By Fareed Zakaria
Later this year, the Obama administration will have to make a decision on whether to green light the Keystone pipeline – the 2,000-mile pipeline that would bring oil from the tar sands of Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. I’m sure you’ve heard all the dire warnings about it. But another way to look at it is to ask what would happen if the project does not go forward.
The U.S. Department of State released an extremely thorough report that tries to answer this question. It concludes, basically, that the oil derived from Canadian tar sands will be developed at about the same pace whether or not there is a pipeline. In other words, stopping Keystone might make us feel good, but it wouldn't really do anything about climate change.
Why? Well, given the need for oil in the U.S., Canadian producers would still get Alberta's oil to the refineries on the Gulf of Mexico. There are other pipeline possibilities, but the most likely method of transfer is by train. The report estimates that it would take daily runs of 15 trains with about 100 tanker cars each to carry the amount planned by TransCanada…And remember, moving oil by train produces much higher emissions of CO2 (from diesel locomotives) than flowing it through a pipeline.
For more on this, read the TIME column here.
© 2012 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
| Advertising practices | Advertise with us | About us | Work for us | Help
Get facts and read the EIS first! Before you back something learn why Canada blocked refining it there. Tar sand oil is also extremely dirty and will be traveling near the US's largest freshwater Midwest aquifer. Don't believe the whole oil will be used in America when in fact this oil will only end up in China. There is no guarantee we will get this oil, so why are we playing the middle man! Don't say jobs because the jobs created are really only temporary.
Fareeed- to paraphrase your discussion style; “Consider this.”:
A) If ALL the existing & planned Alternate energy sources (solar, wind, geo, etc.) were to be successfully realized, the current less than 5% contribution would raise to a measly less than 10%! Conventional energy (Gas & Oil) WILL, by fact, dominate consumption in ours, and future generations.
B) By any rational measure, does anyone honestly believe that China would (or could) both refine and consume Keystone’s Canadian oil in anyway near as cleanly as here domestically in the US? China increased emissions per barrel/liter pours into our same shared atmosphere.
Fareed states..."Ideally we would use the proceeds to fund research on alternative energy."
Fine, but...who is "we"? If it's the corporate overlords at BP, Shell or PetroChina...don't hold your breath. If it's "we" the people/government of Alberta...don't hold your breath. Alberta has just announced a $6,000,000,000.00 Cdn deficit. They plan on slashing spending on hospitals, schools and all othger soietal programs over the next several years. I presume the "we" might be the indiginous people living downriver from the tar sands? Don't hold your breath here either Fareed...they're dying from bitumen based cancers faster than they can dig the graves so I suspect they'll find little time to examine the cost benefits of renewable energy systems.
Couldn't have said it better. We haven't finished cleaning up the pipe leak in Kalamazoo, MI four years ago with over a billion dollars spent. The US is taking all the risk, so that Canadian Oil can make a profit. Our water supply is what is the most pressing problem with this. Climate change is relevant but not the deal breaker....contaminated water is.
It's not "Canadian Oil" that stands to profit. As reported on the show, it's Shell, Chevron and the other US, British, Finnish, Norwegian and Chinese (40% ownership in the tarsands) petro companies. Canada only gets royalties and since Alberta is broke now...it will be up to the 30something million Canadians to pay for the restoration of the mines when the multi-national oil barons cut and run if oil hits 83 bucks a barrel. By some calculations, that is the lowest it can fall on world markets before the bitumin cooking becomes unprofitable and all that will be left are some "sandy beach properties" up on the tundra. Please see...
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/13/world/americas/oil-sand-industry-in-canada-tied-to-higher-carcinogen-level.html?_r=1&
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/12/160935/will-high-oil-costs-permanently.html and http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2012/08/12/160930/is-the-era-of-oil-nearing-its.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-no-to-keystone-yes-to-crazy.html?hp&_r=0
Congratulations on your commentary on the Keystone P/L. Your analysis was right on! I worked in the oil industry for 40 years. From way before the term "globalization" existed, the oil industry operated throughout the world, and everything was interchangeable at some price. We have all kinds of options. Unfortunately, there is never any one silver bullet that entirely covers a problem, so we stack things from cheapest to most expensive, and optimize the solution.
The world wide demand for oil is there, and oil will be shipped from Canada to somewhere, and somewhere Saudi or Indonesian or some other crude oil or product will be rerouted to conform with a least cost solution to the supply problem. That's how it works, and you presented it perfectly.
Mr. Brune may not have understood you, and he presented some old arguments, but with many half truths. He dodged the tough questions. But, your questions of him were appropriate. You could have mentioned that oil production in North Dakota has grown from about 150,000 B/D to 750,000 B/D in the past 18 months, most of which is currently going out by Warren Buffet's railroad. This is more costly and has a greater chance of spills or other accidents than by pipeline. North Dakota oil could also be shipped in Keystone, ultimately saving everyone money, most of which eventually nets back to the consumer.
Finally, as you have pointed out on previous shows, a strong low cost energy sector gives the US a chance to grow ourselves out of our current financial morass by generating hundreds of thousands of new high paying jobs in energy intensive industries-chemicals, steel, glass, aluminum, etc. Canadian oil, fracking, deep water oil, Keystone, and conservation like the new mileage standards, gives our country an unbelievable, fortunate, out of the blue opportunity to return to a stable growing economy, less pollution, and a better life for all our citizens. It can solve so many of our domestic an foreign problems.
The Sierra Club should recognize this and get on the correct side of the issue. They act like the Tea Party, but lately even the Tea Party is recognizing how foolish they look,and are changing some hard nosed old positions, which everyone recognized as wrong.
@Facts The REAL reason we are not refining it in Canada is because the AMERICAN companies that operate and control most of the oil sands production do not want to spend the money building refineries in Canada when they have perfectly useable refineries in the US already. Then, they can sell that refined product back to Canada and make even more profit....but hey, don't let any actual FACTS get in the way of your misinformation campaign.
Canada didn't block refining it at home..
The main reason to pipe the oil to Texas is that there is excess refining capacity in Texas. Refineries cost several Billion dollars to build, its a simple matter of economics.
@guy,as a union welder with experience in refineries there's no refineries stateside that can handle this caustic tar sand mix.Kalamazoo ,Michigan has a pipe rupture there years ago of this same crude mix in a river there and can't clean it up its that caustic,do you want a pipeline pumping thousands of gallons a second spill this mix anywhere stateside,I don't .This crude I hate to tell you is headed for China no matter where this pipeline ends..And Guy if its so great a savior for America why isn't Canada refining it simply because thry're more enviromentally conscience plain and simple and a pipeline heading west to Canadas coast was shot down as well!!Please before injecting unfactual data into this mix read up Fareed Zakarea is wrong as well and should keep his comments to something he knows more about ,not this!!And remember also you won't hear from republican Boehner either on this pipeline project because he was almost ran off months ago after it was found he accepted stocks in lew of being a spokesman illegally for Keystone,read up how he cried on that one!!
Pete you don't have a damn clue what you are talking about. There are many refineries in the US that can handle oil sands crude. The Wood River refinery is one such example (Phillips 66).
I don't care if you are a welder, I'm not sure what relevance that has. I am a Chemical Engineer and I have been working in process plants for almost 10 years now.
@guy 2,what college big guy did you get your degree,mines from working them smart guy..And that tar sand that uses high pressure steam at high temperatures is very caustic as well as abrasive,did you ever work with it because friends of mine are working in Canadas one unit that does just that removing that crap from the ground 24/7..And why go to Canada smart one when the Bakkens Shelf in N Dakota is connected and has as much as the Canadian part ..And the revelence of being a welder with probibly more time welding than you've got on earth is that when updates or better ways of processing a product like crude in these refineries comes along we install it during shutdowns so you smart asses can see if your ideas really work or hold up .. Ask while you're at it about Kalamazoo,Michigan and the polluted river in their state thanks to Keystone,they're not happy about it either guy!!So if you think you're so smart "mr chemical engineer" just why has Canada decided not to go through with their east,west pipeline or refine it up in Canada,reason because they're more strengent enviromental guidelines up there then America and they know we'll do anything here because of the corrupt ways of the EPA..Just ask Cheneys back door deal with the EPA while VP how he kept the EPA from investigating the chemical process or chemicals used in his corporations fracking process that's causing cancer with suspected carcinogens used for natural gas wells and you're a chemical engineer and I'm the pope...Just another wanne be that wants to stick their ignorent nose in something and those trains transporting crude are electric run motors built by GE so theres only a small diesel motor to start the electric one up,no pollution to record!! Read up more Mr chemical engineer and go work at Woodriver,Illinois ,Ashland,Ky , Mativa,Del or Valao,Tx just some of the refineries including Shell in Oklahoma that I've worked and what little 3×5 office do you work in bud!!
Pete
I work in the oil sands There are plenty of refineries in canada that can handle bitumen. Bitumen is oil and NGL mixed no sand it does not dissolve pipes. Alberta is in the process of building refineries and upgraders as we speak, close to 600 000 bpd of high quality synthetic crude from the oil sands is already shipped to the states to the chicago area. The refineries in texas are set up to handle oil from south america which is heavy crude , as there is oil sands there as well basically the same product. You really should do some reasearch and stop listening to all the BS surrounding canadian oil, we have some of the highest standards in the world and getting better every day. Google insitu technology, no tailings ponds no fresh water intakes no discharging into lakes or rivers, Your bakken field is counting on the keystone line as well to ship product, You must like financing terrorists and dictators as every barrel you buy from the middle east supports them, is that what you really want??
@jonny,I've read and have friends working in fields up there in both the Dakotas and Canada and its more bud than you're are letting on..Woodriver in Illinois wouldn't be retooling if it were a simple crude for refining so if you do work those fields as you say yah better research the crap you're working with and believe me I've got more years in refinery work as a welder fixing that ancient crap up than probibly you do in working them.And remember Jonny we have a huge find in Texas bigger than the Saudis that'll add to our share of the Bakken shelf so we don't really need your Canadian crude down here anyway...Ask Keystone like I posted before about that river in Kalamazoo,Michigan that got wiped out because of them being so lazy maintenence wise with a pipe break and believe me they don't want Keystone near them anymore either,wonder why!!
Pete i have over thirty years in oil and gas, both sides of the border and trust me I DONT WANT THIS TO GO THROUGH THE USA IS BROKE YOU HAVE NO MONEY, as for your comments do you know the difference between upgraders, refineries and the process to make bitumen, 600 000 bpd of synthetic crude means pete that any refinery can handle the product, the refineries in texas are set up to process heavy crude from south america. The bitumen is not corrosive nor does it have sand in it, do you know what NGL is pete, Please tell me how it is so bad it dissolves pipelines, Just keep supporting your blood oil buddies as you really dont seem to care about anyone other than yourself, probably dont care that workers only make $10 bucks a day as long as the tankers keep flowing the oil right pete. Canadian oil workers make very good livings the money pays for schools roads hospitals police the list goes on, what do your saudi buddies finance death destruction hatred road side bombs the list goes on. 40 YEARS AGO THE WHOLE WORLD LAUGHED AT THE OIL SANDS WHOS LAUGHING NOW please be specific as to this big find in texas what are the reserve estimates ???? facts pete you are short on quite a few
I agree with pete, I agree in most of Fareed's commentaries. Not this one. Though true that oil sands will be consumed else where, the objective here is to invest in the increase of energy production. Not fossil fuel consumption.
It is better to take the oil to the existing refineries in Texas than to build new refineries near the tar sands source in Canada, in terms of cost-benefit to the oil companies.
Perhaps that will also make the retail price of the oil cheaper than it would be if it were not transported to Texas for refiing.
But there are other costs and benefits that the general public might consider. The people who live along the route of the pipeline also consider environmental costs - the effects on their water supply and surrounding communities in the event of spills; the health effects such as those on the people living near the tar-oil spill in Michigan. The general public may also take these costs into account as well as the problems and costs for local governmentals in the cleanup of spills. You may disagree with the judgments of those people; however, their opinions may differ from yours because they consider factors other than the financial factors that determine the actions of oil companies.
@Brenda,and where were people here when a Saudi prince proposed to give unlimited financial aid to us to build new refineries everywhere in America and Bush said no???That caustic tar sands crude is too caustic to run by pipeline because its so abrasive making pipeline ruptures inevitable causing enviromental catastrophes..You want that in your state or anywhere here I don't and we don't profit from it coming here as well because its too expensive to get by EPA pollution,carbon guidelines for new cars ,trucks and don't let these supposid chemical engineers tell you ,they can't refine it here with our antiquated refineries some over 80 years old or until like Woodriver Illinois its refinery revamped to accept this new caustic crude!!
(1) The pipeline raises gas prices in the midwest. They will get gas from tar sands cheap until the tar sands is shipping to China.
(2) The tar sands is repeatedly arguing for "US Energy Security," even though CNOOC just bought a huge stake in the Tar Sands and everybody knows a huge majority is diesel bound from Texas refineries for China.
(3) Any thing that raises the overall cost getting a fossil fuel product to market will increase pressure to shift to other clean fuels, renewable energies. That is precisely what we're supposed to try to do to combat climate: We're supposed to be pushing up the overall cost of the commodity.
(4) A Canadian corporation seized U.S. citizens' lands from Nebraska to Texas for its pleasure before it even had Federal Approval to cross the border. For that reason alone the pipeline should be rejected. Canada is trying to force U.S. energy policy and we look weaker and weaker. China, Canada, and the Kochs are shoving this pipeline down American's throats.
The notion "The tar sands will ship no matter what anyway" is a flimsy equivocation rationalizing incremental support of a destructive industry. It's tantamount to saying, "cocaine trade is going to happen no matter what we do so we should go ahead and teach our children to use it."
usa is finished soon the chinese gona luanch a nuclear attack one blow to the head of britain and its over the pla army tanks are going to roll over small irish children in dublin crushing them to dust. this the consequence when usa wants to pick a fight with a stronger country. so obama i clap my hands for you an stupid president like you is a real gift and one moore thing the chinese is going to nuke that little trash village of yours in ghana also. save your own ass you stupid usa people this is the end road.
In response to 7-cell:
CNOOC bought Nexen who owns the Long Lake oil sands project. Long Lake was an absolute failure and produces less than 40,000 bbl/d which is abysmal. Nexen is not a force in the oil sands whatsoever.
The talk of shipping the oil to China is simply garbage. As long as America can buy the oil shipped in the pipeline, there is no need to ship it to China. This China talk is fear mongering by the eco-nuts.
currently, the move is on to convert diesel locomotives to LNG. Once completed, they will create much lower emissions.
@LNG,GE has locomotive engines started by diesel that run by electricity being built right now and working 24/7 across America,where have you been!!
The oil from Canada's tar sands is cheap, but real dirty. Their refineries are designed to process light sweet crude, and they do not want anymore refineries stinking up their clean pristine landscape, especially to process their own sludge. So the reineries in the gulf are glad to take it.
Like the big controversy over fracking, all this nonsense too is just about keeping the 1% where they are at the expense of the taxpayer. What a sham.
The notion of reducing the demand to kill the supply will not work either. It's too easy to get around that by just exporting the refined products.
If you draw a comparison to many aspects of China and the USA over history, the recent trend clearly indicates that the tables are turning. There is no denying that a "shifting of the poles" is taking place very rapidly, but just not so much as it applies to the Earth's core and magnetic fields.
Fareed missed the biggest story concerning the pipeline and the President's refusal to build it. Right, the railroad will transport supplies to the tar sands and take petroleum away – and Warren Buffet (the President's billionaire) – owns the Burlington Northern, the only U.S. railway company serving the region and has been making windfall profits. The environmental effects from transporting the huge amount of supplies and tar/petroleum haven't been examined. Development isn't going to stop – but Buffet will make billions.
@Jim,he's not the only on making billions on the railcar tanker lines ,read up I did!!This deal has been in the works well before this president took power with Buffetts team researching to see what was in his financial futures!!Buffetts company builds and leases tankercars but I forgot the other company because there's two companies that build tankercars for crude,only two right now...And remember most of these engines that help transport crude are powered by electric engines built by GE ,look that little fact up too so where is the enviromental impact everyone here is screaming about but from uninformed ,uneducated sources right!!
Fareed, please pull your head out of your Capitalism, because you end up sounding exceedingly ignorant just because you like Capitalism. Eliminating tar sands is NOT intended to eliminate or even make a dent in Climate Change! Instead, it is intended to prevent the LOCAL pollution created by digging it out, and the spills from the XL pipeline its creators have said they EXPECT it to have. ALSO, this is a Native American (and Canadian First Nations) sovereignty issue, with Native lands being grabbed to be used for the XL against their wishes. Ignore that angle at your peril. Idle No More is a serious social movement, with pollution by Capitalist colonial interlopers being one of the issues lighting Natives' fuses. Add to that the horror for *everyone* that will erupt if a pipeline leak pollutes the Ogalala Aquifer, and you should understand the emotions you claim pollute the rationality of the environmentalists against the XL. Of COURSE we are emotional about Big Carbon getting their ways, regardless of who wants the oil, wherever they live, for whatever reason they give. We are witnessing Capitalist profits overcoming the rational use of our planet, causing its ecological destruction. We need to get off the Carbon Teat, and into entirely clean energy from solar, wind, and passive water, all of which have zero potential to pollute our water, air, and soil. Do you WANT your kids to breathe sooty air, drink fracking contaminated water, and eat food contaminated with heavy metals? No? Then you are working against your own interests. Being emotional does *not* mean one does not have good reasons, and reasoning abilities, so please stop pretending both sides of this debate are factually equal. Profiteers want profits regardless of harms. Eco-friendly folks want clean energy for everyone, decentralised, such that the poor become less poor, and the wealthy become less lordly, and more like the rest of us. Wealth equals power, but that is not the way it should be. Once you have mined everything, fracked it all, you, too will discover, you can't eat your money. Please stop rewarding ignorance with airtime, and educate yourself on the full spectrum of issues surrounding Big Carbon. When you focus on the minor issues of corporate profits versus ecological concerns you do not comprehend, you both miss the larger picture, and make yourself less relevant to the conversation.
Yeah, it's a huge issue with the Alberta Aboriginals since they're raking up $100,000+ a year working in the oil sands themselves....
The natives in Canada who are whining against this pipeline don't even live anywhere near the province of Alberta. They live near Hamilton, Ontario (it's the Mohawk nation who's making a stink about it). Of course they're going to complain. Most of them back east don't even have a job.
It is not just the "natives" in the east against the pipeline. I am not "native" and I absolutely hate what is being done to the environment and what is being lambasted through by the Harper government with no regard to what the hell is being done to the land, air and water. Fish with tumours and animals with nothing left to eat or their roaming lands so devastated they can't survive, people in the areas around the "tar" sands developing many different cancers higher than normal. I would like Fareed to take his family and go live near the oil sands for a few months and years and then tell me how much it is for the good of society. Why are so many people abandoning their homes if it is not hurting the land and air and waters?
Completely agree with you. And, once again we have the fiscally frightened conservative Fareed going 'right'.
The demand is for energy. Not necessarily oil. Should we invest our efforts and monies on a energy source that in the long term is limited? As for the alternative which is unlimited ( solar, wind, geothermal).
So, we invest in solar, wind, wave, etc. And we go bankrupt because it costs 4 times as much. So we raised taxes on the rich until there's no rich no more. Then the big corporations close. And your pension fund goes bust, And China offers to bail us all out and we get jobs at $5/hr.
Good idea.
Refining fossil fuel from another country vs harnessing free energy.
Green house gases will increase if there is a pipeline built from Alberta to British Columbia and sent to China. That pipeline is PLAN B
@troy,explain to these uninformed nitwits that the east,west pipeline in Canada was turned down and this crap is headed for China ,not the US!!
It wasn't turned down. It was just proposed. The Pacific coast pipeline doesn't even exist. The BC government won't stop it, regardless. They can take their complaints to the Supreme Court if they want to try to stop it.
@ Troy,hope the God they do because if it leaks all hells gonna break loose and I know it seeing other pipeline disasters here !!These refineries stateside are antiques and corporations like BP,SHELL ,Chevron and others don't want to shell out major bucks for a complete revamp because I've worked many a refinery shutdown and they're held together with baling wire and bubble gum,can't get any cheaper than that..They also fix it when it breaks,can't get any easier than that as well!!
Let them. They better hope the sitting judge on the Supreme Court doesn't come from Alberta.
Yeah, you work in Michigan. Unemployment is pretty high out there. Why aren't you working in Alberta?
@Troy ,again thanks for askin and I did once years ago when the exchange rate was more..Problem was if you don't work,reside in another country as Canada for over 340 days you'll get as I did double taxed..Pretty expensive seeing a $3500 wk paycheck get chewed up to nothin because of two governments..Now because of cancer I'm retired but again thanks and take care and watch those Keystone bums,they're everywhere polluting !!
Pete, my $3000+ paycheck in Calgary is net pay income. I used to work for the auto companies in both Michigan and Ontario (I grew up in Windsor, ON). A $3000 weekly paycheck is only a pipe dream for you guys...
And you can thank the CAW/UAW for such pipe dream incomes.
@Troy,like I said your exchange rate is different and your government takes a lot more out of you tax wise I know that from experience..And as a union welder with over 30 years experience and with teaching experience as well with over 25 different welding proceedure certs including diametric narrow groove needed in nuclear,robotic used in pharm,computer chip plants so I was wanted nationally as well as internationally..My union pension takes care of me nicely and I still get calls asking if I want to work consultant wise or as a supervisor so I'm still in the loop work wise!!I worked in Lansing,Michigan,St.Louis,Missouri and other plants for GM,FORD and Chrysler retooling for newer models as well..Pretty much worked all the Fortune 500 companies you can think of ,name them I've probibly worked for them from coast to coast ,pretty busy life traveling and I didn't see much of my kids growing up,it sucked sometimes but that's life putting food on the table!! Take care!!
Pete, forget the exchange rate.It means nothing to either Americans or Canadians. Your Union and state wages are lower in Michigan compared to all of Canada. Why where you doubled taxed working in "Canada"? Where in Canada did you work? Did you work in Ontario when the province had a Liberal government? Than you got taxed higher for obvious reasons. Regardless if you work in Michigan, Ontario or Ohio, Pete. Your union wages don't match a $3000 net income in Northern Alberta. You worked for 30 years in Michigan? I came to Alberta in 2006 making a starting wage of $23.00/hour. Within 2 years I was making over $70.00/hour. A wage increase that doesn't exist in Michigan, Ontario or Ohio. And it won't anytime soon.
Better hang on to that $3000 a week Troy. Maybe you missed the news release on Friday from the Alberta Minister of Finance announcing a $6 billion Cdn deficit? When the Provincial "Rainy Day Fund" is exhausted in two years and they send all the nurses and teachers home to Windor or Oshawa, maybe you can apply for a job cleaning shoes for the Chinese billionaires at Cargary Airport...
Doesn't mean nothing to me, Pal. Do you know what Alberta's Deficit was last year when my income was over $180,000?
You missed the mark on this one, this is not about emissions this is about protecting the Ogallala aquifer, the caustic tar sands have proved to be the most difficult to deal with and pose a threat to water supplies that in my view will be the most valuable commodityin the future, find a better route lose a lot of opposition
Michael Brune's apparent condescending little smirks to each of Fareed's comments and facts is an affront and seems typical of the one way only agenda of this group.
With respect to his comment on forest fires, there are alternative management alternatives to the existing national forests managment plans, and the current management practices are clearly a disaster in so many respects. Check out the following:
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=idaho+fire+bear+cub&qpvt=idaho+fire+bear+cub&FORM=IGRE
With a great deal of reflection and anguish, I agree with your (Fareed's) recommendation to approve the Keystone Pipeline, for the reasons stated. Good that you had the Sierra Club to offer a counterpoint. However, I would tie the approval of the pipeline to a $10/barrel import tariff on all imported petroleum and equivalent petroleum products, increasing to $40/barrel gradually over 10 years. This would raise enough to support a $400 billion/10 years infrastructure development effort to improve energy efficiency in transpiration, home heating and cooling, etc., and leave plenty more to reduce the budget deficit and offer payroll tax cuts in times of flagging economic growth.
At what price to our children down the line? The Siera club didn't address the most pressing issue. It's not climate change. It is water supply. This sludgy oil is treated with chemicals so that it travels the pipeline with ease. Four years ago, a similar pipeline broke, and they still haven't gotten it out of their water supply. That after billions of dollars. So yes, if you build it, collect tariffs because you may well need it for this clean-up. But be prepared to buy water from the Canadians because we won't have anything worth drinking. Our children and grandchildren will just wonder how we could have been so ignorant.
A 24 case of bottled water in Calgary costs approximately $.5.00. Doesn't hurt my pocketbook much if I'm raking in $170.000/year.....
I hope you will be able to survive eating your money when there is no water, land to grow food , and air is so contaminated you won't be able to breathe. You will spend all your money on bringing in food and water from other places.
Marie, I lived in Windsor, Ontario all my life. I survived air pollution from Michigan, acid rain, highest lung and gall bladder cancer rates in North America, severe Great Lakes droughts and continuous ozone action days implemented by the Ontario government for 30 years. I even live in the smogged infested Los Angeles county for 10 years of my life. Don't you worry about my lifestyle in Alberta, Marie . I can make it out here just fine.
And 170k annually is pretty tiny compared to most of my work colleagues in Calgary. Chalk up an additional 30% if you work up north. Albertans have the highest standard of living by far in all of North America.
As always Fareed, good discussion. However, Brune makes a good point by conceding that the oil and gas industry is aligned to develop these resources(Keystone). A case of the Siera club defying conventional wisdom. This is characteristic with Paradigm shifts though. There are always lots of reasons for not moving to the new paradigm. When in a paradigm, its almost impossible to imagine a new paradigm. In science, the brave prevail. Consider this old paradigm.... Remember how for centuries it was believed that the sun and the planets all revolved around the earth? Moreover, it could be proved. As astronomy became a more mature science, some scholars still resisted the new evidence that showed that the earth moves around the sun. It took scientists like Galileo with seemingly radical thinking at the time and who were considered heretics, for the paradigm to shift and become the new truth. Eventually, it did. We all know that now.
Ho ho....pass the Pipeline, Obama....
http://business.financialpost.com/2013/02/12/salaries-rising-fast-in-saskatchewan-alberta-while-ontario-quebec-b-c-lag-behind/
Fareed, Have you considered the difference between normal crude oil and the heavier tar-oil product being transported through the XL Pipeline? Have you considered the difference in envronmental impact of spill from tar-oil verses normal crude oil spills? Are you aware of the potential dangers to water suppiles for the coummities tranversed by XL Pipeline? Are you aware of the tar-oil pipeline spill in Michigan that cannot be cleaned up?
After you consider these factors, would you answer this question? Would you still be in favor of the XL Pipeline if it corssed the community and water supply for the community in which your children must live, grown uo, go to shcool, and raise their families?
http://www.npr.org/2012/08/16/158025375/when-this-oil-spills-its-a-whole-new-monster
Fareed, you do not bring up some import issues in you editorial or on the air re the pipeline:
1. the pipeline will not carry oil, but bitumen.
2.The bitumen is created from the tar sand pebbles by using fossil fuels e.g. natural gas to heat them to 150degrees f. thus further adding more carbon in the air for further climate change.
3. The Canadians want the pipeline to traverse the USA, because their own people have blocked a pipeline from the mine site to their pacific coast.
4. The "oil" will be exported to China, India etc., and will not reach the USA market.We are being used by the Canadians to run their sludge bitumen across our wild lands, while their population is forbidding a pipeline to run through Canada.
5. The mine pit is scarring the earth. The mine site is now the size of Chicago, expected to grow to the size of Florida.
These reasons alone are enough to convince me the project is being rammed through for Canada, the big oil companies, and the billionaires who own them is not worth the risk.
A BAD deal for the USA.
The pipeline proposal running through BC from Alberta will be a federal decision from Ottawa. Not a provincial decision from the British Columbia government...
OK...time for bed little Troy. Kindergarten starts one hour earlier tomorrow!
I am Canadian and I agree that it is bad for Canada but it is also bad for the USA. Please, please send you president emails etc. for him to not sign the bill. If we allowed the pipeline through our beautiful province of British Columbia and there was a break in the pipeline it would be devastating but if the tankers along the north coast had an accident the waters and the land would be devastated for years and years to come. You hear from fishermen in Alaska that their ocean and coast is still not back to normal and how many years has it been since the Exxon Valdez? I am a senior and it isn't in my interests that I am worried about but my great grand children and what kind of environment we leave behind. Shame on us as a country for putting profit before the well being of our citizens and the land, air, and water.
Fareed...I have watched GPS from its inception and try to never miss it. This is the first time I've been so disappointed with your discussion on the Keystone pipeline. While climate change is a problem we all have to be concerned with, the biggest problem is the effect it could have on our water supply. We are already talking about war over water in the future. Yet we are willing to risk what we have, our most precious reserves, to facilitate a Canadian oil company's transportation problem. The Canadians have vetoes putting this in their own backyards to take it to their shores. Why do you think this is? And the argument about getting this Canadian oil is bogus....this oil is going to Asia. Some have even said this could possibly raise the price of the oil we do get from the Canadians. So where is the upside? Temporary construction jobs? At what price down the line. Is Canada going to give us a WATER supply in the future. Now maybe a water pipeline would be something we could talk abouit.
You folks in the states just had an oil rig explode off the gulf of Mexico two years ago. Why don't you stop BP from investing more in the states?
@Troy,because ignorence is cheaper than money and money is the root of all evil isn't it..And BP, Troy wrote that whole oil rig catastrophe off thanks to Americas tax laws,can you say Americans were screwed,I can!!
We need to get our heads out of the tar sands and move on to clean renewable fuels. This pipeline should be a non-starter and we shouldn't even be having this discussion. All the fuel in Canada can't replace the sources of our drinking water if this pipeline leaks, and it will. And then there's the matter of climate change, arguably the most serious problem facing us this century. Too bad Fareed's guest didn't get a chance to really make his case. Never seen F.Z. so intent on dominating the conversation in what was supposed to be an interview or condescending, for that matter. Really, thanking a guest for acting in a respectful way? He doesn't seem very well informed about the 100+ year-old Sierra Club or about the really serious environmental issues surrounding this proposal. His subjects are usually so well researched. Makes you wonder...
Cynthia if you are so worried about climate change then tell me WHY DO YOU BURN COAL FOR POWER your coal plants produce more CO2 than the oil sands ever will hands down, Seems you are all for making someone else pay as long as it doesnt affect you, For the record as an oil sands worker I DONT WANT THE LINE TO GO THROUGH ,THE USA IS BROKE , i prefer east and west lines as we will get a fair price for our oil on the world market and will be energy self sufficent, Go ahead and buy from the middle east because rest assured you willbe buying from somewhere and guess what it comes in on tankers so much better right.,
You American environmentalists might want to support Justin Trudeau or the 2015 federal elections. Keep in mind his late Dad, Pierre, buddied up with Castro real close back in the 1970's. That's why we get cheap vacations to Cuba every year up here..
@Troy,Cuba I've heard has some nice casinos and bordelloes as well!!Both real cheap and clean!!
Never mind the pipeline going into British Columbia from Alberta. Most folks in BC moved to Alberta because they want the one hundred thousand dollar incomes to pay off their million dollar Vancouver houses they struggle to pay off.
Please tell me what the hell you mean by most? We have several million people more than you have in Alberta and you wouldn't get many of us to live there now if you paid us. This is Harperland and the politics there make the tea party seem normal. Ugh!!!!!!!
i can guarentee you i work in a sagd plant in fort mac and the place is full of economic refugees from BC my shift has at least 40% (probably at least 90) of the people from BC, your new premier to be dix just toured he noticed the plates. The anti everything crowd has taken over BC totally. Your economy is in the dumps and feel good green slogans and solar panels or protests will not get you out of it.
Thank you for having some balance to this issue on your show today. I am a loyal viewer of GPS but have been very disappointed in the unbalanced reporting on environmental issues. Dr. Zakaria, I disagree with your stance on the pipeline but was very pleased with the comments of your guests Van Jones and Daryl Hannah.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-no-to-keystone-yes-to-crazy.html?hp&_r=0
98% of Canadian oil comes to the United States so Fareed somewhat has a point. But I'm not sure how much of that is used here considering we have been using less oil over the past few years.
The United States uses about 800,000,000 gallons of crude oil a day (19 million barrels a day @ 42 gallons per barrel). That's a ridiculous amount. We should put more focus on existing wind and solar projects as well as new alternative energy projects like the Atlantic Wind Connection and oceanic turbines that tap the Gulf Stream near Miami.
Do we really need to focus on another pipeline or focus on
destroy the is north korea should nuke ireland dublin and ghana burn all of them.
Sorry Fareed, I support the Sierra Club on this issue.
2 usa soldier got killed to day i afghanistan im dancing on the body of dead usa soldier taliban are the greatest warriors.
@sand,you're just another ignorent poster who doesn't know when to stop,so crawl back in your sand dune raghead and take your mindless rants with you!!Your meds are waiting so be quick about it slug!!And my way of taking out afghan taliban is nuke them all making their country a glass factory and let Allah sort them out,nice touch ha "sand"!!
i need to dance some moore 5 moore usa soldier got killed lets do the chicken dance.
Lost me on this spoken- Spoken like one who needs to get out of their cubicle once a year.
Quit trying to sell us this poison pipeline. We do not want our water ways and land poisoned.
The Global Warming issue is extremely important and we have ample proof that it is occuring due to creation of CO2 emissions. However, in looking for solutions, it is time to look at facts and not base decisions on emotions. On Sunday's GPS, the Sierra Club's rep. stated that "Oil Sands petroleum is the dirtiest fossil fuel on the planet". This is not true. As a Canadian I really resent groups who repeatedly state untrue info. Oil sands oil is not my favourite form of energy but it is not coal and it doesn't create as much emissions as coal. Secondly it is not as "dirty" as Venezuelan oil now being shipped to the US gulf coast refineries. This oil is being shipped by tanker. These refineries are built to refine heavy oil and they're good at it. Tankers create more emissions than pipelines. Until we have enough natural gas and renewable energy sources to eliminate all coal used in the world then even oil sands oil shipped by pipeline is better. A new heavy oil refinery has been proposed for the west coast of Canada and the financing is now in place. This oil will help replace coal somewhere. If our countries want the cleanest oil available, then they should exclude North american oil and import as much as is available from the middle east.
Oil won't replace any coal. Oil is used for transportation fuel, not electricity. The Chinese will be fueling hundreds of millions of cars soon. That's where the oil will go, straight into the atmosphere. Better hold on to your butts – hell is coming soon!
@SkyMind,seen the Olympics on tv in China and all those Chinese wearing paper face masks to keep the polluted air out of their lungs,I did..Or how they have to keep about 500,000 cars off the highway so olympians could race because it was so bad you could cut the air with a knife,want that here because Chinese have it now!!
i'm a guy who lives in calgary alberta and what americans don't understant is how big the oilsands are stay that the oilsands are a duck alberta is just the head of the duck the body is saskatchewan and they have not really touch the oilsands there yet.3 or 4time of what alberta has and it keeps goin to manitoba which is the feet of the duck. The canadian government is alredy letting chinese oil companies buy canadian ones. There setting up hq in calgary
I think Fareed Zakaria should be replaced with a more environmentally friendly presenter. He doesn't have his facts straight and is supporting Big Dirty Oil. He has a very narrow and shortsighted viewpoint on the continuation of dirty fossil fuel burning for energy. The focus of media personalties that have sway public opinion should be moving towards a clean energy source promotion.
And this comes on the heels of seeing a show he presented with animal testing plainly shown to viewers. Friendly banter between him and the researcher went on discussing the research while a monkey was bolted into a metal cage with electrodes implanted in its skull. The researcher quipped how the monkey loved playing the computer game as long as she was rewarded with orange juice.
Fareed Zakaria could really do a great deal of good in his position, but seems to come up short on the protection of the environment, and promoting the concept of computerized simulation to replace animal testing.
I am disappointed in his continual outdated position that he takes on important issues that need evolve leaving this world a better place for the environment, animals, and humans.
Aside from the fact that this is an internet article and not a lot of detail has been devoted to the subject (like almost all articles written for internet online magazines) I think we are mostly missing the point here. If they are going to ship it to texas regardless of the pipeline or not, then the transporation method is the only method up for discussion. If we are going to make this a discussion on which is the least dangerous in terms of exposure to the content of the pipe versus the cost of the transportation method in its impact on the environment, then a new article needs to be written. This article does not address those discussion topics, so arguing who is the most knowledgeable is immaterial. It is also immaterial if we think that Texas can handle the product or not. If they can, they will ship it/deliver the content. If not they won't. Nobody wants product sitting around worth millions for months not being sold. All else fails they will ship it to Asia via their western shore, it all depends on the profit margins. If the U.S. Government provides them a significant cost in terms of time and manpower, then that will push them to move the product towards Asia where only internal governance will be an issue. Ultimately if the environmental concerns are the only issue that matters tot eh discussion, then we need an article that describes the potential environmental impact from a railcar disaster versus a pipeline disaster, in terms of the odds of occurance, scale of impact, and recovery period. And writing this article with detailed information as it relates to the technology & safety features that will be utilized for the construction that the pipeline.
Please, please if you love your country don't let this insanity (pipelines) into your lands. Those of you that are for this go to northern Alberta for a vacation and see what it has done to the land, water and air. It is truly deplorable and criminal. Our prime minister said when he was elected that when he was through "you wouldn't recognize this country" well he has really been right and it will take more than my lifetime to correct all the messes he has made of my beautiful country.
what do you expect from an indian? you actually think they care about the US?
The only reason the pipeline does't go through British Columbia is because the b.c government wants to much money from alberta it's nothing to do with environmental. British Columbia basically almost want to have a 50-50 split with alberta on the oil.
This is a simple case of supply and demand. Your US market has a significant demand for a secure, mid to long term high volume supply of crude oil. Based on this requirement, energy companies exploited the vast oil sands resources in Northern Canada and are now seeking the safest, most economically viable way of getting the product to your market. Denying the reality of your current situation doesn't change things. Canadian oil sands product WILL be destined for your Gulf Coast refineries. Pipeline transportation will be safer and more efficient than rail – and the high value jobs that will be created in your country will further assist in your economic recovery. Taxes and tariffs from this oil will flow to Americans.
I acknowledge that the continued expansion of the use of fossil fuels is untenable for the long term, but until sufficient alternative, sustainable sources are in place there needs to be an acceptance of "right-for-now" solutions. Don't let the search for the perfect become the enemy of the good. And make no mistake, Keystone is a good solution – for now.
Stupid pipeline full of some of the dirtiest oil in the world. Caused 35 leaks in the first year of construction so far, ruining some agriculture. This oil is not intended for US Americans, it's almost 100% for export only, it was already said that we dont even have the equipment to refine this oil for it to be clean enough to use. It's created less then 2000 temp jobs that will not exist after completion and basically created 50 permanent jobs. Biggest waste of tax money, disaster from the start and dumbest idea from yours truly the GOP/TeaPublicans.
Why you should not steal other's ariticle.... Once you are stealer, you never recover credibility.
It is the protection of our water that is the most important issue. I do not trust these companies to be the least bit concerned about our water sources, just their profits.
Screw big Oil to Hell with Keystone
I am sorry but we do need to block the pipeline. I know Fareed you are a numbers guy so check out Jeremy Grantham on why we should not complete the pipeline. We have to move to alternative energy this may be the tipping point for such action.
This is a rather interesting "take"...unlike most of FZ's posts this one argues for negating all aspects in this discussion and doing what "must be done" before we lose it. The pre-emptive legitimization of the argument by "I was just there, I know" is a little juvenile for FZ's usual takes. I was just in Hawaii but that does not make me an expert in surfing. The argument should be: IF there are strict guidelines that safeguard our environment-water supplies (the FUNCTION of EISs and DUE PROCESS), along with guarantees of fair business to protect the risk-takers (U.S. consumer) then we must by all means exploit this resource. As this article reads, it seems FZ has put on the cheerleading suit for big oil.
This is a rather interesting "take"...unlike most of FZ's posts this one argues for negating all aspects in this discussion and just doing what "must be done" before we lose it. The pre-emptive legitimization of the argument by "I was just there, I know" is a little juvenile for FZ's usual takes. I was just in Hawaii but that does not make me an expert in surfing. The argument should be: IF there are strict guidelines that safeguard our environment-water supplies (the FUNCTION of EISs and DUE PROCESS), along with guarantees of fair business to protect the risk-takers (U.S. consumer) then we must by all means exploit this resource. As this article reads, it seems FZ has put on the cheerleading suit for big oil.
What is missing in this discussion is that the global society must quickly STOP using all forms of fuels that are intense in greenhouse gas emissions. So while the pipeline may be no worse than coal, we need to STOP using coal. Combustion of the conventional sources of oil may allow the planet to maintain its current state. However, if we emit too much – and all the carbon in the Alberta Deposits will make it too much – then the earth will go into a state similar to the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum during which the poles were tropical and it is uncertain whether life existed on the equator.
Too good, to tell truth.
Canada must advertise its Sand Oil on Major American and Canadian Media.
Let more people know about it.
Of course, it is better to get Oil from Canada than those... arabians.
Give it a heat, on commercial.
Do your research, CNN
LAME STREAM MEDIA