[ROCKMAN]

Timo - As I kept trying to beat into Graeme: you don't have to give up on the war but when you've lost one battle (as with the Keystone XLPL) time would better spent on battles you might win IMHO. You may remember that shipping all that Canadian oil into the US plays against my financial interests. I can assure you that most US companies pray for the success of environmentalists to halt the development of the oil sands. But we also know that's a foolish hope.

Think about all the press coverage KXL got. All for nothing IMHO and distracted from any other conversations that might have taken place. More oil than ever before was shipped down from the oil sands fields in 2012 despite the environmental chorus opposing it. And done without the border crossing permit from the POTUS...the "cornerstone" of the opposition against KXL. More is expected to be shipped by the end of 2013 than was shipped in 2012. A 700,000 bopd pipeline from Cushing to the Texas coast in just a few days from completion thus alleviating the one big bottle neck to expanding oil sand production.

This is the pipeline that President Obama went on national TV and told the country that this p/l was vital to our economic interests and instructed all his departments to do whatever they could to expedite its construction. It will be completed several months ahead of schedule. He gave that speech in the pipeline construction yard standing in front of a very large stack of pipeline sections. And this is the man many of you are looking for support in your efforts to stop oil sands production? About $20 billion worth of new pipelines and rail transport systems are planned to move even more oil sands production out of Alberta including to the west and east coast where very hungry markets, including China, await.

With that said do you think it’s a good use of resources to battle the expansion of the oil sands given that the Canadian and US govts fully support it? That the vast majority of Canadian and US citizens either support it or at least don’t really oppose it? That Canadian companies are spending many $billions to expand development? That Canadian railroads are now willing to spend $billions to compete with pipelines to transport the oil? And lastly, the Chinese govt will loan tens of $billions to help fund the transport and refining of that oil? Trust me: none of those facts make me happy either.

I think most understand the environmental forces are dirt poor compared to the industry. And are typically only given lip service by TPTB. So tell me what benefit you see, other than some illusionary self-satisfaction, there is in battling the Canadian oil sands. If in your heart or Lore’s you think there is benefit I’ll accept those feelings on face value and wish you a continued good fight.

Honestly.

[Timo]

Rock, don't think that i'm dismissing your argument. I get it. Economics trumps rational thought. That's just the way the world works. The problem, is, or my problem, anyway, is that there are literally so many fights to fight and every single one of them is an uphill battle against way more powerful interests than i can even hope to match. The frustration is in witnessing humanity collectively abandon rational thought to the detriment of the planet we all live on. I agree. The fight is pointless.

[Newfie]

Rockman,

Give us an example or three of worthy battles.

If not KXL, then what?

Bill McKibben thinks the time has come for us to take to the streets in protest, get arrested, make a scene. Does that fit with your thoughts?

[WildRose]

To those of you who think there is benefit in opposing tar sands and other environmental abominations:

It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about whether your opinion is a waste of time or not. There is merit (and eventually, movement) when you speak on forums and hold protests in the streets. People are watching and listening. There is much more awareness about, say, tar sands development now than there was 10 years ago. You will never know when people in a position to change policy will do so because of things they have heard and read about, or because of the growing concern and criticism ordinary people have about what is happening to their environment.

So speak up!

[Lore]

Lore - "That's where it really gets ugly when many people who assumed it's today's fear mongering becomes tomorrows reality." And thus the battle you can't win on any significant level IMHO. The reality won't affect the vast majority of the people won't have to face the reality because the reality is several generations away. And those generations have no vote today. I don't consider it a defeatist attitude to accept that which one has no chance of changing.

This is where a lot of people get confused by the nay sayers and delayers. Climate change is happening now, not in some distant future. People won't wake up on New Years Day 2100 with 1.5 - 6.5 degrees of warmer temperatures and 3 ft. of ocean all of a sudden lapping at their door step. A growing magnitude of climate related problems that threaten humans will be happening all along the way till then and several centuries into the future beyond.

[Newfie]

Lore,

Intellectually I understand exactly what you are saying.

But, you know, it was just a perfect day today. Sooooo hard to believe, down in the gut, that its all gonna go to shit.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

This is where a lot of people get confused by the nay sayers and delayers. Climate change is happening now, not in some distant future. People won't wake up on New Years Day 2100 with 1.5 - 6.5 degrees of warmer temperatures and 3 ft. of ocean all of a sudden lapping at their door step. A growing magnitude of climate related problems that threaten humans will be happening all along the way till then and several centuries into the future beyond.

Exactly, You can make a good case that global warming has already killed thousands of people, and no I am not being hysterical. This is the kind of problem that will not go away it will only keep getting worse. So what choice do we have except to try and stop it.

[ROCKMAN]

Lore and k - Yes...as I think I pointed out above a case can be made for current problems resulting from GHG. But unless you can get a majority of folks accepting it's hurting them you're still spinning your wheels IMHO. I think you already agreed: public policy will be made on the basis on economics and not the environment. As long as the vast majority of the public feel they are net winners there's no reason to expect public ACTIONS to change IMHO.

newfie - if you honestly feel the battle over KXL isn't lost then carry on. But I think I've made a very strong case that not only has that battle been lost but the oil sands will see even more development in the future...as long as oil prices stay high. What other battles you ask...any ones that haven't been lost already.

Again, I'm not trying to argue that one shouldn't follow their passions. But if one cannot understand the reality of a situation I don' see how they could expect to ever accomplish anything. And again, I and 95% of all the US oil companies would like to see the oil sands shut down. But they won't be. Govts have spent $trillions and countless lives to keep oil flowing. Does anyone really believe when those same govts would make $trillions as opposed to spending $trillions that verbiage will change their actions?

And again, nothing wrong with fighting the good fight. But IMHO just wrong to make your troops think they'll win when they don't have a chance . Been there...done that...and it sucks. LOL.

[ritter]

But, you know, it was just a perfect day today. Sooooo hard to believe, down in the gut, that its all gonna go to shit.

Talk about cognitive dissonance.

Enjoy them while you can. Shitstorm's a comin!

We are five minutes to midnight.
http://phys.org/news/2013-09-climate-minutes-midnight-ipcc.html

[dohboi]

Lore said:

if we're left with our pants down? That's where it really gets ugly

Sorry, I know this is a very serious conversation, but I had to smile at that juxtaposition.

So RM wants us to find a fight we can win. Clearly XL and anything involving the major oil companies is clearly a loosing proposition. So we have to go after some relatively small-time operator.

Hmmm, anyone come to mind?

Perhaps RM could inform us of where he is currently drilling or prospecting (or whatever damn thing you do for a livin'), and we could come and lay our bodies down in front of your equipment.

Might be a fun way to all get to know each other face to face! Anyone game? RM? Newf? Lore?

[ROCKMAN]

dohboi - Works for me. LOL. I respect the hands I work with on the rigs but they are blue collar red necks for the most part and aren’t much into conversations about PO, the environment, macroeconomics, etc. I would truly enjoy face to face conversations with any of our cohorts here.

And I would probably be the only one there NOT harassing them over their protests. The state govt types, the hands trying to make a living and the land owners looking for their “mail box money” might be less hospitable. But I would gladly throw a crawfish boil for the group. Well, I would actually have one of my vendors, a potential target of the protestors, do it. They wouldn’t mind because they LOVE me. LOL. Protests are great IMHO whether I agree with them or not. Especially if I’m pinching tails and sucking heads while I’m watching them. And if you don’t understand that last statement just search “Cajun eating habits”.

And, again, I truly wish the KXL protestors could have been successful curtailing oil sands development. Would have meant more money in my dirty grubby hands in the future.

[ROCKMAN]

Lore/Timo et al – Perhaps some inspiration for all engaged in a David/Goliath struggle. I consider Gen. Giap (the very old bastard, LOL) to be one of the greatest adversaries the US military has ever faced.

"Vietnam (AP) — Vo Nguyen Giap, the brilliant and ruthless self-taught general who drove the French out of Vietnam to free it from colonial rule and later forced the Americans to abandon their grueling effort to save the country from communism, has died. At age 102, he was the last of Vietnam's old-guard revolutionaries. Giap was a national hero whose legacy was second only to that of his mentor, founding President Ho Chi Minh, who led the country to independence.

The so-called "red Napoleon" stood out as the leader of a ragtag army of guerrillas who wore sandals made of car tires and lugged their artillery piece by piece over mountains to encircle and crush the French army at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The unlikely victory, which is still studied at military schools, led not only to Vietnam's independence but hastened the collapse of colonialism across Indochina and beyond. Giap went on to defeat the U.S.-backed South Vietnam government in April 1975, reuniting a country that had been split into communist and noncommunist states. He regularly accepted heavy combat losses to achieve his goals."

[Graeme]

World’s Carbon Budget To Be Spent In Three Decades

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) has delivered an overwhelming consensus that climate change impacts are accelerating, fueled by human-caused emissions. We may have just about 30 years left until the world’s carbon budget is spent if we want a likely chance of limiting warming to 2 degrees C. Breaching this limit would put the world at increased risk of forest fires, coral bleaching, higher sea level rise, and other dangerous impacts.

When Will Our Carbon Budget Run Out?

The international community has adopted a goal for global warming not to rise above 2°C compared to pre-industrial temperatures. Scientists have devoted considerable effort to understanding what magnitude of emissions reductions are necessary to limit warming to this level, as the world faces increasingly dangerous climate change impacts with every degree of warming (see Box 1).

IPCC AR5 summarizes the scientific literature and estimates that cumulative carbon dioxide emissions related to human activities need to be limited to 1 trillion tonnes C (1000 PgC) since the beginning of the industrial revolution if we are to have a likely chance of limiting warming to 2°C. This is “our carbon budget” – the same concept as a checking account. When we’ve spent it all, there’s no more money (and the planet’s overdraft fees will be much more significant than a bank’s small charges for bounced checks).1

The report also states that as of 2011, we have emitted roughly 531 PgC since the industrial revolution, meaning we have already burned through about 53 percent of that carbon budget.

Do the math, and the world only has 469 PgC left in the budget. This balance puts us on track to exhaust our remaining carbon budget before the end of 2044 under a carbon intensive trajectory.2

cleantechnica

[dohboi]

Top climate scientists weigh in on the Fifth IPCC report:

http://e360.yale.edu/feature/yale_e360_ ... 2013/2698/

Mark Pagani, Yale:

I also see that some extreme events are now becoming statistically relevant, with an assessment that CO2 rise has likely (66 to 100 percent probability) more than doubled the probability of heat waves in some places.

Jane C.S. Long, CA Council on Science and Technology

Both policy and the IPCC should change course: More of the same is not likely to improve the response to climate change. More strategic approaches might help. The focus should change from bulky, comprehensive studies to deeper, more facile efforts targeted at phenomena and impacts that are poorly understood and could become critical. Feedback mechanisms, the role of aerosols and clouds, sea level rise, droughts, floods, and heat waves, etc., all deserve focused attention and the most up-to-date assessment. Such studies can shine a light on what keeps climate scientists up at night and hopefully keep the politicians awake as well. Second, the currently failing strategy of negotiating incremental emission caps should be replaced with a strategy for reinventing the energy system without emissions as fast as possible. Every region should create strategic plans for eliminating emissions as fast as they can.

Michael Mann

The new report shows that there is now a veritable hockey league of reconstructions that not only confirms, but extends, the original hockey stick conclusions. The message of the latest IPCC report is clear: Climate change is real and caused by humans, and we will see far more dangerous and potentially irreversible impacts if we do not reduce global carbon emissions. There has never been a greater urgency to act than there is now.

Kevin Trenberth:

...the risks from changes in hurricanes, tornadoes, and droughts are understated. Literature published or submitted since the working group’s acceptance date of March 15, 2013 adds information on all of these topics and highlights the conservative nature of the IPCC report.

Gavin Schmidt:

Methane now has a more dominant role via its impact on atmospheric chemistry, and other, more traditional pollutants are included that show clearly the connections between air quality and climate.

Anders Levermann, Pottsdam Institute for CC Research:

The IPCC working group did not ... provide a risk assessment of future climate change impacts...In the case of sea level...it is the worst case that is relevant

But they shied away from giving this vital worst case estimates, so it is of limited use for coastal areas and islands trying to plan their long- (and even not-so-long-) term strategies.

Graeme, I had always heard that 1000 gigaton total carbon budget, too. It always seemed rather high to me. Note that Trenberth in the above article says:

to stand a good chance (a probability of 66 percent or more) of limiting warming to less than 2°C since the mid-19th century will require cumulative CO2 emissions from all anthropogenic sources to stay under 800 gigatons of carbon. As of 2011, 531 gigatons had already been emitted.

"Doing the math" that leaves us with only 269 gigatons, rather lower than the figure that your article (and most other earlier articles I've seen) posits, almost half. So instead of 30 years, we only have 15-20 to zero out carbon emissions.

[Timo]

Lore/Timo et al – Perhaps some inspiration for all engaged in a David/Goliath struggle. I consider Gen. Giap (the very old bastard, LOL) to be one of the greatest adversaries the US military has ever faced.

"Vietnam (AP) — Vo Nguyen Giap, the brilliant and ruthless self-taught general who drove the French out of Vietnam to free it from colonial rule and later forced the Americans to abandon their grueling effort to save the country from communism, has died. At age 102, he was the last of Vietnam's old-guard revolutionaries. Giap was a national hero whose legacy was second only to that of his mentor, founding President Ho Chi Minh, who led the country to independence.

The so-called "red Napoleon" stood out as the leader of a ragtag army of guerrillas who wore sandals made of car tires and lugged their artillery piece by piece over mountains to encircle and crush the French army at Dien Bien Phu in 1954. The unlikely victory, which is still studied at military schools, led not only to Vietnam's independence but hastened the collapse of colonialism across Indochina and beyond. Giap went on to defeat the U.S.-backed South Vietnam government in April 1975, reuniting a country that had been split into communist and noncommunist states. He regularly accepted heavy combat losses to achieve his goals."

Thanks, but i'd rather avoid bloodshed in any fight i might choose. Any casualty is one too many. The problem is, though, that mine is a minority POV. Those who i'd be fighting couldn't care less if half of life on earth got killed as a result of them doing their jobs. Those causinjg the damage simply do not care about the consequences of their actions.

[kuidaskassikaeb]

Actually, I think it would be an interesting exercise. I'm not sure Rockman would get the result he thinks. I know some people who spent some time working on the rigs in Penn, and they don't really identify with the oil industry. The politics may have changed a bit.

First, one of the things about Royalties is in places like Pennsylvania, after a hundred years it's really common that the people living on the land don't have the mineral rights, those rights are being traded on Wall street, and a lot of them have very low cost leases. In New York State I think one of the reasons for moratorium is that a lot of people with conventional gas leases, want way more money, since a lot of the leases pay things like free heat in the winter.

Second, its probably different in Texas, but in a lot of the country there aren't a lot of local jobs created. Pennsylvania hillbillies are evidently considered lazy by oil companies. So a lot of local people who were expecting jobs feel disappointed. It's a problem with all of the extraction industries. They have become so productive that there aren't a lot of people making money off the mines, just the owners. It used to be whole towns mined coal. Now its a few people on machines, but everybody feels the downside.

Third is that there is probably a future for natural gas. Preventing global warming will still allow about fifth of the carbon emitted now. People will want as many BTUs as possible for that carbon. And since it supplies about a third of the BTUs now, keeping production the same might actually work. The environmental beef with natural gas is that it's done so badly now, fixing that might actually lead to more employment, not less. It might piss off the boss, but maybe not the workers. Coal, and oil however, should remain hostile.

Fourth is that people experience global warming in very traumatic ways. Like there isn't any water. Or there is way too much water. We have a good case. The price of bread is affected by global warming. These things tend to make people hysterical, and hysterical people make good protesters.

[ROCKMAN]

k - I think one of the biggest problems with getting local support for any oil/NG development in PA is the total lack of production taxes like we pay in La. and Texas. Both these states have collected $TRILLIONS over the decades and the voters are very aware of those numbers. At one time the Texas university system was almost totally funded by oil/NG royalty payments. When I went to grad school at Texas A&M my tuition was about $500 per year.

That's a lot of money going to the commons...not the royalty owners or the oil patch. A couple of years ago I estimated that if PA had the same severance taxes at Texas they would be collecting over $200 million per year from the activity. Right now the vast majority of the locals in PA suffer all the negatives without an ounce of the positive. Who would expect them to be supportive?

We have a fair bit of surface ownership/mineral ownership separation in Texas. Not sure how that has developed in PA but in Texas it’s commonly been split up amonst family members. There are some pure “royalty companies” here but what they own is relatively insignificant. Actually one of the larger groups that owns minerals but not surface rights are our various universities.

And very true: a drilling boom isn’t going to supply locals with any significant amount of valuable employment. Never has…never will. And even more true in Texas and La. actually: we have a huge work force already experienced and in place usually within just a short drive from the job. Not so true in PA and N. Dakota.

[Newfie]

I've a hunting cabin in he middle of the PA oil patch. When they drill, I shake.

I'm not there much but there is a mixed result.

For one thing a lot of land owners now have brand new diesel dual wheel pick ups. Big cash infusion to the land owner.

Others, not so much.

LOT of outta state plates, guys working the patch.

[ROCKMAN]

Newfie - But you're not a PA resident, are you? You need to slap those locals around and get them straight on production taxes. It is absolutely foolish that they have not collected one penny of oil/NG production taxes since the beginning of the ff age. We have counties in Texas collecting 10's of $millions in ad valorem taxes. And the R gov in PA is going to argue that taxing production will hurt activity??? Here's a hint gov: even with our severance tax Texas has almost half the rigs drilling in the country at the moment. And what do our severance taxes mean to the commons:

"Last Wednesday, the Comptroller announced some good news: the state’s severance tax receipts have exceeded prior estimates by $900 million for Fiscal Year 2013. In January of this year, in her biennial revenue estimate, she predicted oil and gas severance taxes would generate nearly $3.4 billion, which means the updated figures are a 27 percent increase in taxes generated from oil and gas production.

So, what does the sudden increase in tax revenue mean for Texans? By state law, three quarters of oil and gas severance taxes are deposited into the Rainy Day Fund, meaning an additional $675 million will be dedicated to the fund and $225 million will be available for general-purpose spending. The additional taxes mean more funds available for roads, schools, and other infrastructure. The state did not waste any time putting the money to use, either. Just yesterday, after three special sessions, the Texas Legislature finally passed a measure to increase transportation funding by $1.2 billion per year. If approved by voters in 2014, the legislation calls for the state to begin diverting some oil and gas production tax revenue currently earmarked for the Rainy Day Fund to road construction and maintenance."

And PA? To steal the line from the doctor at the end of "The Bridge over the River Kwai": "Insanity! Insanity!" LOL. And that's just severance tax not including corporate taxes. Which is one reason why there is no state income tax in Texas. Now add royalty revenue by our mineral owners. That's an additional $20 billion per year. The University of Texas system alone will collect about $1 billion in royalty this year. Yes...there are negatives for the commons by oil/NG extraction activities. But at least in Texas there's also a lot of benefits to the commons as well.

Wake up PA...you're getting screwed! LOL

[Newfie]

Funny, my state legislator was hot on this topic, furious at the R's for the corporate give away.

They don't call it Pennsyltucky for nuttin!