reply to post by WhiteAlice
Thank you for your patience with me. Thank you, also, for presenting a point of view that I can not easily understand. That means I'm about to
learn something which I need to.
Interestingly enough, I don't understand what I don't understand. I suppose that makes me Mr. Confusion, squared. Of course, I understand your
description of game theory, and we've also seen Obama use it many times. That's not my problem. In the broadest terms, I don't understand
Obama's use of game theory in this particular case, and I don't understand what appears to be confusion between local climate and global climate.
To the best of my knowledge, he has not requested any concessions but has expressed concerns about the carbon emissions. My sense of it is that
the reason why he is concerned about carbon emissions relating to Keystone XL is most likely due to him preferring that we do not continue to build an
oil/gas based infrastructure.
His preference notwithstanding, Alberta will continue to drill for oil sands until the world says it will not
buy it. The oils sands will be refined and used somewhere, whatever Obama wants. The world will have a fossil fuel and nuclear energy supply for the
foreseeable future. In 2008, those sources provided a little over 87% of the world's energy usage.
So, what does Obama want? Is he concerned about the environment in this project? If he wants environmental concessions, it's surprising that the
only thing he's talked about (concerning Keystone) in five years is generally reducing carbon emissions. Surprising, since Keystone adds fewer
carbon emissions than any other form of transport. Surprising, since Canada, according to your source, has matched the US in fighting carbon
emissions. So what does he want from Canada? I suspect, the answer is "Nothing."
The only other option is that he wants something from American companies or politicians. What? I believe there's only one answer to that, either
money or votes. Over six billion dollars will be the estimated gain to states, largely those through which the pipeline passes. He'd like that
money. It's also a money maker for the oil industry in the US. He'd like that money. Basically, as far as I can see, he's holding Keystone
hostage to get things unrelated to Keystone. But what? I haven't heard of any talks or even the beginnings of negotiations with Americans. What's
he waiting for.
Why do I think it's not environmental? Because the pipeline is the safest way to get the oil sands moved to the gulf coast. If he doesn't want the
gulf coast to get the sands, fine, say so. They will get shipped by tanker overseas with all of the risk to the oceans. And this is one of the
things he's forgetting, Canada can do a cost-benefit analysis as well. The Mining.com website you linked to has an article indicating that Canada is
thinking about taking the US to court.
So no, this does not mean that Obama is not interested in the environment. His approval for the pipeline will be only if the concessions
offered most likely exceed his bar of expectation (see how much he can get).
Again, from whom? What does he want? The PM's wife? He
hasn't told Canada even what area he wants concessions in. Even if he was playing a non-zero sum game, even a moderately competent negotiator could
have brought it to conclusion in five years. As the clock ticks, Canada knows they are getting close to a time when they won't have to deal with
Obama. When he leaves, it all starts over again. This isn't a negotiation, it's a stall.
Have you ever looked at the issues in Salt Lake City? It's as nasty as Beijing.
And here, I'm afraid, I must strongly disagree.
Currently the particulate matter (2.5) reading in Salt Lake City is 13.3.
In Beijing it's currently 310, and has been above 200 all day.
0-50 is scored as good, with no precautions necessary. 300 is scored as hazardous, with the warning that no one should have any outdoor exertion.
Sixteen of the twenty most polluted cities in the world are in China.
What's worse is that the pollution eventually drifts into the US. Why not have the process in the US where the are strict controls and everybody and
his mother will be monitoring the pipeline for a quart of leaked oil?
Tell me why we would chose to transport foreign oil from one end to the other of our country when we have ample oil in the US (and it's set to
increase) that also needs refining.
Because refined oil is valuable. If it wasn't, the industry would have said, "Don't build the
pipeline." Besides, refineries have been running at less than 90% utilization since 2006, there's certainly room to refine more.
It may be that I'm just not bright enough to follow the reasoning. I hope I'm bright enough to explain why I'm confused.
Again, many thanks for your patience with me.