View topic - Are you a member of an Environmental or other radical group

It is currently November 15th, 2019, 12:38 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Are you a member of a enviromental or "other" radiclal group
Yes 83%  83%  [ 20 ]
No 17%  17%  [ 4 ]
Total votes : 24
Author Message
PostPosted: August 12th, 2012, 3:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: October 6th, 2005, 8:02 am
Posts: 525
Location: a bit south ofWinnipeg
ravenlunatic wrote:
On the way back from canoe trip today, I tuned in to CBC radio. A guy was talking about his book (which of course I cannot recall the title) however one interesting part I recall was his observation that the Clinton administration told people (at the time) - "the world is in a crisis...do without" "Turn down your heat, wear mittens and sweaters in the house and live in the dark". People did it for a while - but after a while became apathetic (the world is always coming to an end) - so they turned the heat back up and decided environmentalism was for "radicals". Not only did Clinton fail to make positive change (according to the author), the concept of deprivation and discomfort became attached to being environmentally conscientious.

His view: Clinton set back environmentalism 50 years.


Actually he said the Carter administration not Clinton! You need to get these right as it changes the whole context of the discussion!

I think he was being pretty hard on Carter. The technological alternatives were pretty few and far between in the mid-70's. No low energy bulbs and the US car companies were not exactly producing a wide range of low consumption cars ( I would argue they still aren't but are pretending to!) For a US president to advocate buying Japanese was not exactly an option...

Chris

_________________
http://www.canoepaddler.net


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 12th, 2012, 3:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 16th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1488
Location: Ontario, Canada
frozentripper wrote:
Tripper, the vids will have to wait since the rusty pipes out here are too narrow... maybe there's some text on the developments.
Did you watch the videos FT? Enbridge was pumping tar sands oil through those pipes in Kalamazzo. Pipes not designed to handle tar sands oil that has to be thinned out with chemicals in order to pump it. Yet they told the residents and provided MSDS sheets to the local emergency authorities that said it was just light crude.

Tar-sands oil is called bitumen. And it is very, very thick and abrasive. Far to thick too pump through a pipeline. And bitumen does not float in water. It sinks.

Bitumen is so thick (about the consistency of peanut butter) that it doesn’t flow from a well like the crude oil does. Instead the bitumen is either steamed or strip-mined from sandy soil. Then it is thinned (by about 30 percent) with large quantities of liquid chemicals so it can be pumped through pipelines. These dilutents usually include benzene, a known human carcinogen. At this point it becomes diluted bitumen, or dilbit.

If the NG Pipeline is built the spills that will happen (not if) will contain many more chemicals than just good old light grade oil. The spills will sicken and kill many like it did in Kalamazzo. And kill off local fish and wildlife.

And Enbridge will not be a good corporate citizen and look after those people or the environment properly so long as in doing so it affects their bottom line. Just as they did in Kalamazzo.

Watch the videos FT. Forget the text.

_________________
The Wilderness needs strong voices to protect it. And yours can be one of them.
Visit the Friends of Temagami website to learn more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 12th, 2012, 3:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6140
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Tripper, by "rusty pipes being too narrow" to watch the vids, I meant that there's no high-speed internet (no fiberoptics cable, the fat pipe)... I'll try and see the vids in town where that's possible without taking forever.

Thanks for explaning the problems.

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 12th, 2012, 6:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 16th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1488
Location: Ontario, Canada
Often on forums the intent of a reply can get lost. Your post and my reply are a prime examples.

Sorry FT. I thought you meant the oil line pipes. My mistake.

Dave

_________________
The Wilderness needs strong voices to protect it. And yours can be one of them.
Visit the Friends of Temagami website to learn more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13th, 2012, 6:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: September 9th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 554
Location: Kemble, Ontario Canada
I just read on Wordsmith that Norway does not allow polictical or religious advertising on their TV. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Canada does have truth in advertising laws.
So I belong to a few "Radical" on line groups and the Liberal Party of Canada. My guess is that if , you don't agree with me your group is radical,is the offical mindset.
Enough from me.
Stay safe
OAF


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13th, 2012, 7:36 am 
Offline

Joined: November 20th, 2011, 7:16 am
Posts: 173
chris randall wrote:
Actually he said the Carter administration not Clinton! You need to get these right as it changes the whole context of the discussion!


Thanks for correcting me. I was driving, tuned in, and caught the balance of the interview.
chris randall wrote:
I think he was being pretty hard on Carter.


Given the fact I cannot even get the name right, :oops: regarding your response, my view is this:

chris randall wrote:
The technological alternatives were pretty few and far between in the mid-70's. No low energy bulbs and the US car companies were not exactly producing a wide range of low consumption cars ( I would argue they still aren't but are pretending to!) For a US president to advocate buying Japanese was not exactly an option...

Chris


Had the low energy bulb been available back then - what would it have accomplished?

I don't know if there are any stats available that can be trusted, but it seems to me, these "small fixes" seem to be more like free passes for wealthy people who then justify their bloated over-sized homes as "environmentally friendly" and the obscene carbon footprint is forgotten.

Putting 400 LE bulbs in your home, leaving them on night and day because it looks nice and its sooooo efficient
:-?

(Hint: I live in an area near large bloated, over-sized homes and my observations although anecdotal, are accurate :D )

How many low-income homes can afford a LE lightbulb? And if they only have 10 Lamps in the whole house - does that offset the 400 per home used by the rich?

Regarding cars - if a head of state cannot advocate for the right choice, (ie Japanese economy car), then why advocate at all.

Why not advocate for horse and cart then? Why bother insulting the average person's intelligence by duping them out of their hard-earned dollars to buy a vehicle that is the equivalent of the modern day Edsel? And you know that the target market is the middle-class.

Anyway, I think his point was as simple as this: People raised in a capitalist culture won't choose suffering and deprivation to save the environment -and these types of policies have lead to the view that environmentalists are "radicals" (my word...) and (bluntly speaking) deluded.

But (his point) capitalism can influence what China does and (again if I recall correctly) Natural gas provides the same amount of energy as oil - at a fraction of the CO2 emission - and this is a market that is being shaped by us.

Order of magnitude and all that stuff.

Enough said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13th, 2012, 8:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6140
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
Idylwyld, I suggested another round of beers after the State Dept delayed the decision on Keystone... you got yours earlier on, now it's the reroute approval in question... the drought up here <gasp> has made things mighty thirsty.

TransCanada pipe has been pipelining for a long time now and they probably have enough smarts to know whether spending the dollars on the southern portion of Keystone is money well spent. My bet is the pipeline will be built after the election with either the Republicans or the Democrats in power since the economy is the major issue now, and the economic revitalization with jobs, energy security, business growth and money circulating through to consumers can't be ignored.

Raven,

Quote:
Natural gas provides the same amount of energy as oil - at a fraction of the CO2 emission...


Burning NG to produce oil from the oil sands results in a net gain of energy brought to market, there is several times more energy in the oil than in the NG needed to produce it. But the CO2 emissions are bad, since CO2 is produced when burning the NG to produce oil and then again when the oil products are burned by consumers.

I've given up on oil sands worries, the development seems inevitable with the thirst for oil that's in North America and the rest of the world.

Quote:
Anyway, I think his point was as simple as this: People raised in a capitalist culture won't choose suffering and deprivation to save the environment


There's so much security and comfort tied up in the use of oil, any reductions in supply will cause trouble (eg. all that howling at the price at the pump). My feeling is, if it comes to a choice between driving the SUV to the mall for the latest Apple hypnotizer, and saving polar bears, the polar bears lose.

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13th, 2012, 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: November 20th, 2011, 7:16 am
Posts: 173
Googled. The guy was Richard Muller.

And it seems he has lots of detractors. Lesson learned: The world is doomed so we might as well turn on the lights.

:)

http://atomicinsights.com/2012/08/richa ... stume.html

Quote:
Richard Muller is marketing natural gas in a “converted skeptic” costume.

he consistently stated that there were just two things that society could do to slow global warming. We can continue a worldwide effort towards conservation and energy efficiency and we can convert as much electricity generation as possible from coal to natural gas. According to Muller, natural gas is the only replacement for coal that rapidly growing countries like China and India can afford.

He is apparently unaware of the fact that natural gas is a limited quantity fuel source that requires not only a substantial industrial effort for the drilling process but also a massive infrastructure investment for pipelines and other delivery systems. Since he is speaking to American audiences, he seems to believe that none of us know that natural gas prices are 3-6 times as high outside of North American as they are inside. He also made the startlingly incorrect claim that burning natural gas produces only 1/3 as much CO2 as burning coal.

The heavy promotion of natural gas, and the absence of the ‘N’ word spoke volumes and made me look deeper into Muller’s background and funding sources.

I found something else that Muller has in common with Amory Lovins. They both receive a large portion of their funds from the oil and gas industry or from individuals who make their money from the business of financing, finding, extracting, transporting, refining and distributing hydrocarbon based fuels to a worldwide market that exceeds three trillion dollars per year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13th, 2012, 10:05 am 
Offline

Joined: March 19th, 2010, 2:02 pm
Posts: 51
Tripper wrote:
frozentripper wrote:
Tripper, the vids will have to wait since the rusty pipes out here are too narrow... maybe there's some text on the developments.
Did you watch the videos FT? Enbridge was pumping tar sands oil through those pipes in Kalamazzo. Pipes not designed to handle tar sands oil that has to be thinned out with chemicals in order to pump it. Yet they told the residents and provided MSDS sheets to the local emergency authorities that said it was just light crude.

Tar-sands oil is called bitumen. And it is very, very thick and abrasive. Far to thick too pump through a pipeline. And bitumen does not float in water. It sinks.

Bitumen is so thick (about the consistency of peanut butter) that it doesn’t flow from a well like the crude oil does. Instead the bitumen is either steamed or strip-mined from sandy soil. Then it is thinned (by about 30 percent) with large quantities of liquid chemicals so it can be pumped through pipelines. These dilutents usually include benzene, a known human carcinogen. At this point it becomes diluted bitumen, or dilbit.

If the NG Pipeline is built the spills that will happen (not if) will contain many more chemicals than just good old light grade oil. The spills will sicken and kill many like it did in Kalamazzo. And kill off local fish and wildlife.

And Enbridge will not be a good corporate citizen and look after those people or the environment properly so long as in doing so it affects their bottom line. Just as they did in Kalamazzo.

Watch the videos FT. Forget the text.



Can we please stick to the facts. Normal gasoline DOES contain benzene, and dilbit does NOT contain more chemicals than normal crude. A typical gasoline has over 500 compunds in it.

No one was killed in Kalamazoo.

You don't add credibility to your argument with exaggeration and outright fabrication.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13th, 2012, 11:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
ravenlunatic wrote:
Anyway, I think his point was as simple as this: People raised in a capitalist culture won't choose suffering and deprivation to save the environment -and these types of policies have lead to the view that environmentalists are "radicals" (my word...) and (bluntly speaking) deluded.

Environmentalism, to be completely honest, has nothing to do with deprivation or living without. It also has nothing to do with high costs and paying more for the same (in the long run, or with externalities in the mix). This has always been the rebuttal of opponents and a straw man argument by those who would call environmentalists "radicals" and "extremists." I'm still quite surprised that this rhetoric is still around.

Since Carter, environmentalism has moved out of the wings (as a fringe movement) and into the mainstream (much moreso than in the past). I'm not sure what evidence could be supplied to the contrary, but it would likely be very weak (or point to rapidly developing emerging economies, and places like India or China that do not yet have very strong, widespread, or powerful environmental controls or constituencies). And even that is changing with consumer behavior in those countries, and expansion of civil society, democratic accountability, and broader involvement of local non-governmental groups.

In the past, I've worked in my city on climate change mitigation programs in low income communities (in communities formerly dominated by steel mills), and the best argument that can be made has to do with immediate cost savings (that add up to major cost savings over the long run). People also understand the relationship between lower emissions from power plants, energy conservation, and renewables and better health for their communities, and lower asthma rates for their kids (which are off the charts in some communities). The oldest coal plant in our area is shutting down soon, and with it the storage and transportation of coal that blows contaminants (24/7) through these neighborhoods. The community has also been successful shutting down landfill expansion in the area (Southside was targeted for unprecedented expansion of landfills), and lakeshore development that benefits high end developers and not working class families. There is more greenspace in the Southside than anywhere else in the city (because of the buffer zones for the steel mills), and manufacturing is currently rebounding in the area (along with new businesses and ecotourism opportunities) in a better balance between jobs and environment. Manufacturing is environmentalism too, and it's heavy industry in the Southside that is leading investment in parks, environmental education, community health initiatives, job training, and youth services.

Ultimately, lower consumer costs, fewer externalities, fewer risks, lower taxpayer cost, and greater energy security and reliability are the main drivers for a cleaner and healthier environment. Oak Park Illinois has a 100% renewable electricity option (through energy aggregation contracts) for small business and residents, and the program costs less than electricity from conventional sources (saving consumers 15% on costs, or $4.5 - 4.6 million annually for ratepayers in the program). Chicago and Evanston are on the verge of voting for the same. And all of those squiggly light bulbs, terrific ways to save some money and lower your energy use. This probably isn't the best site (because it is in euros), but Germany is leading in conservation efforts these days. Some estimated savings for a family of four paying $765 euro/year for 4,500 kWh of electricity: CFLs (9.7%), efficient household appliances (7.9%), modern heat pump (6.9%), no phantom loads (5.9%). More of the same for heat savings: insulation (35.7%), window replacement (15.8%), heating system (10.2%), consumer behavior (9.8%), and more. These are middle class households, not greenwashing for rich suburban homes. In neighborhoods with old housing stock, these savings can make or break a family, help pay down debt, or send a kid to school (and have lower impacts on the environment as well).

Not sure where Muller is coming from, but it doesn't sound like today's world to me. He still sounds like a industry funded bystander working his connections to get us all back on the fossil fuel treadmill counting each step to the next rate hike, fuel crisis, supply chain disruption, or international crisis. Basically asking future generations to pay tomorrow the price for the electricity we are unwilling to pay today. The status-quo is no foundation to build a cost-effective, sustainable, and credible energy system for tomorrow (and especially one that involves the planet as a whole, takes into account limited supplies of non-renewable resources, or has the environment as a dominant value or concern).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13th, 2012, 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: April 16th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 1488
Location: Ontario, Canada
ChrisCanoes wrote:
Can we please stick to the facts. Normal gasoline DOES contain benzene, and dilbit does NOT contain more chemicals than normal crude. A typical gasoline has over 500 compunds in it.
I never said that gasoline didn't contain benzene. What I did say is that it is added in very large quantities to the tar sands oil in order to thin it out enough to pump.

Tar sands oil is nothing like crude oil at all. Crude oil is fluid enough on it's own to pump. Tar sands oil is not.
Quote:
The heavy crude oil or crude bitumen extracted from oil sands is a viscous solid or semisolid form that does not easily flow at normal oil pipeline temperatures, making it difficult to transport to market and expensive to process into gasoline, diesel fuel, and other products.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

The benzene and other chemicals are added in large enough quantities to thin it out for pumping which in turn makes tar sands oil far more toxic than normal crude.

That sir is fact. Like it or not.

_________________
The Wilderness needs strong voices to protect it. And yours can be one of them.
Visit the Friends of Temagami website to learn more.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 13th, 2012, 11:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: September 29th, 2005, 5:57 pm
Posts: 598
I always regret posting in the Environment forum, but Tripper's facts are not.

"Benzene" and "chemicals" are not added to bitumen as a diluent. Light hydrocarbons are. While many diluents can and have been used, the most common is widely called "condensate", light hydrocarbons (pentanes plus)recovered in natural gas processing. The principal condensate stream (CRW) has had an average benzene content (by volume) of 0.88% over the past 5 years. If you are interested in the other components of condensate, try Googling "Crude Monitor".

Over the past 5 years the percentages by volume of benzene contained in Western Canada's two largest blended bitumen streams - Western Canadian Select (WCS) and Cold Lake Blend (CLB) have been 0.16% and 0.23% respectively. By comparison, the benzene content in Western Canadian light sweet crude has been about 0.29%

I believe the gasoline benzene content limit in Canada is about 1.0%. As of 2013, in the US, it will be 0.62% (including benzene credits) or 1.3% without credits.

If you don't like bitumen, you need to find a reason other than benzene.

-jmc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 14th, 2012, 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: December 29th, 2002, 7:00 pm
Posts: 6140
Location: Bancroft, Ontario Canada
I posted on Muller, the transformed climate change skeptic, earlier on in the drought thread, nobody <sob> read it or cared.

Natural gas has some real environmental benefits when converting coal-fired electrical generation, or switching diesel-powered trucks and buses, to NG. What neither the Republicans or the Democrats can afford to ignore is something else.

Quote:
America's Energy Seen Adding 3.6 Million Jobs Along With 3% GDP

By Asjylyn Loder
Bloomberg – Mon, Aug 13, 2012 12:00 AM EDT


...

It's a harbinger of a nationwide investment boom spreading from the oil fields of North Dakota and the Marcellus gas shale in Pennsylvania to power plants in California and chemical refiners in Texas. A surge in U.S. natural gas development has spurred $226 billion in spending plans on pipelines, storage, processing facilities and power plants, most slated for the next five years, according to Industrial Info Resources, a market- intelligence provider in Sugar Land, Texas.

U.S. energy supplies have been transformed in less than a decade, driven by advances in technology, and the economic implications are only beginning to be understood. U.S. natural gas production will expand to a record this year and oil output swelled in July to its highest point since 1999. Citigroup Inc. (C) estimated in a March report that a "reindustrialization" of America could add as many as 3.6 million jobs by 2020 and increase the gross domestic product by as much as 3 percent.

...

...there are signs the economic gains have begun to expand beyond the oil and gas fields and that the promise of abundant, low-cost fuels will give a competitive edge to industries from steel, aluminum and automobiles to fertilizers and chemicals.

Jobs Debate

That would provide a boost to a U.S. manufacturing sector that has lost 5.12 million jobs since 2001 and become the focus of a national debate over how to revive factory employment. Manufacturers have added 532,000 jobs since January 2010 as the economy started to recover, Bureau of Labor Statistics data show.

...

Cheaper Energy

Increased production and swelling domestic stockpiles have helped make U.S. energy cheaper than in other countries. U.S. oil futures have slid to a $20 a barrel discount to London- traded Brent, a benchmark for more than half the world's oil. Natural gas in the U.S. fell to $1.902 per million British thermal units in April, the lowest in a decade. The fuel costs almost three times as much in the U.K. and more than five times as much in Japan.

"This is one of those rare opportunities that every country looks for and few ever get," said Philip Verleger, a former director of the office of energy policy at the U.S. Treasury Department and founder of PKVerleger LLC, a consulting firm in Carbondale, Colorado. "This abundance of energy gives us an opportunity to rebuild our economy."

Cycle of Growth

Verleger envisages a virtuous cycle of economic growth as producers, flush with cash from oil and gas sales, will buy more equipment and put more people to work, while low-cost energy puts cash back in consumers' pockets, stimulating spending.


...


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/americas- ... 30572.html

_________________
><((((º>


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 14th, 2012, 10:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: June 11th, 2005, 11:19 am
Posts: 1870
Location: Boise, ID
frozentripper wrote:
What neither the Republicans or the Democrats can afford to ignore is something else.

I say we should ignore it almost entirely. Between 2007-2011, jobs related to oil and natural gas extraction in the US increased by only 28,000. An additional 45,000 were added in mining support activities ... and most of them in three States (rather than broadly across the country): Texas, Pennsylvania, and N. Dakota.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/jobs/pos ... one-looney

In contrast, clean tech (Solar, Wind, Conservation, Mass Transit, Waste Management, Regulation and Compliance, Recycling, much more) has been the fastest growing sector of the economy (growing at 8.3% from 2008 - 2009). From 2003 - 2010, clean tech added half a million jobs, and were not concentrated in a single region). All regions benefited (urban/rural, north/south, west/east, etc.). Clean tech is also manufacturing and export intensive, adding additional value to the economy. Median wage is 13% higher than average economy (so they are good paying jobs). And they are also jobs helping an ailing construction sector, much needed after the crash of the housing bubble. There is much good news here, and by contrast new jobs in the oil and natural gas patch appear to be a drop in the bucket.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/1 ... ergy-jobs/

http://www.brookings.edu/research/repor ... an-economy

Image

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 14th, 2012, 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: November 20th, 2011, 7:16 am
Posts: 173
idylwyld wrote:

In contrast, clean tech (Solar, Wind, Conservation, Mass Transit, Waste Management, Regulation and Compliance, Recycling, much more) has been the fastest growing sector of the economy (growing at 8.3% from 2008 - 2009). From 2003 - 2010, clean tech added half a million jobs, and were not concentrated in a single region). All regions benefited (urban/rural, north/south, west/east, etc.). Clean tech is also manufacturing and export intensive, adding additional value to the economy. Median wage is 13% higher than average economy (so they are good paying jobs). And they are also jobs helping an ailing construction sector, much needed after the crash of the housing bubble. There is much good news here, and by contrast new jobs in the oil and natural gas patch appear to be a drop in the bucket.



I can only conclude the source you quoted has never traveled to northern Ontario, talked to the communities involved living next to windmills, nor have they actually investigated the real cost/benefits, including identifying actual profits made and where they flow (out of the province), and other fascinating fine points of wind generation (windmills) .

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 50 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group