mdk said
Yes, we've successfully identified the one and only partisan in the United States.....

That's the joke.

The Nexerus said
Good thing there aren't more people like you.

I didn't decide to try to turn keystone XL into a fucking Masada. The Tea Party did.

Alkeni Synair said
I didn't decide to try to turn keystone XL into a fucking Masada. The Tea Party did.

Aren't they jerks?

mdk said
Aren't they jerks?

I kind of like them. Some of them, anyways.

Back on topic, the thing about environmentalism is this:

So let's say you need to power something. Naturally, you try to burn some whale oil.
The Environmentalist shouts "Wait! You'll kill whales if you use that kind of power!"

Concerned, you say "Oh, my bad. I'll burn coal, instead!"
The Environmentalists say "B-but, then you'll cause air pollution!"

You raise an eyebrow, and so you say "Very well. I'll go fracking for natural gas."
The environmentalist nearly jumps. He says "No! You can't do that! That'll damage water systems!"

You gasp and so "Oh dear! Very well, I'll use windmills and hydroelectric dams to power my machine."
The environmentalist shakes his head and says "No, don't do that. It'll hurt the birds and the fish!"

Exasperated, you say "Fine! I'm using Nuclear Power!"
The environmentalist is about to sock you for suggesting such a crazy idea. "That'll irradiate the Earth!"

At this point, you have just had your last straw pulled. And the giant war mech you were trying to create has already been fully powered up, and is prepared to vaporize the environmentalists.

Protagonist said
I kind of like them. Some of them, anyways.Back on topic, the thing about environmentalism is this:So let's say you need to power something. Naturally, you try to burn some whale oil.The Environmentalist shouts "Wait! You'll kill whales if you use that kind of power!"Concerned, you say "Oh, my bad. I'll burn coal, instead!"The Environmentalists say "B-but, then you'll cause air pollution!"You raise an eyebrow, and so you say "Very well. I'll go fracking for natural gas."The environmentalist nearly jumps. He says "No! You can't do that! That'll damage water systems!"You gasp and so "Oh dear! Very well, I'll use windmills and hydroelectric dams to power my machine."The environmentalist shakes his head and says "No, don't do that. It'll hurt the birds and the fish!"Exasperated, you say "Fine! I'm using Nuclear Power!"The environmentalist is about to sock you for suggesting such a crazy idea. "That'll irradiate the Earth!"At this point, you have just had your last straw pulled. And the giant war mech you were trying to create has already been fully powered up, and is prepared to vaporize the environmentalists.

This is an extreme Environmentalists - one which is not ready to make any compensation to address both environmental and economical problems at the same time.

Are fossil fuels bad? Yes, but the alternatives can only be implanted with a massive increase of investment both public and private founds, will and time into renewable energy. Does that mean that we should not switch to renewable? NO WAY. If the world does managed to produce more then 60% electricity from renewable inside the next 50 or so years we are screwed big time (with the rest preferably coming from gas and nuclear power) - both due the constant acceleration of the speed at which we drill oil out of its sources and the global warming produced by fossil fuels.
(Interesting fact: If all urban areas of the world would be covered in solar panels we would produce the amount of energy three times of our current needs. Since this is realistically impossible to cover all the urban areas with solar panels - the percent that cloud be covered would still amount to around 1.5-2 times of our current needs).

As for transportation - hydrogen-electric hybrids and pure hydrogen are the way forward - as long as we produce hydrogen from renewable energy sources that is. London uses hydrogen powered buses, Germans have a hydrogen-electrical hybrid hunter sub ... so the tech is here only what is left is to implement and improve.

Trust me more birds and fishes are endangered by the rising global temperature & illegal lodging in the rainforests then by all the possible hydro and wind power plants that the would cloud ever wish to build. Actually an accumulation lake can easily be turned into a haven for all kinds of animals with some good management and help from humans.

As for nuclear power - I see that somewhere in the next few decades one of the many teams working on fusion power will make a breakthrough and deliver us the wonder of fusion power plants. Fusion will be a cheep and clean way to produce energy as long as the hydrogen needed for it comes from renewable sources.

In the next few decades nanotechnology should advance enough to allows us to use nano-machinery to create anything as long as we have enough energy and materials with the right information needed to make it - pretty much in the way that replicators from Star Trek produce any desired thing from a cup of tea to new uniforms. This should mean that we don't need to produce plastics and other oil-based products via long and expensive industrial processes - just put a nice lump of the elements that you need into one of such future nano-based machines and order it to for example produce detergent and there you have detergent - if you want it can come into a nice plastic bottle at the same time. Also any of such future machines cloud be used to make anything - goodbye economy as we know it - non-raw materials and products will lose much of their value and we will be seeing a society in which the information needed to make something is the basis of economy.

One of the best example of how environmentalism and economy can work together to the batter of everyone is Japan's recycling policy. Due to mostly the lack of resources as well as environmental concerns Japan has a minimal of 5 separation categories for trash - and all is reused in some way. Some cities even have more - the top being Kobe which has 22 categories in which it organizes and recycles trash. And almost every citizen abides to this.

Compensations, give-away in certain matters and so on are going to have to be made so the big sources of problems should be taken care of first and then we can see if anything can be done about the smaller issues. So protection of environment and economy can and should work together to address the most pressing issues and their biggest causes.

Nanotechnology, fusion power and solar panels as far as the eye can see. Sounds like a wonderful future.

The Nexerus said
Nanotechnology, fusion power and solar panels as far as the eye can see. Sounds like a wonderful future.

We should shove towards a space race for the asteroid belt (there's enough resources in there to last us pretty much indefinitely and we can throw them into Earth's orbit then drop them down onto the planet for quintessentially limitless gathering with minimal effort) and a fully automated economy while we're at it.

Because at that point, we can do whatever we like and things will be fine. We'll have solved the two most pressing issues for a functional socialism.

...It's getting there that's going to be the pain in the ass. Until then, capitalism and science, all the way, and in the near future, that includes oil. A lot of oil. Even if we don't use it in power, we'll still use it for plastics. All the plastics.

Brovo said
We should shove towards a space race for the asteroid belt

Another bright, realistic vision for the future.

The Nexerus said
Another bright, realistic vision for the future.

I don't know if this is sarcasm or not.

Brovo said
I don't know if this is sarcasm or not.

I'm like 99.7% sure it is. 'cause it's Nex.

On-Topic:
Literally everything I know about this issue comes from a brief Wikipedia search and reading this thread, but here's my two cents:

The environmentalists aren't wrong, in a sense. In an ideal world, I'd oppose Keystone XL too. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and sometimes we must sacrifice things for the sake of functionality and practicality. This is one of those cases.
However, I only believe things like this should be allowed to go forward if we are simultaneously, actively investing in alternative energy sources. It should be viewed as a "necessary evil", so to speak: we have to do it now because of current circumstances, but we should be working towards a world in which it's not necessary. The purpose of humanity's progress and development should be to make the world a better place, and we need to invest in that, particularly in regards to energy (we all know the issues around finite fuel sources etc.) Not simply to find something that works well enough, despite its numerous and fundamentally damaging flaws, and let that be the status quo until it goes horribly fucking wrong.

we are simultaneously, actively investing in alternative energy sources.

You have disposable income. Buy some shares in an alternative energy mutual fund.

Halo said
I'm like 99.7% sure it is. 'cause it's Nex.On-Topic:Literally everything I know about this issue comes from a brief Wikipedia search and reading this thread, but here's my two cents:The environmentalists aren't wrong, in a sense. In an ideal world, I'd oppose Keystone XL too. Unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world, and sometimes we must sacrifice things for the sake of functionality and practicality. This is one of those cases.However, I only believe things like this should be allowed to go forward if we are simultaneously, actively investing in alternative energy sources. It should be viewed as a "necessary evil", so to speak: we have to do it now because of current circumstances, but we should be working towards a world in which it's not necessary. The purpose of humanity's progress and development should be to make the world a better place, and we need to invest in that, particularly in regards to energy (we all know the issues around finite fuel sources etc.) Not simply to find something that works well enough, despite its numerous and fundamentally damaging flaws, and let that be the status quo until it goes horribly fucking wrong.

If there are good arguments against oil use, they don't come from scarcity. Just as technological improvements make alternative energy sources more capable, they also allow access to oil reserves that had either been unreachable or economically infeasible to utilize in the past.

To put it in perspective, the Athabasca Oil Sands alone have been estimated to hold two trillion barrels worth of oil, the vast majority of which cannot currently be collected. The entire world's current proven reserves are 1.3 trillion barrels.

Scarcity isn't an issue, and it becomes even less of an issue as time passes.

The Nexerus said
If there are good arguments against oil use, they don't come from scarcity. Just as technological improvements make alternative energy sources more capable, they also allow access to oil reserves that had either been unreachable or economically infeasible to utilize in the past.To put it in perspective, the Athabasca Oil Sands alone have been estimated to hold two trillion barrels worth of oil, the vast majority of which cannot currently be collected. The entire world's current proven reserves are 1.3 trillion barrels.Scarcity isn't an issue, and it becomes even less of an issue as time passes.

Did I say scarcity was the only issue? It's simply one of many - as I said, it has "numerous and fundamentally damaging flaws." I'm sure you're aware of most of them, though, so I won't rattle them off.
And even in regards to the apparent untruth of the scarcity of oil... regardless of how much exists, we are consuming it far, far more quickly than it is produced by natural processes, and we will run out some day - so we need to be investing in alternatives. We are aware that it is finite. We are aware it will run out. We are aware we will need an alternative. We are aware that to replace the amount of energy we currently get from fossil fuels, a lot of research and development is needed to find alternate sources. The logical step is pretty obvious: start researching and developing alternatives. I'm not saying everyone should convert to electric cars now, or that we should switch entirely to solar energy, because those technologies aren't ready yet. Which is kinda my point: they aren't ready, they need to be ready, so we need to invest in them.
So both due to scarcity - because, really, regardless of how many trillions of barrels we have left to extract from the bowels of the earth, it is undeniably finite compared to renewable (and thus, for all practical purposes, infinite) energy sources - and due to the multiple other issues with fossil fuel use - pollution, the risk of spills, and so on and so forth - I believe there needs to be investment in alternative sources of fuel.

So Boerd said
You have disposable income. Buy some shares in an alternative energy mutual fund.

Actually, I don't. I'm saving for university. But honestly, what's your point here? Some oft-trotted out argument about me needing to take action to back up my words? Please, spare me. The question was about Keystone XL and whether we feel government should allow it to go forward - and, therefore, what I said was in regards to government action, i.e. government investment and legislation.

To make government "investment", which is really a euphemism for funneling money to donors, a neccessary condition is silly. This pipeline will reduce CO2.

So if you are saving up rather than investing, you are putting your own prosperity ahead of the environment. Wow. You're as bad as the oil fatcats.

So Boerd said
To make government "investment", which is really a euphemism for funneling money to donors, a neccessary condition is silly. This pipeline will reduce CO2.

So if you are saving up rather than investing, you are putting your own prosperity ahead of the environment. Wow. You're as bad as the oil fatcats.

The pipeline will reduce CO2? Okay. Sure. I'll believe you on that. Now, what relevance does that have to anything I said? Does it change anything about what I said? Not even slightly. Fossil fuels still damage the environment, and are still finite (regardless of how much is left, it's finite), and therefore still need to be replaced at some point in future, if only for humanity's benefit. Therefore, investment in alternate energy sources makes logical sense for humanity's collective wellbeing.

That logic is so fallacious it's not even worth responding to.
1) I'm not actively damaging the environment. Perhaps, through inaction, I'm allowing it to happen, but I have little choice unless I wish to be an environmental campaigner, and I don't. By your logic, nobody has any right to disagree with any policy or any idea if they're not actively campaigning against it, which is, to put it plainly, moronic. That's why everyone is allowed to vote, and the opinions of campaigners and politicians are not the only ones that are considered.
2) At what point did I criticise the "oil fatcats", as you phrased it? Precisely nowhere. You're not even arguing against my points, you've seen that I've said something about alternative energy and are accrediting a bunch of typical arguments to me, when I've said absolutely nothing that has any relevance to what you're replying with.

So why make it a condition? Either do it or don't, but it has nothing to do with keystone.

So Boerd said
So why make it a condition? Either do it or don't, but it has nothing to do with keystone.

I... what? That's my exact point - that we should be investing in alternate energy. I mentioned Keystone because that's what the whole thread - the gateway into the conversation - was about, so of course I was discussing the issue in relevance to Keystone. I don't give a crap about Keystone, I live in the UK. My point was that sure, we have to let things like Keystone go ahead 'cause overall they're beneficial in the current circumstances, despite the negative effects, but that we should be working to change those circumstances so we don't have to have those "necessary evils" in future.

We should absolutely be investing in numerous sources of energy outside of oil. A diverse economy is a competitive and efficient one, and the energy market is no exception. I'm not against investment in alternative energy, I just don't think we should be obstructing oil production and transportation in misguided environmental crusades.

The Nexerus said
We should absolutely be investing in numerous sources of energy outside of oil. A diverse economy is a competitive and efficient one, and the energy market is no exception. I'm not against investment in alternative energy, I just don't think we should be obstructing oil production and transportation in misguided environmental crusades.

The question is, should the government do it. I say no, because they muck it up. See: Solyndra.

The Nexerus said
We should absolutely be investing in numerous sources of energy outside of oil. A diverse economy is a competitive and efficient one, and the energy market is no exception. I'm not against investment in alternative energy, I just don't think we should be obstructing oil production and transportation in misguided environmental crusades.

Well, agreed. I never argued otherwise. As the current status quo goes, oil is our only option. We rely on it, so we need to damn well make sure it's reliable, 'cause we're fucked without oil. My whole point was to acknowledge that, and then to go further and say that we should try to develop alternate sources, to move beyond the "necessary evils" involved with our dependence on oil. I think it's pretty hard to argue that it's better to fuel ourselves on oil than clean energy sources, were that option available - so we need to invest to make that option available.

So Boerd said
The question is, should the government do it. I say no, because they muck it up. See: Solyndra.

Is that sort of a different argument? I referred to government because, in this situation, a) they're the ones who get to approve/disapprove Keystone being built, and b) they're the representatives of humanity on a wider scale. They decide our laws and represent us internationally. They act on our behalf. Therefore, my point that humanity as a whole should be investing in alternate energy... well, with the way things are now, that sorta means out governments invest, as our representatives, as those who collect our taxes, etc. etc. Whether you believe it should function in a different way is an entirely separate issue from my point - that humanity should be investing in it (and the mention of government because it is just, currently, the way in which we'd do that, as leaders and representatives of us.) Maybe it would be better if it were done another way, sure, but that's a different thing.