Skip to comments.How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?
Posted on 01/26/2013 7:51:06 PM PST by upchuck
In addition to a groundswell of opposition to the 2,700-kilometer-long Keystone pipeline, 17 of his [James Hansen] fellow climate scientists joined him in signing a letter urging Pres. Barack Obama to reject the project last week. Simply put, building the pipelineand enabling more tar sands productionruns "counter to both national and planetary interests," the researchers wrote. "The year of review that you asked for on the project made it clear exactly how pressing the climate issue really is." Obama seemed to agree in his second inaugural address this week, noting "we will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations."
At the same time, the U.S. imports nearly nine million barrels of oil per day and burns nearly a billion metric tons of coal annually. China's coal burning is even larger and continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Partially as a result, global emissions of greenhouse gases continue to grow by leaps and bounds tooand China is one alternative customer eager for the oil from Canada's tar sands. Neither developed nor developing nations will break the fossil-fuel addiction overnight, and there are still more than a billion people who would benefit from more fossil-fuel burning to help lift them out of energy poverty. The question lurking behind the fight in North America over Keystone, the tar sands and climate change generally is: How much of the planet's remaining fossil fuels can we burn?
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
How Much Will Tar Sands Oil Add to Global Warming?
In order to answer that question, seems to me we need to know two things:
1. What is the current value of global warming?
2. What is the "warming" value of tar sands?
Any guesses fellow FReepers?
BTY, if you haven't helped FR stay on the air, the time is now.
Has anybody proven Global Warming exists yet?
How much Saudi money are you getting for this story, Yahoo?
Warm us up, already.
This is one of the few times that I agree with "the researchers". In fact, this problem is so bad that we need to cut off all pipelines to major urban centers (concentration of liberals) because that is where our national interests are being abused.
Let them freeze in winter and have heat strokes in summer.
How much of global warming science is funded by Middle East or China?
Yahoo news is to the left of NBC. Very slanted and unreliable.Just another left wing advocacy site posing as journalism.
It happens every day between sunrise and sunset.
Raising hand, clearing throat...
Uh, since global warming doesn’t exist, the answer to the question would be...nothing.
The anti-pipeline excuse du jour.
It happens every day between sunrise and sunset.
In Texas, it the wierdest thing. Every March global warming seems to haunt us like clock work. Maybe it cause everyone is out to garden centers, hauling plants and dirt in their trucks and suv’s. We can’t figure it out. : )
“Any guesses fellow FReepers?”
They have worn out the warming BS so it must create the new ice age!
Some truth seeps through:
(In 2011) 1.8 million barrels per day of tar sands oil resulted in the emissions of some 47.1 million metric tons of CO2-equivalent, (and) coal-fired power plants in the U.S. emitted more than two billion metric tons of CO2-equivalent.
In other words U.S. coal emits 42X the CO2 of the oils sands. Even when oil sands production increases from 1.8 to 5.0 million barrels per day by 2030, U.S. coal will still emit 15X the CO2 of oil sands ... and the U.S. will be 3.2 million barrels per day closer to energy independence.
Even if you are a AGWbot, the oil sands are a drop in the bucket.
Oil is a wonderful fuel, with high energy density.
New fields and methods replace depleting ones.
Since global warming is a fraud and con to tax and control—zero.
Post of the month:
“Cut off all pipelines to major urban centers (concentration of liberals) because that is where our national interests are being abused.
Let them freeze in winter and have heat strokes in summer.”
Money quote:the U.S. imports nearly nine million barrels of oil per day and burns nearly a billion metric tons of coal annually. China's coal burning is even larger and continues to grow by leaps and bounds.The obvious conclusion is that we need to put pressure on China to stop burning coal. Reportedly Obama is going to put pressure on Congress to impose a carbon tax; Congress should reply with a tax on Chinese consumption of coal. That is where the growth of carbon consumption is at - and theres nothing the government in Washington can do - or even wants to do - about it.
Its much like liberals schemes to reduce gun violence. They define the problem as gun violence so they can pretend that what they want to do - disarm the public - would solve the problem. If you define the problem as violence in general, then they have to consider the real-world reasons honest people buy guns in the first place. Thousands of gun owners, in point of fact, for every annual gun murder. Which would drive you to the conclusion that the public is willing to pay for, and take trouble to secure, a "violence potential" equalizer.
If all you cared about is gun violence, you could reduce that by the mere expedient of eliminating the penalties for non-gun violence. Then muggers would spend time in the weight room so they could accomplish their violent ambitions without guns. And the victims would feel so much better, being battered by a club. </sarcasm>
In November I saw a Democrat let the cat out of the bag. The carbon tax is a trickle down tax. It is imposed on energy producers that raise their rates and then it is paid by all who buy energy.
The Democrats have painted themselves in a corner. They can’t tax the income of those who have been bought off. That is suicide. The trickle down tax gets to them. The masses who don’t pay, will pay.
For reasons I don’t know, they prefer the hidden tax to say the VAT or the Fair Tax or the Flat tax.
Oh boy, some people would get thirsty...
All of it we can recover.
What a silly question.
About the same as the last 10 years of the National Geographic...
US Refineries are investing billions of dollars into the equipment and infrastructure required to refine tar sands.
Stop tar sands now and you will set our refinery sector back 20 years and increase the price of fuel by a factor of 2 to 3.
Global warming DOES exist. It is documented.
The real question is: Does Anthropogenic (man caused) Global Warming exist?
It may or may not, and I say not. But for society to spend trillions of dollars based on the scientific evidence used to buttress their claims so far is absolutely ridiculous.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming Movement is merely a global scheme to redistribute wealth and inhibit industry and other human endeavors to satisfy the environmentalists and those who would benefit from the huge sums of money extracted from those who have any wealth or possessions worth taking.
And with liberals, any wealth or possessions accrued to an individual at all are worth taking, no matter how small. In the deep recesses of their limbic reptilian liberal brains, the thought of personal property is anathema.
Compared to what nature throws into the atmosphere through natural processes, our use of oil is a comparative drop in the bucket.
And if it IS a Scientific American article, well, we all know what they are all about. They are all in on it.
A GREAT book on this subject is “Red Hot Lies” by Christopher Horner.