Romney 2012?

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

No. Instead I would describe such an action as an appropriate response to the proposed permit as described in the legislation establishing the process of environmental review.

It's not the government's job to review every application and propose alternatives.

0 Replies

@Ceili,

From money.cnn.com.

Quote:

Meanwhile, one study from Cornell University said the pipeline could actually lead to a decline in jobs in the long run. One reason is that the pipeline would lead to higher fuel prices in the Midwest, the study said, and that would slow consumer spending and cost jobs.

The study also said jobs could also be lost due to crop failures or other events associated with higher pollution levels the oil sands would bring. And it said more oil would mean a decline in green jobs.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

I just read an article on the hypocritical James Cameron saying the same thing... He has over 24,000 square feet of living space powered by coal and gas fed electricity - no solar or wind power.
He owns a fleet of cars, a helicopter, a humvee, a submarine, a yacht and a private jet.
If this is a different world, why is our consumption of oil products increasing?
Why are people traveling the world on jets and cruises complaining about evil oil? Or eating peaches in December?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
However as we both know most of it involves organic and metallic contamination that is far more mobile than heavy petroleum, whichgenerally presents a far less hazardous potential to deep aquifers
Petroleum is a mix of all sorts of organics that Partition and flow at surprisingly different rates. Thats why, in a gasoline spill, one cane see that BTX components and longer chains can be held near the spill source by their higher Kd's but we all knoiw tht the lighter components and additives like MTBE and alcohols will take off like a race horse and bound out ahead of a plume. If your geologists are telling you differently, Id fire them and get more competent help.

I don't think there are any additives or alcohols in the tar sands heavy crude that this pipeline (or the others that also cross over the Ogallala aquifer) will transport.
Though I cartainly agree that popeline should be routed away from any easily permeable aresa above the aquifer.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cornell University needs a slap upside the head. The oil sands produce 5% of Canada's pollution. Coal fed electricity produces 14%.
As for higher prices... ask your self if anything in the last 20 or so years has gone down in price.
Right.. just houses caught in the housing bubble.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

From the same money.cnn article.

Quote:

The expanded pipeline is slated to carry 700,000 barrels of oil a day to U.S. refiners, about 4% of the country's daily consumption of 19 million barrels a day. That oil would technically still be imported, but from politically stable Canada.
Critics say this oil may not stay in the United States, that Canada's oil sands industry is just using the deepwater ports in the United States as means to transport the oil to China or Europe. But TransCanada says that's not true, that it has contracts with only U.S. refiners, not export terminals.
It's also the oil itself that's got environmentalists so concerned -- it's actually the main reason they are against the pipeline.
Oil from the oil sands is dirtier than conventional forms of crude. The oil sands are just that -- oil mixed with sand. To get a usable form of crude, massive amounts of water and energy are used to separate the sand from the oil.
The result is a product that has a total greenhouse gas footprint some 5% to 30% greater than conventional oil.
Extracting the oil sands is also hard on the local environment. They are often mined in huge pits, the size of which are hard to overstate. Vast swaths of forest are cut down, and nearby waterways have been polluted.
Companies that operate in the oil sands, including Exxon Mobil (XOM, Fortune 500),Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) and BP (BP), have gotten better at mitigating the effects, but problems remain.
First Published: December 13, 2011: 11:38 AM ET

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Cicerone,

Whether we like it or not the Canadians (and others) are going to produce oil from their tar sands - and it is their right to do so. If we don't import it they will build a pipeline to British Columbia and export it to China. While opponents here of that development may wish to prevent it, they don't have the ability to do so. It make no sense to inflict real and present harm on our economy and the many people whose welfare depends on it, merely to satisfy the prejudices of such an unelected (and doctrinaire) minority.

Almost all of the activities of humans to sustain their lives, including the production of the food we eat, arguably involve some (often imagined) "insult" to the environment. The fact is however that human beings are also a part of the environment and their welfare counts for something too. There are no entirely trouble free alternatives available in this area. All things considered, the benefits of the pipeline, both economic and environmental, are significant - certainly far greater than the billions wasted on Solyndra and several other like payoffs to to Democrat political contributors and the likes of Al Gore (who has made a fortune investing in various government subsidized enterprises of this type).

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Two weeks ago, I toured a plant in Ft. McMurray. They use unpotable water to extract the sand and other substances from the oil. When both are brought back to the surface, the oil is then separated from the water which is then cleaned and distilled. This plant claims a 98% retention rate on water and it's waaaaay cleaner than when they first use it. In fact, I drank a glass of the cleaned distilled water. This plant was the cleanest place I have ever been, you'd have thought they were producing milk. Farms are far dirtier. The days of holding ponds are fading.
This plant is the model which all plants are now following. Very few trees are cut and the land was littered with wild life. I saw Caribou, lynx, moose, deer, beaver, ducks, geese and so on.
Your report is almost 2 years old, and in that time many, many things have changed.

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
It is entirely natural, appropriate and beneficial for everyone that they develop, use and export them.

maybe 200 or 300 years ago

it's a different world and a different economy for everyone to get used to

Please explain. There's a lot more people in the world now, and their urvival depends on these things, and even stuff like genetically modified seeds, etc.

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Ceili wrote:

Two weeks ago, I toured a plant in Ft. McMurray. They use unpotable water to extract the sand and other substances from the oil. When both are brought back to the surface, the oil is then separated from the water which is then cleaned and distilled. This plant claims a 98% retention rate on water and it's waaaaay cleaner than when they first use it. In fact, I drank a glass of the cleaned distilled water. This plant was the cleanest place I have ever been, you'd have thought they were producing milk. Farms are far dirtier. The days of holding ponds are fading.
This plant is the model which all plants are now following. Very few trees are cut and the land was littered with wild life. I saw Caribou, lynx, moose, deer, beaver, ducks, geese and so on.
Your report is almost 2 years old, and in that time many, many things have changed.

That's true, though it will take time for the water reuse to become the dominant process. Still this very well illustrates the simple fact that there are often very effective technological solutions to the side effects ot the traditional energy processes that environmentalists so abhor. Moreover there are, as well, often equally serious environmental issues attendant to the remedies they favor - issues which they merely choose to ignore.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

I'm not denying their right to anything they do to promote their economy. I believe it only becomes our concern when it might impact our economy and/or environment.

Our country has our own laws concerning pollution and its controls. I'll leave it to the government to ensure those for our country.

What humans do are beyond the ability of this planet to sustain forever. Here again, each government will make their own laws and controls. I'm not going to worry about how humans destroy our environment, their own health, and how the world's governments play the game of economics or environment, because it's beyond my control.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Well we have ample reason to already know the earth will not last forever (in its red giant phase our sun will fry our planet). Moreover the geological record clearly establishes that mass extinctions of species (including our own) will almost certainly occur again, whether due to meteorite impact, volcanism, natural cycles of climate change or even the reduction in the strength of the earth's magnetic field, or any of several other reoccurring processes. Ir is pure (and stupid) conceit to suppose that we are even able to find ANY "forever" solutions for anything.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

We agree. As a senile senior reaching past the winter of my life, I'm just going to accept that I'm not going to control anything that has to do with religion or politics. I just feel fortunate that I have friends in many lands, and hope to enjoy their company when opportunities present them.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

So then, everything any country does to promote its economy is our concern, is that what you are saying?

After all, you are the one that keeps saying that with the global economy every country depends on every other for economic growth.
So, show,d the Us be the economic policeman of the world, or should we let each country do whatever it takes to promote their economy?
We can't do both things.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

That's because you fail to comprehend simple English, you misread things.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Pot kettle

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

You wrote,

Quote:

So then, everything any country does to promote its economy is our concern, is that what you are saying?

After all, you are the one that keeps saying that with the global economy every country depends on every other for economic growth.
So, show,d the Us be the economic policeman of the world, or should we let each country do whatever it takes to promote their economy?
We can't do both things.

What I said was "it's beyond my control, and "is our concern only when it impacts our economy or environment." How can the US be the economic policeman of the world? Your imagination always goes beyond what I post. That's the job for the WTO. How each country promotes their economy is beyond the control of the US.

What "both things" are you talking about?

BTW, georgeob, your kettle probably lacks color.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

The WTO is not the economic policeman for the world. It has no juristiction over non-members, and no preemptive authority over members - it only adjudicated disputes submitted by member states. Member states can withdraw at any time.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Best Answer - Chosen by Voters

It influences a lot the global trade. Besides being a very respected international organization, it provides the countries party to it with a forum that they could discuss and resolve their trade disputes. For example, the WTO is a way of some country that is party of the WTO to possibly sue another country (also party to the WTO) regarding some trade agreements. EX: the tuna case: Thailand v European Communities)
Besides, being party to the WTO is a very good thing for a country to do business with other countries, cause they will know that country submits itself to the WTO system, which will give them more trust to have agreements because of this possibility to solve conflicts, etc... There are really many countries party to it, around 150? (I am not sure)

You can always go to their website, it's very helpful! There are even videos about it! Good luck with your paper!
Source(s):
http://www.wto.org/index.htm

I guess you're not one of the voters.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Political party on jobs creation.

Quote:

U.S. job growth (and loss) under presidents; Democrats and Republicans
Published: Sunday, October 17, 2010, 4:08 PM Updated: Sunday, November 07, 2010, 12:03 PM
By Rich Exner, The Plain Dealer

View full sizeRich Exner / The Plain Dealer
This chart shows the change in U.S. jobs under each president from April 1945 through September 2010.
Sunday's Numbers, a weekly feature from The Plain Dealer
654,000: The net gain in jobs since the national job number hit a 10-year low of 129.6 million in December 2009, seasonally adjusted. The latest estimate of 130.2 million jobs for September is subject to possible revision as more data is collected by the Bureau of Labor Statistics..
54.2 million: The number of jobs created during the nearly 30 years in which Democrats have held the presidency, beginning with President Truman in April 1945. (Comparable BLS data is not available for full presidencies before then.)
34.6 million: The number of jobs created during the 36 years in which Republicans have controlled the White House during the same time period.

How exactly is Romney going to create 12-million jobs? Details please.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know