Originally posted by theubermensch
Has anyone noticed that the worlds biggest problem is hysterical do-nothing do-gooder hippies?
Yes, the hippy-in-image-only is ridiculous, but our biggest problems? Um...that's just one more example of apathy dressed up in compassionate
Environmentalists are the worst. These morally superior people want us to go backwards. Sometimes I wonder wether they are more interested in reducing
our standard of living than mantaining the environment.
The very idea that you think our standard of living and the environment are mutually exclusive concepts is laughable. Also, the fact that you have the
utterly unempirical notion that "going backwards" is possible in any sense is uber-LOL-able. Technology is the stick a chimp uses to get at ants.
It's the rock an otter uses to bust open a clam shell. The clovis point is as much technological as the Keystone XL Pipeline. Technology is a horse
drawn plough and a tractor plough.
The problem is not technology, it's whether or not a technology is sustainable or not. Flint tipped arrow heads, horse drawn ploughs and even
waterwheel mills are sustainable. Whether you like it or not, petroleum-based technologies are not sustainable and are ruinous and eventually will
lead to your so-called "backwards" movement, in that they won't be around forever and we'll be forced to move on.
And what motivates someone to protest something like the Keystone Pipeline?
Text The total area that has been affected by surface mining represents only 0.1% of Canada's boreal forest. The oil sands account for
about 0.1% of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Electricity plants powered by coal in the U.S. generate almost 40 times more greenhouse-gas
emissions than Canada's oil sands (the coal-fired electricity plants in the State of Wisconsin alone produce the equivalent of the entire GHG
emissions of the oil sands). California bitumen is more GHG-intensive than the oil sands. Oliver criticized opponents of the pipeline, stating
that all of the above facts are ignored by "celebrity protestors."
I'd like a source on your ex-text. But to be frank, again, fun with numbers: .1% of Canada's boreal forest...as defined by? What about the boreal
forest held on private lands? In Canada is this also considered by their legal statutes to be "Boreal forest"? If I have aspects of the everglades
in my back yard does that mean my house is part of the contiguous Everglades zone? I'm guessing residential Fort Lauderdale is not classified as any
percentage of the Everglades any more than Phoenix's urban sprawl is classified as the Sonora desert...but they both technically are whether we like
them to be or not. Get my point?
No? In other words, whoever did this study went by numbers that suited them. You and I can do this all day long. Let's look at the next number:
oilsands account for 0.1% of green house emissions. OK. That sounds like a low number. But let's put that in a fraction: 1/1000. That means that one
project creates 1/1000th of green house gases worldwide. In the entire world, 1 out of every 1000 units (whatever those units may be) are created in
that one single place in Canada. Does that really sound small?
Let's put that in a different perspective: Let's say that for 999 automobiles, the oilsands produce 1 automobile's worth of pollution. We're just
going to pretend that in the WHOLE WORLD, there are only automobiles and the oilsands project that create pollution. No factories, coal power plants
or other type of pollution whatsoever, just cars and the single oil sands project in Canada.
There are over 1 billion cars in the world, that means the oilsands produces the pollution of 1 million cars.
Also, what does that even mean? What does .1% of greenhouse emissions mean? Like an aggregate (that'd be pretty bad, right?) or just in the course of
1 fiscal year? or one decade? or ...what?
It's a totally arbitrary figure that is purposely presented in an almost context-free setting which has certainly manipulated your view of
it...probably many others.
Finally, let's go with coal. Based on the numbers just in that text, and knowing that there are just about 1500 coal power plants in the US, I'm
left with the staggering numbers that while the oilsands might produce just 1/1000 of worldwide greenhouse emissions, 1500 US coal plants produce
....drumroll...40 out of every 1000 units of greenhouse emissions...just our coal plants.WOW. Maronna mia we're effed in the head.