Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Keystone Pipeline

ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 8:32:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think the keystone pipeline is an ingenius example of a small group of the elitist minority imposing their moral will on the majority. The vast majority agree with the keystone pipeline ( http://thehill.com... ), but instead of allowing it, (like the majority wants), are small elitist minority of environmentalists are disallowing the economy and our standard of living to improve by blocking this pipeline.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 8:45:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've said it before, Obama's rich crony, Warren Buffett, stands to make a bunch of money if the Keystone pipeline is delayed or scrapped. http://www.washingtontimes.com...
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 8:58:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 8:32:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think the keystone pipeline is an ingenius example of a small group of the elitist minority imposing their moral will on the majority. The vast majority agree with the keystone pipeline ( http://thehill.com... ), but instead of allowing it, (like the majority wants), are small elitist minority of environmentalists are disallowing the economy and our standard of living to improve by blocking this pipeline.

According to the report: "Republicans overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline. Fully 84% say the government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, including 88% of conservative Republicans.

Even among Democrats who have heard about the issue, a 49% plurality support the government approving the pipeline while 33% say it should not be approved."

Besides, according to the poll: " the public is not following this issue very closely. Just 24% say they have heard a lot about it while another 39% have heard a little; 37% have heard nothing at all about the pipeline."

Therefore, it is more like that the general population is not well informed on the issue. And among those who are informed, the poll actually reveals that there is a strong ideological difference among the population. Regardless, I, myself, support the construction of the pipeline. President Obama made a political decision, but a policy decision when he rejected the permit. The election is over. Hopefully, President Obama would come to more senses on the issue.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 9:04:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 8:32:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think the keystone pipeline is an ingenius example of a small group of the elitist minority imposing their moral will on the majority. The vast majority agree with the keystone pipeline ( http://thehill.com... ), but instead of allowing it, (like the majority wants), are small elitist minority of environmentalists are disallowing the economy and our standard of living to improve by blocking this pipeline.

When a minority, in this case those who occupy the local farms, reservations and surrounding communities (not to mention a group with even less representation in the world's only superpower, the global population that will suffer the environmental consequences of the pipeline's increase of oil extraction, refinement and consumption), is saddled with the easements and risks, it's appropriate for a minority to block it.
sadolite
Posts: 8,842
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 9:43:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 8:32:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think the keystone pipeline is an ingenius example of a small group of the elitist minority imposing their moral will on the majority. The vast majority agree with the keystone pipeline ( http://thehill.com... ), but instead of allowing it, (like the majority wants), are small elitist minority of environmentalists are disallowing the economy and our standard of living to improve by blocking this pipeline.

You are just now figuring this out about enviromentalists? This has been going on for decades.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 9:53:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 8:45:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I've said it before, Obama's rich crony, Warren Buffett, stands to make a bunch of money if the Keystone pipeline is delayed or scrapped. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

I used to love reading about Buffett, and he was one of my personal heroes, but his political positions are starting to become increasingly nefarious.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 10:31:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 8:45:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I've said it before, Obama's rich crony, Warren Buffett, stands to make a bunch of money if the Keystone pipeline is delayed or scrapped. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The article does not reveal the percentage of revenue generated by the oil shipment. Besides, it is uncertain if Mr. Buffett would benefit from the Keystone construction, given the fact that the article explores only the option of Keystone cancellation. Moreover, the article actually hints on the real cause of cancellation:
Critics accuse the president of buckling to pressure from environmentalists who oppose the project and are important to Mr. Obama"s re-election effort.
It is, therefore, preposterous to insinuate that Mr. Buffet must be in favor of cancellation (your article suggests such).
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 11:04:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 10:31:11 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/25/2013 8:45:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I've said it before, Obama's rich crony, Warren Buffett, stands to make a bunch of money if the Keystone pipeline is delayed or scrapped. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The article does not reveal the percentage of revenue generated by the oil shipment. Besides, it is uncertain if Mr. Buffett would benefit from the Keystone construction, given the fact that the article explores only the option of Keystone cancellation. Moreover, the article actually hints on the real cause of cancellation:
Critics accuse the president of buckling to pressure from environmentalists who oppose the project and are important to Mr. Obama"s re-election effort.
It is, therefore, preposterous to insinuate that Mr. Buffet must be in favor of cancellation (your article suggests such).

I fully agree with TES. My name is wrichcirw, and I approve this message. :D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2013 11:22:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 11:04:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:31:11 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/25/2013 8:45:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I've said it before, Obama's rich crony, Warren Buffett, stands to make a bunch of money if the Keystone pipeline is delayed or scrapped. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The article does not reveal the percentage of revenue generated by the oil shipment. Besides, it is uncertain if Mr. Buffett would benefit from the Keystone construction, given the fact that the article explores only the option of Keystone cancellation. Moreover, the article actually hints on the real cause of cancellation:
Critics accuse the president of buckling to pressure from environmentalists who oppose the project and are important to Mr. Obama"s re-election effort.
It is, therefore, preposterous to insinuate that Mr. Buffet must be in favor of cancellation (your article suggests such).

I fully agree with TES. My name is wrichcirw, and I approve this message. :D

Gratitude =).
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:34:00 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 11:22:38 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/25/2013 11:04:52 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/25/2013 10:31:11 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/25/2013 8:45:51 PM, lewis20 wrote:
I've said it before, Obama's rich crony, Warren Buffett, stands to make a bunch of money if the Keystone pipeline is delayed or scrapped. http://www.washingtontimes.com...

The article does not reveal the percentage of revenue generated by the oil shipment. Besides, it is uncertain if Mr. Buffett would benefit from the Keystone construction, given the fact that the article explores only the option of Keystone cancellation. Moreover, the article actually hints on the real cause of cancellation:
Critics accuse the president of buckling to pressure from environmentalists who oppose the project and are important to Mr. Obama"s re-election effort.
It is, therefore, preposterous to insinuate that Mr. Buffet must be in favor of cancellation (your article suggests such).

I fully agree with TES. My name is wrichcirw, and I approve this message. :D

Gratitude =).

Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 22nd amendment limit the president to just the 2, 4-year terms, of which Obama is currently serving his second?

Also, is the BP debacle in the Gulf of Mexico such a distant memory the people believe we should just be pumping and transporting oil willy-nilly through environmentally sensitive areas of our country?

A. Pipelines fail

http://phmsa.dot.gov...

B. Tar sands are among the least environmentally friendly ways to get oil, and some of the least potent end products.

http://ostseis.anl.gov...

C. It's gonna be approved (sections of it are already built), so quit your whining.
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
ConservativeAmerican
Posts: 1,676
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 7:42:41 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/25/2013 8:58:51 PM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/25/2013 8:32:45 PM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
I think the keystone pipeline is an ingenius example of a small group of the elitist minority imposing their moral will on the majority. The vast majority agree with the keystone pipeline ( http://thehill.com... ), but instead of allowing it, (like the majority wants), are small elitist minority of environmentalists are disallowing the economy and our standard of living to improve by blocking this pipeline.

According to the report: "Republicans overwhelmingly support the building of the pipeline. Fully 84% say the government should approve the Keystone XL pipeline, including 88% of conservative Republicans.

Even among Democrats who have heard about the issue, a 49% plurality support the government approving the pipeline while 33% say it should not be approved."

Besides, according to the poll: " the public is not following this issue very closely. Just 24% say they have heard a lot about it while another 39% have heard a little; 37% have heard nothing at all about the pipeline."

Therefore, it is more like that the general population is not well informed on the issue. And among those who are informed, the poll actually reveals that there is a strong ideological difference among the population. Regardless, I, myself, support the construction of the pipeline. President Obama made a political decision, but a policy decision when he rejected the permit. The election is over. Hopefully, President Obama would come to more senses on the issue.

The general public is never informed on any issue, and hasn't given a crap about politics for 20 years, Washington only cares about reaching out to these idiots in November.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 9:51:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 1:34:00 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 22nd amendment limit the president to just the 2, 4-year terms, of which Obama is currently serving his second?

Also, is the BP debacle in the Gulf of Mexico such a distant memory the people believe we should just be pumping and transporting oil willy-nilly through environmentally sensitive areas of our country?

A. Pipelines fail

http://phmsa.dot.gov...

B. Tar sands are among the least environmentally friendly ways to get oil, and some of the least potent end products.

http://ostseis.anl.gov...

C. It's gonna be approved (sections of it are already built), so quit your whining.

The nation is allowing unwarranted environmental fears to prevent the construction of the KeyStone pipeline. Pipelines do fail. But The number of incident is well under control. According to the link you provided, there are only 60 documented incidents. One can expect the government to carefully monitor the construction and maintenance of KeyStone pipeline. BP tragedy would not be forgotten. But one"s judgement should not be clouded by grief either. A balance approach is required.

As for Tar sands, it is unclear to me why "Tar sands are among the least environmentally friendly way to get oil, and some of the least potent end products." Although both mining and processing of tar sands involve a variety of environmental impacts, the article falls short of claiming that "Tar sands are among the least environmentally friendly to get oil." Besides, the article does suggest that "Recently, prices for crude oil have again risen to levels that may make tar-sands-based oil production in the United States commercially attractive." Thus, it appears to me that tar sands are among the most potent end products.

Therefore, should we stop complaining? No. President Obama made an unwise decision in the past, and if history indeed repeats itself, one would expect that he would make the same mistake, again. Four more years, btw.
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:12:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 7:42:41 AM, ConservativeAmerican wrote:
The general public is never informed on any issue, and hasn't given a crap about politics for 20 years, Washington only cares about reaching out to these idiots in November.

You spoke in harsh tongue. I tend to resonate with your assertion, but I wouldn"t claim that "the general public is never informed on any issue." Affordable Care, aka. ObamaCare, did generate some thoughtful debates back then. Public may not take much interests in the issue on hands because one cannot easily feel the benefits that the construction would confer upon. Besides, mainstream media outlet decided to avoid entanglement and disagreement with Administration by not featuring sensible reports on the issue.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 10:15:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 9:51:05 AM, TheElderScroll wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:34:00 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the 22nd amendment limit the president to just the 2, 4-year terms, of which Obama is currently serving his second?

Also, is the BP debacle in the Gulf of Mexico such a distant memory the people believe we should just be pumping and transporting oil willy-nilly through environmentally sensitive areas of our country?

A. Pipelines fail

http://phmsa.dot.gov...

B. Tar sands are among the least environmentally friendly ways to get oil, and some of the least potent end products.

http://ostseis.anl.gov...

C. It's gonna be approved (sections of it are already built), so quit your whining.

The nation is allowing unwarranted environmental fears to prevent the construction of the KeyStone pipeline. Pipelines do fail. But The number of incident is well under control. According to the link you provided, there are only 60 documented incidents.

A. The number of REPORTED incidents.

B. Unwarranted? UNWARRANTED?!?!?!?!?

Did we forget about BP from the time we read my post until the time we wrote our own?

Shall I pull up some other oil disasters for your review?

One can expect the government to carefully monitor the construction and maintenance of KeyStone pipeline. BP tragedy would not be forgotten. But one"s judgement should not be clouded by grief either. A balance approach is required.

Really? Would this be like the SEC's careful monitoring of the Credit Default Swap Market? The FEC's careful monitoring of Federal Election Rules Violations? The Government's "careful monitoring" of the half-@ssed measures used in Deep Sea Oil Drilling?

That kind of careful monitoring (don't even get me started about the lacking nuclear regulations in this country)?

As for Tar sands, it is unclear to me why "Tar sands are among the least environmentally friendly way to get oil, and some of the least potent end products." Although both mining and processing of tar sands involve a variety of environmental impacts, the article falls short of claiming that "Tar sands are among the least environmentally friendly to get oil."

Um...it's not mining, it STRIP MINING. I can get more in depth, but you're just being silly here.

Besides, the article does suggest that "Recently, prices for crude oil have again risen to levels that may make tar-sands-based oil production in the United States commercially attractive." Thus, it appears to me that tar sands are among the most potent end products.

Wow...how you got from commercially attractive given the high price of oil to "most potent end products" is a full on mystery to me...please explain how your logic got you from A to Omega.


Therefore, should we stop complaining? No. President Obama made an unwise decision in the past, and if history indeed repeats itself, one would expect that he would make the same mistake, again. Four more years, btw.

You have no friggin' clue what you're talking about do you (other than Obama = bad)?
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
TheElderScroll
Posts: 643
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:35:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 10:15:20 AM, malcolmxy wrote:
A. The number of REPORTED incidents.
B. Unwarranted? UNWARRANTED?!?!?!?!?
Did we forget about BP from the time we read my post until the time we wrote our own?
Shall I pull up some other oil disasters for your review?

Really? Would this be like the SEC's careful monitoring of the Credit Default Swap Market? The FEC's careful monitoring of Federal Election Rules Violations? The Government's "careful monitoring" of the half-@ssed measures used in Deep Sea Oil Drilling?

That kind of careful monitoring (don't even get me started about the lacking nuclear regulations in this country)?

Um...it's not mining, it STRIP MINING. I can get more in depth, but you're just being silly here.

Wow...how you got from commercially attractive given the high price of oil to "most potent end products" is a full on mystery to me...please explain how your logic got you from A to Omega.

You have no friggin' clue what you're talking about do you (other than Obama = bad)?
You misconstrued my intent. I was not arguing that President Obama == bad. He made both wise and unwise decisions. I was merely not comfortable with his decisions on the issue. Although I claimed no expert on the environmental impact of tar sands, I am not entirely absent knowledge of the issue. I argued that "the nation is allowing unwarranted environmental fears to prevent the construction" because everything entails risk. What truly matters is if the risk is acceptable. Just because the oil would be transported through environmentally sensitive areas does not automatically suggest that the environmental disaster is inevitable. It is, therefore, unconscionable to reject the construction solely because of some risks that may or may not be materialized.

With no doubt, oil disasters do not lend a favorable light to the oil industry. BP oil disasters tarnished the already-bruised reputation of oil industry. When one is presented with the image describing sufferance resulting from oil disasters, I am sure that he or she would be persuaded that oil industry is necessary evil. But that is not what people should learn from those disasters. What more important is that state and local governments should regulate the process, learn from mistakes, and never repeat the same mistake again.

However, you question the sincerity and capability of government regulation, suggesting that since government failed to perform its duty during the financial crisis, it is, therefore, unreasonable to lay trust in the government on the matter. But Credit Swap Market is way much complicate than the construction of pipeline, implying that it is extremely difficult for the government to regulate. Deep sea oil drilling presents certain difficulty that no one can expect. On the contrary, the art of engineering is at its highest apogee when it comes to construction. Therefore, one should reasonably conclude that the KeyStone pipeline entails minimum risk once properly constructed and monitored. The economic benefits outweigh the potential risk.

AEI offers some advice on the issue: http://www.aei.org...

Heritage Foundation also offers some great insight on the topic:
http://blog.heritage.org...

In conclusion, both energy and environmental interests are not the archenemies people make them out to be. Hopefully, both President Obama and environmentalists would realize this.
malcolmxy
Posts: 2,855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 12:51:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
strip mining...inferior oil...and, I did sorta mention the lacking regulations in deep sea oil drilling and you blazed past that part.

this is all before you stick it in a pipe in Alberta and wait for it to ooze out at the gulf of mexico (not mentioning the purple mountains majesty it has to traverse on its way from point a to b.)
War is over, if you want it.

Meet Dr. Stupid and his assistants - http://www.debate.org...
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 1:27:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I've been to Alberta; my best friend lives there (Edmonton) so I know the area pretty well. They aren't going to stop mining the tar sands for the same reasons that Texans aren't going to stop drilling: it supports their economy. The area is booming right now, and the activity is drawing in investment in other segments as well. So arguments about the impact of oil sands are irrelevant: if we don't buy it, China or some other country will. In that case it will be transported by tanker, and tanker accidents are much more environmentally devastating than pipeline leaks. Add to that the fact that Canada is willing to reroute the pipeline around sensitive areas and it simply doesn't make much sense to oppose it.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:02:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 1:27:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
In that case it will be transported by tanker, and tanker accidents are much more environmentally devastating than pipeline leaks.

It was will also be transported at much greater expense, so the question is, are all commodities perfectly price inelastic or just oil?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:31:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:02:20 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:27:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
In that case it will be transported by tanker, and tanker accidents are much more environmentally devastating than pipeline leaks.

It was will also be transported at much greater expense, so the question is, are all commodities perfectly price inelastic or just oil?

Are you saying that it won't be bought internationally due to the price of transporting it by tanker? By that logic the middle east wouldn't be exporting oil to us. Besides, the Chinese are more than willing to pay for Albertan oil, they're actually investing heavily in the area:

http://articles.chicagotribune.com...

http://www.chron.com...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 2:37:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 1:27:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I've been to Alberta; my best friend lives there (Edmonton) so I know the area pretty well. They aren't going to stop mining the tar sands for the same reasons that Texans aren't going to stop drilling: it supports their economy. The area is booming right now, and the activity is drawing in investment in other segments as well. So arguments about the impact of oil sands are irrelevant: if we don't buy it, China or some other country will. In that case it will be transported by tanker, and tanker accidents are much more environmentally devastating than pipeline leaks. Add to that the fact that Canada is willing to reroute the pipeline around sensitive areas and it simply doesn't make much sense to oppose it.

I was going to debate someone over this. He believed that environmental protection trumps economic concerns. What he failed to realize is that environmental protection is actually a subset of economic concerns. If environmental damage, expressed in economic terms, whether it be a drop in tourism, arable farmland, or overall health of the population, begins to outweigh the economic benefits from a certain activity, we will stop that activity. Otherwise, we have little to no reason to care. Beavers don't protect the environment, they actively change it to suit their needs.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:02:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:31:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:02:20 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:27:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
In that case it will be transported by tanker, and tanker accidents are much more environmentally devastating than pipeline leaks.

It was will also be transported at much greater expense, so the question is, are all commodities perfectly price inelastic or just oil?

Are you saying that it won't be bought internationally due to the price of transporting it by tanker?

No, I'm saying that, due to the price of transporting by tanker, blocking the pipeline will result in a net reduction in oil demand (from what it otherwise would have been). In other words, the reduction in US oil demand (again, from what it otherwise would have been) will exceed the increase in Chinese oil demand (once again, from what it otherwise would have been). To deny that is to suggest that the price elasticity of oil demand is 0; is that what you're suggesting?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:11:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:02:48 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:31:36 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/26/2013 2:02:20 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:27:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
In that case it will be transported by tanker, and tanker accidents are much more environmentally devastating than pipeline leaks.

It was will also be transported at much greater expense, so the question is, are all commodities perfectly price inelastic or just oil?

Are you saying that it won't be bought internationally due to the price of transporting it by tanker?

No, I'm saying that, due to the price of transporting by tanker, blocking the pipeline will result in a net reduction in oil demand (from what it otherwise would have been). In other words, the reduction in US oil demand (again, from what it otherwise would have been) will exceed the increase in Chinese oil demand (once again, from what it otherwise would have been). To deny that is to suggest that the price elasticity of oil demand is 0; is that what you're suggesting?

But it wouldn't affect demand at all, it would affect supply, which would affect the equilibrium price, which would affect the amount being consumed. The amount of people willing to purchase a good at any given price doesn't change, and that is demand. And besides, speculation plays such a huge role in the oil prices that the changes won't be so clear cut.

http://www.sfgate.com...
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 3:19:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 2:37:48 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 2/26/2013 1:27:04 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
I've been to Alberta; my best friend lives there (Edmonton) so I know the area pretty well. They aren't going to stop mining the tar sands for the same reasons that Texans aren't going to stop drilling: it supports their economy. The area is booming right now, and the activity is drawing in investment in other segments as well. So arguments about the impact of oil sands are irrelevant: if we don't buy it, China or some other country will. In that case it will be transported by tanker, and tanker accidents are much more environmentally devastating than pipeline leaks. Add to that the fact that Canada is willing to reroute the pipeline around sensitive areas and it simply doesn't make much sense to oppose it.

I was going to debate someone over this. He believed that environmental protection trumps economic concerns. What he failed to realize is that environmental protection is actually a subset of economic concerns. If environmental damage, expressed in economic terms, whether it be a drop in tourism, arable farmland, or overall health of the population, begins to outweigh the economic benefits from a certain activity, we will stop that activity. Otherwise, we have little to no reason to care. Beavers don't protect the environment, they actively change it to suit their needs.

Bingo. In my mind that biggest issue is protecting biodiversity, due to the untapped biochemical wealth of every species. Most people go completely overboard with the environmentalism, under the rather silly belief that man changing nature somehow makes it not-nature and must be stopped. There are some pretty interesting studies on urban ecosystems; it always reminds me of studies on ant colonies and the niches that some organisms occupy within them.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 4:08:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 3:11:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
But it wouldn't affect demand at all, it would affect supply, which would affect the equilibrium price, which would affect the amount being consumed. The amount of people willing to purchase a good at any given price doesn't change, and that is demand.

So, semantics? Incidentally, you're confusing demand with the demand curve, which is the relationship between demand and price. As price decreases, as when a pipeline is built, demand moves to the corresponding point on the demand curve, which, price elasticity of demand being negative, is higher.

Besides, speculation plays such a huge role in the oil prices that the changes won't be so clear cut.

First of all, as the pipeline's reduction of oil prices is one of the main arguments for it, I can't see doubting it doing you much good. Secondly, I took what I saw as bordering on excessive care to contrast pipeline oil economics to no-pipeline oil economics, not pre-pipeline oil economics; if other factors, such as speculation, have an overwhelmingly inflationary effect, the effect of the pipeline will rather be a deceleration of that increase and, in turn, a deceleration of the reduction in demand.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 4:24:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 4:08:03 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:11:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
But it wouldn't affect demand at all, it would affect supply, which would affect the equilibrium price, which would affect the amount being consumed. The amount of people willing to purchase a good at any given price doesn't change, and that is demand.

So, semantics? Incidentally, you're confusing demand with the demand curve, which is the relationship between demand and price. As price decreases, as when a pipeline is built, demand moves to the corresponding point on the demand curve, which, price elasticity of demand being negative, is higher.

Besides, speculation plays such a huge role in the oil prices that the changes won't be so clear cut.

First of all, as the pipeline's reduction of oil prices is one of the main arguments for it, I can't see doubting it doing you much good. Secondly, I took what I saw as bordering on excessive care to contrast pipeline oil economics to no-pipeline oil economics, not pre-pipeline oil economics; if other factors, such as speculation, have an overwhelmingly inflationary effect, the effect of the pipeline will rather be a deceleration of that increase and, in turn, a deceleration of the reduction in demand.

This guy is a troll. He's going to attempt to obfuscate the meaning of his and your arguments through semantics.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:37:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 4:08:03 PM, CarefulNow wrote:
At 2/26/2013 3:11:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
But it wouldn't affect demand at all, it would affect supply, which would affect the equilibrium price, which would affect the amount being consumed. The amount of people willing to purchase a good at any given price doesn't change, and that is demand.

So, semantics? Incidentally, you're confusing demand with the demand curve, which is the relationship between demand and price. As price decreases, as when a pipeline is built, demand moves to the corresponding point on the demand curve, which, price elasticity of demand being negative, is higher.

Wait a minute, your point is that China will consume less at a higher cost, and that this is good? You do realize that a large part of the higher cost is being put towards fuel costs to transport the oil oversees, which leads not only to the use of fossil fuels but the wasteful use of them? Not to mention that the transport itself is more environmentally damaging if something goes wrong (and the Chinese are not known for airtight safety policies)

Besides, speculation plays such a huge role in the oil prices that the changes won't be so clear cut.

First of all, as the pipeline's reduction of oil prices is one of the main arguments for it, I can't see doubting it doing you much good. Secondly, I took what I saw as bordering on excessive care to contrast pipeline oil economics to no-pipeline oil economics, not pre-pipeline oil economics; if other factors, such as speculation, have an overwhelmingly inflationary effect, the effect of the pipeline will rather be a deceleration of that increase and, in turn, a deceleration of the reduction in demand.

It's populist drivel used by the Republicans to gain votes, and not the argument that I use. I argue that it's a more efficient use of the energy contained in the fuel and better from a geopolitical standpoint. Ship it to China and you're wasting fuel to transport the fuel, and feeding a rising competitor. It's the same principle as local agriculture. The way that I see it, our economy with all of its bells and whistles runs on energy from fossil fuels. The way to 'win the game', so to speak, is to use this temporary glut of energy to discover as many alternative ways to generate energy as possible before we run out. Because if we don't, things will get very ugly very quickly when the fuel dries up. To put it in scientific terms, our species will get a first-hand demonstration of punctuated equilibrium.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 5:42:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
When are we all going to come to our senses are face up to the reality that we have an unlimited, "safe if we make it" source of energy: Nuclear.

Enough of these platitudes regarding wind and solar as the energy of the future -- they're not. Nuclear is. We are done looking.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:09:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:42:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
When are we all going to come to our senses are face up to the reality that we have an unlimited, "safe if we make it" source of energy: Nuclear.

Enough of these platitudes regarding wind and solar as the energy of the future -- they're not. Nuclear is. We are done looking.

I agree, but we aren't done looking, so to speak, as nuclear itself has endless variants and theoretical applications to explore. But it's definitely the only currently implementable real sustainable source of energy in the long term. Areas prone to natural disaster could subsist on things like wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,254
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:18:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 6:09:01 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 2/26/2013 5:42:40 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
When are we all going to come to our senses are face up to the reality that we have an unlimited, "safe if we make it" source of energy: Nuclear.

Enough of these platitudes regarding wind and solar as the energy of the future -- they're not. Nuclear is. We are done looking.

I agree, but we aren't done looking, so to speak, as nuclear itself has endless variants and theoretical applications to explore. But it's definitely the only currently implementable real sustainable source of energy in the long term. Areas prone to natural disaster could subsist on things like wind, solar, tidal, and geothermal energy.

I agree that perfecting nuclear energy technology for energy is better than technological stagnation. I meant that we are done looking for additional sources.
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2013 6:36:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 2/26/2013 5:37:32 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Wait a minute, your point is that China will consume less at a higher cost, and that this is good? You do realize that a large part of the higher cost is being put towards fuel costs to transport the oil oversees, which leads not only to the use of fossil fuels but the wasteful use of them? Not to mention that the transport itself is more environmentally damaging if something goes wrong (and the Chinese are not known for airtight safety policies)

Then can I mark you down as a supporter of high tariffs on Middle East oil? Wait, I forgot, rapidly increasing global temperatures for no reason is just like the beaver's symbiotic coevolution with its habitat over thousands of years of natural selection.

It's populist drivel used by the Republicans to gain votes, and not the argument that I use.

Be that as it may, your source didn't dispute the argument. It just identified another factor, speculation, that has an overwhelming effect on price. It did not claim that oil price has no supply elasticity, because such a claim would have been ludicrous.