<![CDATA[Grist - Comment Feed for Canada’s version of liquid coal]]> Grist Comment Feed en Comment #1 by Delay And Deny http://www.grist.org/article/the-tar-sands/ Sat, 13 Oct 2007 02:25:43 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-tar-sands/1 Just Getting Started


Tar sands are problematic for the status quo in several ways.   First of all they destroy the "peak oil" argument, as energy from tar sands (known) give us 500 to 1000 years of abundant fossil fuel energy.

Second, the technology for extracting the fuel from the sands, while not to efficient now, is getting better and better.  In fact, although we have known about shale for more than 30 years, it has only recently been efficient enough to go after it.  Colorado, for example, in shale, has the largest "oil reserve" on the planet!

John Bailo
Sutext:


]]> Just Getting Started


Tar sands are problematic for the status quo in several ways.   First of all they destroy the "peak oil" argument, as energy from tar sands (known) give us 500 to 1000 years of abundant fossil fuel energy.

Second, the technology for extracting the fuel from the sands, while not to efficient now, is getting better and better.  In fact, although we have known about shale for more than 30 years, it has only recently been efficient enough to go after it.  Colorado, for example, in shale, has the largest "oil reserve" on the planet!

John Bailo
Sutext:


]]> Comment #2 by blueberrysushi http://www.grist.org/article/the-tar-sands/ Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:06:37 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-tar-sands/2 status quo

Extracting oil from tar sands may be a new technology, but the thinking behind it is centuries old. Tar sands oil extraction is the status quo. Tar sands oil recovery is simply applying old thinking to a new resource, using new technology. This is why technology will not solve our problems: because no matter how much we like to think that the new technology will absolve our environmental sins (it's cleaner! it's more efficient!), we are heading down a road that does not allow for sustainability, and our technology and resource use are irrevocably caught up in a mindset that does not allow for the one true solution to environmental problems: moderation.

As an example, the article notes that extracting oil from tar sands is water-intensive. This illustrates my point: the market imperfectly reflects the environmental costs (externalities), thereby overproviding some goods (like pollution) and underproviding others (like water for fish). Our markets can create incentives to explore or create new sources of energy, but they cannot create incentives to conserve energy, or to decentralize energy sources and make it less profitable. Most of the purported "solutions" to peak oil are not solutions at all. They are an extension of the status quo, which is an emphasis on technologically- and economically-based "fixes."

]]> status quo

Extracting oil from tar sands may be a new technology, but the thinking behind it is centuries old. Tar sands oil extraction is the status quo. Tar sands oil recovery is simply applying old thinking to a new resource, using new technology. This is why technology will not solve our problems: because no matter how much we like to think that the new technology will absolve our environmental sins (it's cleaner! it's more efficient!), we are heading down a road that does not allow for sustainability, and our technology and resource use are irrevocably caught up in a mindset that does not allow for the one true solution to environmental problems: moderation.

As an example, the article notes that extracting oil from tar sands is water-intensive. This illustrates my point: the market imperfectly reflects the environmental costs (externalities), thereby overproviding some goods (like pollution) and underproviding others (like water for fish). Our markets can create incentives to explore or create new sources of energy, but they cannot create incentives to conserve energy, or to decentralize energy sources and make it less profitable. Most of the purported "solutions" to peak oil are not solutions at all. They are an extension of the status quo, which is an emphasis on technologically- and economically-based "fixes."

]]> Comment #3 by Sam Wells http://www.grist.org/article/the-tar-sands/ Mon, 15 Oct 2007 07:38:27 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-tar-sands/3 Who are we to say?

Sure, we like to think energy policy is international and knows no borders - but who are we to dictate what Canada does on their lands?  This is the height of hubris and arrogance and Canadians hate us when we act like that.  If we were smart we'd work on our own problems here at home.

Apparently it is fashionable to pick on other countries for their energy practices but we're the Number One offender in the entire freaking world.  

That's called being a hypocrite.  If we're going to lead the world to new solutions we must lead by example and not the unilateral "Bush" method.  If you don't like extracting oil from the tar sand, great.  Best not to bring up that issue in a bar in Canada, though.  Might be messy.  

Onward through the fog

]]> Who are we to say?

Sure, we like to think energy policy is international and knows no borders - but who are we to dictate what Canada does on their lands?  This is the height of hubris and arrogance and Canadians hate us when we act like that.  If we were smart we'd work on our own problems here at home.

Apparently it is fashionable to pick on other countries for their energy practices but we're the Number One offender in the entire freaking world.  

That's called being a hypocrite.  If we're going to lead the world to new solutions we must lead by example and not the unilateral "Bush" method.  If you don't like extracting oil from the tar sand, great.  Best not to bring up that issue in a bar in Canada, though.  Might be messy.  

Onward through the fog

]]> Comment #4 by In the belly http://www.grist.org/article/the-tar-sands/ Mon, 15 Oct 2007 08:18:29 -0700 http://www.grist.org/article/the-tar-sands/4 who we are to say

Well, no, we aren't the number one offender as far as energy exploitation goes.  Not that we (and by we, I mean energy companies in the US) wouldn't jump at the chance to be the number one offender if there were tar sands as easily mined as in Alberta.  

My impression is that Canadian energy attitudes parallels in many ways those in the US, with generally a western exploitation bias and eastern environmental alarm.

US environmentalists criticise US energy policy and actions all the time.  Why shouldn't we also criticise similarly-stupid actions elsewhere?  I think that not doing so would be hypocritical.

For symmetry, I welcome non-US criticism of US energy policy and actions, hoping that eventually the combination of internal embarrassment and external ridicule actually leads to change.

]]> who we are to say

Well, no, we aren't the number one offender as far as energy exploitation goes.  Not that we (and by we, I mean energy companies in the US) wouldn't jump at the chance to be the number one offender if there were tar sands as easily mined as in Alberta.  

My impression is that Canadian energy attitudes parallels in many ways those in the US, with generally a western exploitation bias and eastern environmental alarm.

US environmentalists criticise US energy policy and actions all the time.  Why shouldn't we also criticise similarly-stupid actions elsewhere?  I think that not doing so would be hypocritical.

For symmetry, I welcome non-US criticism of US energy policy and actions, hoping that eventually the combination of internal embarrassment and external ridicule actually leads to change.

]]>