No to the Keystone XL

I could argue that ethanol production has much more far reaching harm than the bitumen process.

And cost to our food

I would include that... and it's a poor quality fuel... very hard on older motors.

I agree that ethanol is a poor quality fuel and that the cost of production outweighs the utility. As for GMO's and RoundUp...that's another discussion...pure poison from an evil corporation. That's why several countries around the world have banned GMO's.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:

PkrBum wrote:I could argue that ethanol production has much more far reaching harm than the bitumen process.

Ethanol production is highly carbon-intensive. Lots of diesel is burned to run the farm-equipment used to produce corn, and the trucks used to haul the corn to the ethanol refineries. Natural gas is used to make the fertilizer spread over the corn fields. Petrochemicals are used to make the pesticides and the very copious amounts of Roundup herbicide sprayed all over the GMO corn used to make into ethanol. You cannot divorce corn-based ethanol from a carbon-intensive footprint or petroleum extraction--that is a fact.

There, I just made your argument for you......

Lol... Thanks. The effect pace mentioned on food prices is adverse as well. The entire boondoggle is flawed.

And recently the subsidy to the corps was renewed... Yea team..!!

I think it will be approved, but it shouldn't be.

Knothead is correct about the cost/benefit analysis, but that's not the salient point.

This is ....

i) Risk of death, injury, ill-health, or disrupted livelihoods in low-lying coastal zones and small island developing states and other small islands, due to storm surges, coastal flooding, and sea level rise.37 [RFC 1-5]

ii) Risk of severe ill-health and disrupted livelihoods for large urban populations due to inland flooding in some regions.38 [RFC 2 and 3]

iii) Systemic risks due to extreme weather events leading to breakdown of infrastructure networks and critical services such as electricity, water supply, and health and emergency services.39 [RFC 2-4]

iv) Risk of mortality and morbidity during periods of extreme heat, particularly for vulnerable urban populations and those working outdoors in urban or rural areas.40 [RFC 2 and 3]

v) Risk of food insecurity and the breakdown of food systems linked to warming, drought, flooding, and precipitation variability and extremes, particularly for poorer populations in urban and rural settings.41 [RFC 2-4]

vi) Risk of loss of rural livelihoods and income due to insufficient access to drinking and irrigation water and reduced agricultural productivity, particularly for farmers and pastoralists with minimal capital in semi-arid regions.42 [RFC 2 and 3]

vii) Risk of loss of marine and coastal ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for coastal livelihoods, especially for fishing communities in the tropics and the Arctic.43 [RFC 1, 2, and 4]

viii) Risk of loss of terrestrial and inland water ecosystems, biodiversity, and the ecosystem goods, functions, and services they provide for livelihoods.44 [RFC 1, 3, and 4]

Many key risks constitute particular challenges for the least developed countries and vulnerable communities, given their limited ability to cope.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg2/ar5_wgII_spm_en.pdf

Those are the near-term consequences of continuing to pump carbon into the atmosphere at unprecedented rates.

The longer term outlook is even much more dire.

We are literally talking about the world our children and grandchildren will inherit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YtL4WgvlWjo&feature=youtu.be%5Byoutube.com%5D&app=desktop

Hardisty Rail Terminal built to transport the tar sands to the US.
Very interesting . . .

@1:48

Floridatexan wrote:

@1:48

Thanks FT, I never learned how to post links of pics and such! LOL