-observed behavior, Mr. Verbatim. It was just a simple, straightforward question without any snark. I got a snide, condescending answer in return. So, yes, I responded snarkily, but with wholly accurate snark.
See? Now if you had just left out the first paragraph you would have made a comment that actually addressed the issues. Actually, I'm not sure about railroads...
Umm, I think my comment actually did address the issues regardless of whether you approve of that first part. Your answer to the question did address my question, even if the second part was pure snottiness. I don't see where you have any room to complain, sir.
None of you from TSM are capable of making a comment without some sort of personal remark about me. The reason for this is that you know that your position on most of these issues is weak so you think a a little extra bark will make your position stronger.
It doesn't.
Neither of my first two comments had a word to say about you. Go read them and tell me where there is anything personal about you AT ALL. Please do right now, if you please.
And my last comment only pointed out that it's a bit rich for you of all people to be complaining.
The reason for this is that the standard responses you use are proven true time and time again. Stop doing that and you may find people react to you differently.
On the other hand, you can continue to ignore it and blame others for your own faults.
Are you worried that if you read either you might (gasp!) change your mind about your set in granite ideology?
I studied more than introductory micro-econ numbnuts. I have to suspect that you butcher Mankiw as badly as you have Stiglitz.
If you recall, I have agreed with a number of Stiglitz's observations - but disagree as to his diagnoses. You can't make an intelligent argument based on what he wrote, you just quote it (or as often as not, misquote it) and say "see what HE says!" I believe I pretty much gave up with you when you could not define social fabric which liberal/proggies are all a-feared is frayin'. Like your religious beliefs, you can't really say what, how or why - you just accept that it satisfies you.
that you butcher
you have Stiglitz.
You can't make an intelligent argument
you just quote it
gave up with you when you could not define
your religious beliefs
you can't really say what
you just accept that it satisfies you/
Wow, you guys are right. I was way off on that whole ad hom thing...
that you butcher
Observation.
you have Stiglitz.
Observation.
You can't make an intelligent argument
Observation.
you just quote it
Observation.
gave up with you when you could not define
Observation.
your religious beliefs
Observation.
you can't really say what
Observation.
you just accept that it satisfies you
Observation.
I was way off on that whole ad hom thing...
Way off as in not having any clue what an ad hom actually is.
Well, here is the defintion.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
Person A makes claim X. (That would be me making a claim about social costs)
Person B makes an attack on person A. (juris saying that I don't know how to construct an argument and have "religious beliefs")
Therefore A's claim is false (which juris claims is the case)
What liberals or proggies do or how they construct an argument is irrelevant. Rebut the facts as I present them and, if I am as bad as you say I am, it should be easy, right?
But it isn't because of reality and that's why you guys fall back to ad hom. No wonder you guys are so obsessed with logical fallacies....you use them all the time and, as you always do, head off at the pass!
Childish and dishonest. I think it is funny how furiously you project your own inadequacies upon others.
Post a Comment