Regardless of whether this pipeline is built, the entire tar sands will be shot up into the atmosphere. Its not like it isn't going to be mined and then burned. It will happen. All of it.
This is my view of fossil fuel usage in general around the globe. It may be admirable to be motivated to avoid this, but in the end society will simply keep using fossil fuels, more and more, indefinitely until it is no longer physically possible. Climate ramifications be damned.
This might be a "hopeless" viewpoint. I consider it realist. It is not going to be avoided.
I more or less agree, but with a caveat: our current practices, I think, may prove to be so destructive and cannibalistic that the machinery finally fails the whole enterprise before it can devastate the species. That is, we may actually end up being so stupid and conceited that we actually manage to cave-in our whole society before it can finish it's grim job.
I'm betting that this will not happen. Whatever cataclysmic results do or do not happen, civilization will continue chugging along, and it will use fossil fuels until we cannot anymore. Which in my view pretty much means when they are gone. This actually is probably pretty far off and not directly around the corner. Easy to access, light crude oils may be harder to find. But fossil fuels in general? We'll be using them for a long, long time. Long after any of us here are dead.
I'm betting that this will not happen. Whatever cataclysmic results do or do not happen, civilization will continue chugging along, and it will use fossil fuels until we cannot anymore.
Oh. Well, in that case, I must disagree: We absolutely cannot burn away all of the world's fossil fuel reserves and maintain our civilization. There are so many barrel's worth that if we did really burn away the vast majority of it, the planet would be totally poisoned.
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Take the money that would have been spent on the pipe and just give it to them as free money. Bam! instant spending and job creation.
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Take the money that would have been spent on the pipe and just give it to them as free money. Bam! instant spending and job creation.
Take it from whom? The corps that would have built the pipeline? Your plan is literally to say "What would you have paid these people? OK, we are taking it from you, and picking 20,000 people with relevant skills and just paying them a year's salary"?
I was actually serious with that question. Are you actually serious with that answer?
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Absolutely anything. Pay 10,000 people to dig holes and another 10,000 to fill them in.
Oh, wait. "Private sector". All that public money disappears off to Narnia as soon as it's spent.
Drat.
Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
This independent report claims that the number of jobs created would be 2500-4600 and would mostly be temporary and non-local, among other impacts.
This is a very interesting section on page 29:
Higher Fuel Prices in 15 States
According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by
almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting
major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest
could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, adding up to
$5 billion to the annual US fuel bill. Further, the KXL pipeline will do nothing to insulate
the US from oil price volatility.
Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of KXL could cancel out some or all of
the jobs created by KXL, based on the (more accurate) $3 to 4 billion budget for KXL
(the remaining cost to build within the US). Higher fuel prices due to KXL would have
broad adverse impacts. Gasoline is a significant cost for most Americans, and especially
for those with lower incomes and/or residing in rural areas. Moreover, refined oil products
(notably gasoline and diesel) are very widely used throughout the economy (especially in
agriculture and commercial transportation). So higher fuel prices due to KXL would ripple
through the economy and impact a very broad range of people and businesses.
The benefits of KXL construction and operations would be narrowly concentrated. A
relatively small number of workers and businesses would be directly involved in providing
labor and other inputs to pipeline construction and operations. Likewise, the other
potential costs and benefits from KXL would not be shared equally across US regions and
states. In particular, the Midwest region could be a loser due to KXL, while the Gulf Coast
(and particularly Texas) could be a winner.
So the economic benefits of the pipeline would be mostly a wash.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Absolutely anything. Pay 10,000 people to dig holes and another 10,000 to fill them in.
Oh, wait. "Private sector". All that public money disappears off to Narnia as soon as it's spent.
Drat.
So what you're saying is that you have no ideas. The point of "private sector" is to make it analogous to the current idea of building a pipeline. What you're suggesting is that we borrow more money and spend it, instead of just saying "yes go ahead" and letting the corporations involved invest their own money.
Do you have some ideas for how to replace this private investment with some other private investment that you like better? Does anybody?
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Take the money that would have been spent on the pipe and just give it to them as free money. Bam! instant spending and job creation.
Take it from whom? The corps that would have built the pipeline? Your plan is literally to say "What would you have paid these people? OK, we are taking it from you, and picking 20,000 people with relevant skills and just paying them a year's salary"?
I was actually serious with that question. Are you actually serious with that answer?
Deficit spending yo. There's no need to take it from anyone when we can borrow for free.
Jephery, your report is from the Cornell College of Industrial and Labor Relations. They offer a minor in "Inequality Studies" for pete's sake. Biased source, not "independent report".
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Why?
If the options are '20,000 man-years of work and the world is a desert' vs 'the world is not a desert, shame about those jobs though,' I know which option doesn't sound fucking retarded to me.
Jephery, your report is from the Cornell College of Industrial and Labor Relations. They offer a minor in "Inequality Studies" for pete's sake. Biased source, not "independent report".
I can't take the time to go in and analyse the report, so yeah I really don't know how accurate it is. I can't say whether or not its biased, just what it reports.
But, the analysis from the company that wants to build it may be biased as well.
Jephery on
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
This independent report claims that the number of jobs created would be 2500-4600 and would mostly be temporary and non-local, among other impacts.
This is a very interesting section on page 29:
Higher Fuel Prices in 15 States
According to TransCanada, KXL will increase the price of heavy crude oil in the Midwest by
almost $2 to $4 billion annually, and escalating for several years. It will do this by diverting
major volumes of Tar Sands oil now supplying the Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at
higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest
could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel, adding up to
$5 billion to the annual US fuel bill. Further, the KXL pipeline will do nothing to insulate
the US from oil price volatility.
Even one year of fuel price increases as a result of KXL could cancel out some or all of
the jobs created by KXL, based on the (more accurate) $3 to 4 billion budget for KXL
(the remaining cost to build within the US). Higher fuel prices due to KXL would have
broad adverse impacts. Gasoline is a significant cost for most Americans, and especially
for those with lower incomes and/or residing in rural areas. Moreover, refined oil products
(notably gasoline and diesel) are very widely used throughout the economy (especially in
agriculture and commercial transportation). So higher fuel prices due to KXL would ripple
through the economy and impact a very broad range of people and businesses.
The benefits of KXL construction and operations would be narrowly concentrated. A
relatively small number of workers and businesses would be directly involved in providing
labor and other inputs to pipeline construction and operations. Likewise, the other
potential costs and benefits from KXL would not be shared equally across US regions and
states. In particular, the Midwest region could be a loser due to KXL, while the Gulf Coast
(and particularly Texas) could be a winner.
So the economic benifits of the pipeline would be mostly a wash.
This was my first thought when I read the OP. The jobs created are too few and too short lived to be considered a fair trade off for risking the areas the pipeline will be running through.
BC is currently waiting on environmental evaluations (we were as of last week at least) before giving the green light. But I highly doubt that our Premier Clark won't go forward with this asap.
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Why?
If the options are '20,000 man-years of work and the world is a desert' vs 'the world is not a desert, shame about those jobs though' I know which option doesn't sound fucking retarded to me.
Because the reply to "don't make the world a desert" is "OK then. So what do we do instead?". Assuming it's really that bad an idea, I would like to see some alternate suggestions for projects that have a similar impact, but are not bad for the environment. You do recognize that alternate solutions are good, yes? That your argument is inherently more persuasive when you say "don't do that, do this"?
Carrot, I'm just going from the OP. I have no independent knowledge of how many man-years of work are created.
Pi-r8, no spending is better than deficit spending, when the job creation result of either choice is equal. So, I'm asking for some other project where the job creation result is roughly equal, and spends roughly the same amount of public money (~$0). If you want to argue that instead of private projects, we should instead have the government spend a bunch of money, well OK. But you're not addressing the question, unless your ultimate answer is "we should nationalize everything".
Jephery, your report is from the Cornell College of Industrial and Labor Relations. They offer a minor in "Inequality Studies" for pete's sake. Biased source, not "independent report".
Yea, since you aren't dumb enough to contest that oil is fungible and with lower transport costs this oil will hit the world stage instead of being stuck in the midwest you go with attacking the source.
Let's check something here spool, why the fuck are you for the pipeline that will require massive amounts of eminent domain seizures of private land that will only result in benefit to a corporation?
I really thought you were most consistent than that.
Jephery, your report is from the Cornell College of Industrial and Labor Relations. They offer a minor in "Inequality Studies" for pete's sake. Biased source, not "independent report".
Yea, since you aren't dumb enough to contest that oil is fungible and with lower transport costs this oil will hit the world stage instead of being stuck in the midwest you go with attacking the source.
Let's check something here spool, why the fuck are you for the pipeline that will require massive amounts of eminent domain seizures of private land that will only result in benefit to a corporation?
I really thought you were most consistent than that.
Please quote the part where I'm in support of the pipeline. I'm pretty sure I've only asked for an alternate project to support, and questioned the bias of a report presented as "independent".
So when you say "what can we do instead" you really mean "what can private corps do instead"? Probably nothing, since they're pretty good at maximizing profits. I mean, they could hire more workers, but then their CEO would get a slightly smaller bonus and of course that's intolerable.
Please quote the part where I'm in support of the pipeline. I'm pretty sure I've only asked for an alternate project to support, and questioned the bias of a report presented as "independent".
Yea, right. Run into the pedantic hiding hole you use when your caught blatantly shilling against your own beliefs.
So let's add "Massive governmental seizure of private property" to the con side of the project. I think that makes that list a bit long, shame we don't have anybody here supporting the project. We could have a discussion and/or debate about it!
So when you say "what can we do instead" you really mean "what can private corps do instead"? Probably nothing, since they're pretty good at maximizing profits. I mean, they could hire more workers, but then their CEO would get a slightly smaller bonus and of course that's intolerable.
Nothing? There are no large projects to support that are good for the environment and can be undertaken by a corporation for profit?
None? What I am reading is:
"Here is a project. It will create jobs and earn people money."
"Your project is destructive and bad for the environment."
"OK, but we need jobs and money. What other projects are around?"
"None. The only solution is to just borrow money and give it to people."
"..."
"well you could support companies hiring more people to do the work they already have"
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Why?
If the options are '20,000 man-years of work and the world is a desert' vs 'the world is not a desert, shame about those jobs though' I know which option doesn't sound fucking retarded to me.
Because the reply to "don't make the world a desert" is "OK then. So what do we do instead?". Assuming it's really that bad an idea, I would like to see some alternate suggestions for projects that have a similar impact, but are not bad for the environment. You do recognize that alternate solutions are good, yes? That your argument is inherently more persuasive when you say "don't do that, do this"?
No, not really. It just seems like a deflecting tactic people use to try to avoid actually thinking about the fact that the world being a desert isn't worth some jobs. Some things are bad enough by themselves that you don't have to come up with an alternative to them. Something that turns the world into a desert? Exactly that bad.
Would alternatives be nice? You bet. Is their existence relevant in the slightest way compared to fucking over the planet? NOPE.
See the youtube video below: matrix decision making applied to global warming.
So when you say "what can we do instead" you really mean "what can private corps do instead"? Probably nothing, since they're pretty good at maximizing profits. I mean, they could hire more workers, but then their CEO would get a slightly smaller bonus and of course that's intolerable.
Nothing? There are no large projects to support that are good for the environment and can be undertaken by a corporation for profit?
None? What I am reading is:
"Here is a project. It will create jobs and earn people money."
"Your project is destructive and bad for the environment."
"OK, but we need jobs and money. What other projects are around?"
"None. The only solution is to just borrow money and give it to people."
"..."
"well you could support companies hiring more people to do the work they already have"
All those projects are already being done. It's not like the corporations are idiots and they just somehow forgot about a bunch of profitable opportunities.
If you want clean energy to look more profitable then one way would be to tax fossil fuel companies based on the damage that the do to the environment and people's health.
Please quote the part where I'm in support of the pipeline. I'm pretty sure I've only asked for an alternate project to support, and questioned the bias of a report presented as "independent".
Yea, right. Run into the pedantic hiding hole you use when your caught blatantly shilling against your own beliefs.
Once again, feel free to quote me supporting the pipeline, anywhere on the entire internet, ever. I use the same handle pretty much everywhere. I don't think you understand what being pedantic is, though... I have literally never said a word in support of this project, or even implied support. I invite you to prove otherwise!
Or, even better, you could offer some other private-sector project we could support instead of this pipeline. Positive alternatives to simple opposition, especially when opposition by itself amounts to supporting a lesser bad thing to prevent a greater one.
I mean, which would you prefer to argue:
"Your plan is probably terrible in the middle and long term, and I think we should have moderate badness right now instead."
or
"Your plan is probably bad in the middle and long term, and mine is good both now and in the future."
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Absolutely anything. Pay 10,000 people to dig holes and another 10,000 to fill them in.
Oh, wait. "Private sector". All that public money disappears off to Narnia as soon as it's spent.
Drat.
So what you're saying is that you have no ideas. The point of "private sector" is to make it analogous to the current idea of building a pipeline. What you're suggesting is that we borrow more money and spend it, instead of just saying "yes go ahead" and letting the corporations involved invest their own money.
Do you have some ideas for how to replace this private investment with some other private investment that you like better? Does anybody?
Bill: Let's hammer nails through our junk.
Matt: Let's not.
Bill: Then what else are we going to do all afternoon?
Matt: Absolutely anything.
Do you understand my idea now?
"Hammer nails through our junk" is a metaphor.
It is a metaphor for the Keystone XL Pipeline.
The hammer is my penis.
Squigie on
Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
I've seen the video before, and it's persuasive but ultimately flawed. It breaks down most severely at 3:35 where he doesn't recognize that the bottom left box should have all the negative consequences of the top left one... not just the cost. If the actions have destructive effects, they have destructive effects. However, even if you go all in with his risk analysis, you're wrong on the lesser point: If we choose column A, we are choosing economic disaster. As such, advocates for the choice should be trying as best they can to offer options that mitigate the pretty terrible downside as much as possible.
You are asking us to choose profound misery over destruction. Don't you think it's a good idea to try and come up with some options for weathering the hard times to come?
Yep. But I still think profound misery over destruction is a dead simple choice.
So, why haven't you offered up alternatives, as you apparently don't support the pipeline either and believe in the destruction thing as well? Seems like we're all on the same page here but you're kind of putting the onus on everyone else.
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Absolutely anything. Pay 10,000 people to dig holes and another 10,000 to fill them in.
Oh, wait. "Private sector". All that public money disappears off to Narnia as soon as it's spent.
Drat.
So what you're saying is that you have no ideas. The point of "private sector" is to make it analogous to the current idea of building a pipeline. What you're suggesting is that we borrow more money and spend it, instead of just saying "yes go ahead" and letting the corporations involved invest their own money.
Do you have some ideas for how to replace this private investment with some other private investment that you like better? Does anybody?
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Absolutely anything. Pay 10,000 people to dig holes and another 10,000 to fill them in.
Oh, wait. "Private sector". All that public money disappears off to Narnia as soon as it's spent.
Drat.
So what you're saying is that you have no ideas. The point of "private sector" is to make it analogous to the current idea of building a pipeline. What you're suggesting is that we borrow more money and spend it, instead of just saying "yes go ahead" and letting the corporations involved invest their own money.
Do you have some ideas for how to replace this private investment with some other private investment that you like better? Does anybody?
Yep. But I still think profound misery over destruction is a dead simple choice.
So, why haven't you offered up alternatives, as you apparently don't support the pipeline either and believe in the destruction thing as well? Seems like we're all on the same page here but you're kind of putting the onus on everyone else.
Well, the main reason is that I don't have any alternative ideas. I was genuinely asking for something to support, for the exact reasons I put forth - it's makes an argument better when you can offer positive alternatives.
----
The risk assessment has other issues. You're really choosing between 100% guaranteed profound global misery and some lesser % chance of epic disaster. That's why AGW true vs false is the really important question... action is always bad, but if AGW is false, inaction is awesome. Most people respond to that by saying "well, it's not false", and that's why I'm saying that it's the important question and can't really be rendered moot, as the guy in the video tries to do. The real question should go "how unlikely does the destruction have to be, before we stop choosing guaranteed misery?"
Deficit spend to invest in renewable energy. That will create jobs, stop climate change, and mitigate the damage of peak oil. It really is win win. But no, republicans want us to argle blargle about the deficit.
Deficit spend to invest in renewable energy. That will create jobs, stop climate change, and mitigate the damage of peak oil. It really is win win. But no, republicans want us to argle blargle about the deficit.
Which projects, from which companies? This is all too ethereal to work as a good argument, especially when the stand-out "renewable energy" company we invested in just went down in flames and recrimination.
Deficit spend to invest in renewable energy. That will create jobs, stop climate change, and mitigate the damage of peak oil. It really is win win. But no, republicans want us to argle blargle about the deficit.
Which projects, from which companies? This is all too ethereal to work as a good argument, especially when the stand-out "renewable energy" we invested in just went down in flames and recrimination.
It's hard to argue with you, Spool, when you seem to demand exacting detail from liberals, but you're apparently willing to take anything conservatives say at face value. Solyndra was actually a good company. It was risky, yes- that's the whole point of federal loan guarantees!- and as it happened, it just couldn't quite match the incredibly cost-cutting that other companies did (especially the Chinese companies with massive government subsidies).
If the only goal is job creation then it hardly matters what you spend money on- the whole point is just to inject more cash into the economy. Hence my earlier suggestion of just giving out free money. If you want to help the environment while you're at it, then federal loan guarantees like Solyndra are a great way to do it. Upgrading the electrical grid would help even more.
I'm not going to bother going into details though, because I don't think you actually care. I think you just want to make yourself feel smart by arguing against everyone, all the time, without ever taking a real position.
I would like, from the "save the Tar Sands or the world becomes a desert" people, to hear alternate projects that will begin to create 20,000 man-years of work for Americans in the next 6 months, in the private sector.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Absolutely anything. Pay 10,000 people to dig holes and another 10,000 to fill them in.
Oh, wait. "Private sector". All that public money disappears off to Narnia as soon as it's spent.
Drat.
So what you're saying is that you have no ideas. The point of "private sector" is to make it analogous to the current idea of building a pipeline. What you're suggesting is that we borrow more money and spend it, instead of just saying "yes go ahead" and letting the corporations involved invest their own money.
Do you have some ideas for how to replace this private investment with some other private investment that you like better? Does anybody?
Bill: Let's hammer nails through our junk.
Matt: Let's not.
Bill: Then what else are we going to do all afternoon?
Matt: Absolutely anything.
Fixed.
Absolutely anything would be better than hammering nails through our junk.
Absolutely
Anything
Hammering nails through our junk is a terrible idea. It does not become a good idea in the absence of a good idea, and good ideas are not absent. Doing nothing is a better idea than hammering nails through our junk. "Absolutely anything" is the set containing all of the answers to the question, "What would be a better use of our time and money than hammering nails through our junk?", which is the question you should have asked.
The companies involved in hammering nails through our junk will likely not be using cash. To pay for the project they will seek investors, that is, they will acquire debt. Our debt or their debt, building a pipeline or digging holes, if the goal is creating jobs and stimulating the economy it really doesn't matter.
This would be the case even if the US government could not borrow at less than inflation right now. Borrowing at less than inflation is free money. People are willing to pay us to hold onto their money for them, even after we considered not paying our debts because, "Eh, what's the worst that could happen?" We could buy all the tea in China and launch it into space, and if we speculated on tea futures we could even turn a hefty profit. That plan, though hysterically awesome insane, would probably be less damaging to our environment than hammering nails through our junk and have a greater net positive affect on the economy.
100% guaranteed profound global misery and some lesser % chance of epic disaster
This means you have not done any research on the actual probabilities of those outcomes, which is what the man in the video asked you to do.
Warning: the preceding post may be more sarcastic than it appears. Proceed at own risk. Individual results may vary. Offers not valid in Canada or where prohibited by fraud statutes.
Deficit spend to invest in renewable energy. That will create jobs, stop climate change, and mitigate the damage of peak oil. It really is win win. But no, republicans want us to argle blargle about the deficit.
Which projects, from which companies? This is all too ethereal to work as a good argument, especially when the stand-out "renewable energy" we invested in just went down in flames and recrimination.
It's hard to argue with you, Spool, when you seem to demand exacting detail from liberals, but you're apparently willing to take anything conservatives say at face value. Solyndra was actually a good company. It was risky, yes- that's the whole point of federal loan guarantees!- and as it happened, it just couldn't quite match the incredibly cost-cutting that other companies did (especially the Chinese companies with massive government subsidies).
If the only goal is job creation then it hardly matters what you spend money on- the whole point is just to inject more cash into the economy. Hence my earlier suggestion of just giving out free money. If you want to help the environment while you're at it, then federal loan guarantees like Solyndra are a great way to do it. Upgrading the electrical grid would help even more.
I'm not going to bother going into details though, because I don't think you actually care. I think you just want to make yourself feel smart by arguing against everyone, all the time, without ever taking a real position.
Solyndra is always hilarious to see people argue about because it's like "government subsidies don't work. That's why teh Chinese with all their government subsidies beat our company."
The Plaza De La Raza in South Omaha supplies more steady job man-hours than the pipeline would for our state. It amounts to a one-time seasonal job. All those people would just be unemployed again at the end of it.
Deficit spend to invest in renewable energy. That will create jobs, stop climate change, and mitigate the damage of peak oil. It really is win win. But no, republicans want us to argle blargle about the deficit.
Which projects, from which companies? This is all too ethereal to work as a good argument, especially when the stand-out "renewable energy" we invested in just went down in flames and recrimination.
It's hard to argue with you, Spool, when you seem to demand exacting detail from liberals, but you're apparently willing to take anything conservatives say at face value. Solyndra was actually a good company. It was risky, yes- that's the whole point of federal loan guarantees!- and as it happened, it just couldn't quite match the incredibly cost-cutting that other companies did (especially the Chinese companies with massive government subsidies).
If the only goal is job creation then it hardly matters what you spend money on- the whole point is just to inject more cash into the economy. Hence my earlier suggestion of just giving out free money. If you want to help the environment while you're at it, then federal loan guarantees like Solyndra are a great way to do it. Upgrading the electrical grid would help even more.
I'm not going to bother going into details though, because I don't think you actually care. I think you just want to make yourself feel smart by arguing against everyone, all the time, without ever taking a real position.
The only goal isn't "create jobs" - I think I've been pretty clear throughout. Upgrading the electric grid is a pretty good idea, actually, and a super expensive project that requires some public money and some private investment.
I honestly believe you really can go into details, though. I don't think you've thought it through very well. Just handing out cash isn't sustainable in the longterm, and we both know it... since the longterm projection for any rational choice is unavoidable global misery and economic collapse (worst case), we ought to be thinking about how to sustain ourselves as best we can, with projects that create jobs and don't harm the environment. I'm amazed that your response to "we need jobs that don't fuck up the planet" is "Well, nevermind about jobs. We don't need those."
I'm sorry asking for details in a discussion is making it tough on you, but it's sort of on you to offer alternatives. While you're at it, you should try to be less passive-aggressive in your "parting shot" at me. I often decide not to bother with a discussion, but I try not to tack on a condescending, dismissive insult when I exit stage right.
I'm not actually sorry. Your advocacy picks sides against employment at a really rough time, and while it's probably the correct position, you ought to feel some sort of duty to at least be aware of real-world alternatives. Hating the correct things isn't enough to let you call yourself virtuous, when there's a human cost involved with either choice.
Deficit spend to invest in renewable energy. That will create jobs, stop climate change, and mitigate the damage of peak oil. It really is win win. But no, republicans want us to argle blargle about the deficit.
Which projects, from which companies? This is all too ethereal to work as a good argument, especially when the stand-out "renewable energy" we invested in just went down in flames and recrimination.
It's hard to argue with you, Spool, when you seem to demand exacting detail from liberals, but you're apparently willing to take anything conservatives say at face value. Solyndra was actually a good company. It was risky, yes- that's the whole point of federal loan guarantees!- and as it happened, it just couldn't quite match the incredibly cost-cutting that other companies did (especially the Chinese companies with massive government subsidies).
If the only goal is job creation then it hardly matters what you spend money on- the whole point is just to inject more cash into the economy. Hence my earlier suggestion of just giving out free money. If you want to help the environment while you're at it, then federal loan guarantees like Solyndra are a great way to do it. Upgrading the electrical grid would help even more.
I'm not going to bother going into details though, because I don't think you actually care. I think you just want to make yourself feel smart by arguing against everyone, all the time, without ever taking a real position.
The only goal isn't "create jobs" - I think I've been pretty clear throughout. Upgrading the electric grid is a pretty good idea, actually, and a super expensive project that requires some public money and some private investment.
I honestly believe you really can go into details, though. I don't think you've thought it through very well. Just handing out cash isn't sustainable in the longterm, and we both know it... since the longterm projection for any rational choice is unavoidable global misery and economic collapse (worst case), we ought to be thinking about how to sustain ourselves as best we can, with projects that create jobs and don't harm the environment. I'm amazed that your response to "we need jobs that don't fuck up the planet" is "Well, nevermind about jobs. We don't need those."
I'm sorry asking for details in a discussion is making it tough on you, but it's sort of on you to offer alternatives. While you're at it, you should try to be less passive-aggressive in your "parting shot" at me. I often decide not to bother with a discussion, but I try not to tack on a condescending, dismissive insult when I exit stage right.
I'm not actually sorry. Your advocacy picks sides against employment at a really rough time, and while it's probably the correct position, you ought to feel some sort of duty to at least be aware of real-world alternatives. Hating the correct things isn't enough to let you call yourself virtuous, when there's a human cost involved with either choice.
Nobody's saying "nevermind about jobs". We're simply saying, quite accurately, that a small number of temporary job isn't worth the immense environmental damage that this will cause. I mean, we could also create jobs if we let mining companies strip-mine mount Rushmore... should we do that? Do I need to offer an alternative to that?
Every reputable economist agrees that increased government deficit spending is the best way to create jobs right now. Republicans refuse to listen, but that's the facts. But then you said you're only willing to consider alternatives that cost zero government spending so... that makes it a lot more difficult. Any jobs that could be done easily and profitably are already being done.
I guess you want an alternative that's like "X regulation could be removed and then create 20,000 temp jobs"? That's hard, because most regulations are in place for a very good reason. I guess we could say something like "for the next week, all Koch Brothers are enemies of the Republic. Go ahead, kill them and take all their assets, there will be no legal repercussions." That would create some jobs. It would be a horrible thing to do, but yes it would create jobs.
You're just arguing from an impossible position that we can't possibly reject any proposal to remove a regulation, unless we suggest removing a different regulation instead.
Posts
I'm betting that this will not happen. Whatever cataclysmic results do or do not happen, civilization will continue chugging along, and it will use fossil fuels until we cannot anymore. Which in my view pretty much means when they are gone. This actually is probably pretty far off and not directly around the corner. Easy to access, light crude oils may be harder to find. But fossil fuels in general? We'll be using them for a long, long time. Long after any of us here are dead.
Oh. Well, in that case, I must disagree: We absolutely cannot burn away all of the world's fossil fuel reserves and maintain our civilization. There are so many barrel's worth that if we did really burn away the vast majority of it, the planet would be totally poisoned.
Give me something else concrete to support.
Take it from whom? The corps that would have built the pipeline? Your plan is literally to say "What would you have paid these people? OK, we are taking it from you, and picking 20,000 people with relevant skills and just paying them a year's salary"?
I was actually serious with that question. Are you actually serious with that answer?
Absolutely anything. Pay 10,000 people to dig holes and another 10,000 to fill them in.
Oh, wait. "Private sector". All that public money disappears off to Narnia as soon as it's spent.
Drat.
This independent report claims that the number of jobs created would be 2500-4600 and would mostly be temporary and non-local, among other impacts.
This is a very interesting section on page 29:
So the economic benefits of the pipeline would be mostly a wash.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
So what you're saying is that you have no ideas. The point of "private sector" is to make it analogous to the current idea of building a pipeline. What you're suggesting is that we borrow more money and spend it, instead of just saying "yes go ahead" and letting the corporations involved invest their own money.
Do you have some ideas for how to replace this private investment with some other private investment that you like better? Does anybody?
Deficit spending yo. There's no need to take it from anyone when we can borrow for free.
Why?
If the options are '20,000 man-years of work and the world is a desert' vs 'the world is not a desert, shame about those jobs though,' I know which option doesn't sound fucking retarded to me.
It's the number the proponents are throwing around but they're careful to not include the "man-years" part.
It includes the manufacturing required, like the steel pipe.
Gee, what are the odds that will be made here and not in China?
Effectively zero.
I can't take the time to go in and analyse the report, so yeah I really don't know how accurate it is. I can't say whether or not its biased, just what it reports.
But, the analysis from the company that wants to build it may be biased as well.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
This was my first thought when I read the OP. The jobs created are too few and too short lived to be considered a fair trade off for risking the areas the pipeline will be running through.
BC is currently waiting on environmental evaluations (we were as of last week at least) before giving the green light. But I highly doubt that our Premier Clark won't go forward with this asap.
Because the reply to "don't make the world a desert" is "OK then. So what do we do instead?". Assuming it's really that bad an idea, I would like to see some alternate suggestions for projects that have a similar impact, but are not bad for the environment. You do recognize that alternate solutions are good, yes? That your argument is inherently more persuasive when you say "don't do that, do this"?
Carrot, I'm just going from the OP. I have no independent knowledge of how many man-years of work are created.
Pi-r8, no spending is better than deficit spending, when the job creation result of either choice is equal. So, I'm asking for some other project where the job creation result is roughly equal, and spends roughly the same amount of public money (~$0). If you want to argue that instead of private projects, we should instead have the government spend a bunch of money, well OK. But you're not addressing the question, unless your ultimate answer is "we should nationalize everything".
Yea, since you aren't dumb enough to contest that oil is fungible and with lower transport costs this oil will hit the world stage instead of being stuck in the midwest you go with attacking the source.
Let's check something here spool, why the fuck are you for the pipeline that will require massive amounts of eminent domain seizures of private land that will only result in benefit to a corporation?
I really thought you were most consistent than that.
Unless you're in a crisis management situation- which this clearly is not.
Please quote the part where I'm in support of the pipeline. I'm pretty sure I've only asked for an alternate project to support, and questioned the bias of a report presented as "independent".
Yea, right. Run into the pedantic hiding hole you use when your caught blatantly shilling against your own beliefs.
So let's add "Massive governmental seizure of private property" to the con side of the project. I think that makes that list a bit long, shame we don't have anybody here supporting the project. We could have a discussion and/or debate about it!
Nothing? There are no large projects to support that are good for the environment and can be undertaken by a corporation for profit?
None? What I am reading is:
"Here is a project. It will create jobs and earn people money."
"Your project is destructive and bad for the environment."
"OK, but we need jobs and money. What other projects are around?"
"None. The only solution is to just borrow money and give it to people."
"..."
"well you could support companies hiring more people to do the work they already have"
No, not really. It just seems like a deflecting tactic people use to try to avoid actually thinking about the fact that the world being a desert isn't worth some jobs. Some things are bad enough by themselves that you don't have to come up with an alternative to them. Something that turns the world into a desert? Exactly that bad.
Would alternatives be nice? You bet. Is their existence relevant in the slightest way compared to fucking over the planet? NOPE.
See the youtube video below: matrix decision making applied to global warming.
All those projects are already being done. It's not like the corporations are idiots and they just somehow forgot about a bunch of profitable opportunities.
If you want clean energy to look more profitable then one way would be to tax fossil fuel companies based on the damage that the do to the environment and people's health.
Once again, feel free to quote me supporting the pipeline, anywhere on the entire internet, ever. I use the same handle pretty much everywhere. I don't think you understand what being pedantic is, though... I have literally never said a word in support of this project, or even implied support. I invite you to prove otherwise!
Or, even better, you could offer some other private-sector project we could support instead of this pipeline. Positive alternatives to simple opposition, especially when opposition by itself amounts to supporting a lesser bad thing to prevent a greater one.
I mean, which would you prefer to argue:
"Your plan is probably terrible in the middle and long term, and I think we should have moderate badness right now instead."
or
"Your plan is probably bad in the middle and long term, and mine is good both now and in the future."
Perhaps this little play may help explain: Do you understand my idea now?
"Hammer nails through our junk" is a metaphor.
It is a metaphor for the Keystone XL Pipeline.
I've seen the video before, and it's persuasive but ultimately flawed. It breaks down most severely at 3:35 where he doesn't recognize that the bottom left box should have all the negative consequences of the top left one... not just the cost. If the actions have destructive effects, they have destructive effects. However, even if you go all in with his risk analysis, you're wrong on the lesser point: If we choose column A, we are choosing economic disaster. As such, advocates for the choice should be trying as best they can to offer options that mitigate the pretty terrible downside as much as possible.
You are asking us to choose profound misery over destruction. Don't you think it's a good idea to try and come up with some options for weathering the hard times to come?
So, why haven't you offered up alternatives, as you apparently don't support the pipeline either and believe in the destruction thing as well? Seems like we're all on the same page here but you're kind of putting the onus on everyone else.
:winky:
Let me see if I can modify that a bit to make it more accurate:
Well sure, I think for starters oil companies should have to carry insurance in line with the amount of damage that they can cause.
So for this pipeline they should be able to cover the losses of the people that would be effected by a spill.
Well, the main reason is that I don't have any alternative ideas. I was genuinely asking for something to support, for the exact reasons I put forth - it's makes an argument better when you can offer positive alternatives.
----
The risk assessment has other issues. You're really choosing between 100% guaranteed profound global misery and some lesser % chance of epic disaster. That's why AGW true vs false is the really important question... action is always bad, but if AGW is false, inaction is awesome. Most people respond to that by saying "well, it's not false", and that's why I'm saying that it's the important question and can't really be rendered moot, as the guy in the video tries to do. The real question should go "how unlikely does the destruction have to be, before we stop choosing guaranteed misery?"
I don't have a good answer to that.
Which projects, from which companies? This is all too ethereal to work as a good argument, especially when the stand-out "renewable energy" company we invested in just went down in flames and recrimination.
It's hard to argue with you, Spool, when you seem to demand exacting detail from liberals, but you're apparently willing to take anything conservatives say at face value. Solyndra was actually a good company. It was risky, yes- that's the whole point of federal loan guarantees!- and as it happened, it just couldn't quite match the incredibly cost-cutting that other companies did (especially the Chinese companies with massive government subsidies).
If the only goal is job creation then it hardly matters what you spend money on- the whole point is just to inject more cash into the economy. Hence my earlier suggestion of just giving out free money. If you want to help the environment while you're at it, then federal loan guarantees like Solyndra are a great way to do it. Upgrading the electrical grid would help even more.
I'm not going to bother going into details though, because I don't think you actually care. I think you just want to make yourself feel smart by arguing against everyone, all the time, without ever taking a real position.
Fixed.
Absolutely anything would be better than hammering nails through our junk.
Absolutely
Anything
Hammering nails through our junk is a terrible idea. It does not become a good idea in the absence of a good idea, and good ideas are not absent. Doing nothing is a better idea than hammering nails through our junk. "Absolutely anything" is the set containing all of the answers to the question, "What would be a better use of our time and money than hammering nails through our junk?", which is the question you should have asked.
The companies involved in hammering nails through our junk will likely not be using cash. To pay for the project they will seek investors, that is, they will acquire debt. Our debt or their debt, building a pipeline or digging holes, if the goal is creating jobs and stimulating the economy it really doesn't matter.
This would be the case even if the US government could not borrow at less than inflation right now. Borrowing at less than inflation is free money. People are willing to pay us to hold onto their money for them, even after we considered not paying our debts because, "Eh, what's the worst that could happen?" We could buy all the tea in China and launch it into space, and if we speculated on tea futures we could even turn a hefty profit. That plan, though hysterically awesome insane, would probably be less damaging to our environment than hammering nails through our junk and have a greater net positive affect on the economy.
This means you have not done any research on the actual probabilities of those outcomes, which is what the man in the video asked you to do.
Solyndra is always hilarious to see people argue about because it's like "government subsidies don't work. That's why teh Chinese with all their government subsidies beat our company."
The only goal isn't "create jobs" - I think I've been pretty clear throughout. Upgrading the electric grid is a pretty good idea, actually, and a super expensive project that requires some public money and some private investment.
I honestly believe you really can go into details, though. I don't think you've thought it through very well. Just handing out cash isn't sustainable in the longterm, and we both know it... since the longterm projection for any rational choice is unavoidable global misery and economic collapse (worst case), we ought to be thinking about how to sustain ourselves as best we can, with projects that create jobs and don't harm the environment. I'm amazed that your response to "we need jobs that don't fuck up the planet" is "Well, nevermind about jobs. We don't need those."
I'm sorry asking for details in a discussion is making it tough on you, but it's sort of on you to offer alternatives. While you're at it, you should try to be less passive-aggressive in your "parting shot" at me. I often decide not to bother with a discussion, but I try not to tack on a condescending, dismissive insult when I exit stage right.
Nobody's saying "nevermind about jobs". We're simply saying, quite accurately, that a small number of temporary job isn't worth the immense environmental damage that this will cause. I mean, we could also create jobs if we let mining companies strip-mine mount Rushmore... should we do that? Do I need to offer an alternative to that?
Every reputable economist agrees that increased government deficit spending is the best way to create jobs right now. Republicans refuse to listen, but that's the facts. But then you said you're only willing to consider alternatives that cost zero government spending so... that makes it a lot more difficult. Any jobs that could be done easily and profitably are already being done.
I guess you want an alternative that's like "X regulation could be removed and then create 20,000 temp jobs"? That's hard, because most regulations are in place for a very good reason. I guess we could say something like "for the next week, all Koch Brothers are enemies of the Republic. Go ahead, kill them and take all their assets, there will be no legal repercussions." That would create some jobs. It would be a horrible thing to do, but yes it would create jobs.
You're just arguing from an impossible position that we can't possibly reject any proposal to remove a regulation, unless we suggest removing a different regulation instead.