Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Taking It To The Streets

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:38 PM
Original message
Taking It To The Streets

NASA scientist and global climate change awareness activist James Hansen spoke at the National Press Club on Monday in opposition to the proposed Keystone XL a 1700-mile, $7 billion pipeline which would carry heavy crude oil from tar sand mines in Alberta, Canada, to refineries along the Texas and Louisiana coasts.

Hansen says the oil produced through this unconventional fossil fuel process is extremely dirty stuff. In its place, he supports instituting a $10 a ton tax on carbon for 10 years and giving these monies ($600 billion by his estimation) to American families to offset the costs of alternative energy sources. Tax carbon and give the money to the people. That would stimulate the economy, he says in response to a question about the jobs the pipeline project would create. He believes that giving money directly to families (he says between $6000 to $9000 per year) is better than previously pursued cap and trade policies that would be overtaken by big bank trading instruments.

He is joining several religious leaders today in Washington protesting the Keystone XL pipeline project. Their efforts are to draw attention to the moral duty to preserve creation.

He says in his meeting with Senator John Kerry about these issues, the senator called his ideas unrealistic. With the Obama administrations support for the pipeline and leading Republican presidential candidates who do not believe global warning exists or, if it does, humans do not contribute to it, he is turning his attention away from politics and to grassroots advocacy to educate the public on climate change issues.

Hansen says the country is falling behind on alternative energy research and countries like China are investing in future technologies like solar, wind and nuclear. As a physicist, he supports pursuing fourth generation nuclear reactors as one of the few on-demand power sources that could meet the worlds energy needs. He believes new reactor designs will produce less waste that is dangerous only for decades rather than the waste current reactors generate that is dangerous for centuries and for which there is no permanent storage facility.

Read more at The Washington Post and The New York Times.

Read more:

As I read about this issue developing I didn't know the route the Keystone XL pipeline would traverse:The Keystone XL pipeline, if approved by the administration, would carry 900,000 barrels of oil each day from the tar sands in Alberta, Canada through the American heartland to refineries in the Texas Gulf Coast. Its path would cross over 70 rivers and streams, including the Missouri, Yellowstone, and Arkansas. It would also traverse the Ogallala Aquifer, which yields about one third of the groundwater used to irrigate US crops, supports $20 billion in agriculture, and supplies potable water to about 2 million people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
villager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 12:55 PM
Response to Original message
1. it would sort of be the capper in this administration's long record of steaming environmental fail
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
on point Donating Member (613 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. As a civilization with limited resources, we must spend it more wisely
This pipeline is not only bad for the environment, delivers only a short term oil fix, and worsens Climate change, but it also sucks up capital and resources that would be better spent on other things like mass transit, or green energy research and development.

We have limited resources and we are squandering it on completely the wrong things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:13 PM
Response to Original message
3. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just build a refinery in Alberta?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
comtec Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:22 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. texas is probably the closest placve with weak enough environmental laws to even ALLOW this
I've heard processing tar sands is EPIC FAIL on the environmental side of things...
that it I pity who ever lives even peripherally near the factories.

It makes me wonder if they're TRYING to kill us all at this point.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
midnight Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Aug-29-11 01:51 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. It is not clear what they are trying to do... But allowing the ground water that would be used for
growing food is very curious....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Jan 19th 2018, 09:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC