NOAA Report on sea level rise

[metalslug 31]

1 hour ago, lippy said:

Many on here don't have the Fox News talking points decoder ring...I think you're referencing the "if Biden hadn't canceled Keystone, we'd be producing more oil and Russia wouldn't have as much leverage in the energy game" talking point....Is that what you're trying to say?

That forms part of it, although I had intended to include central & western Europe in the context of the question too. I'm aware it's been said that Biden doesn't single-handedly control all oil production in the US, although government energy policy and sentiment certainly leaves it's mark on those that do.

More significantly; Is it is any way feasible that emerging eastern superpowers may use climate change as an ecological and economic weapon of sorts against potential enemies (which seems to be most of the world at the current rate), and are working on the equation of 'who stands to lose more' and 'who cares more' ?

Edited March 6, 2022 by metalslug

[gowlerk 1,910]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

More significantly; Is it is any way feasible that emerging eastern superpowers may use climate change as an ecological and economic weapon of sorts against potential enemies (which seems to be most of the world at the current rate), and are working on the equation of 'who stands to lose more' and 'who cares more' ?

China is heavily dependant on energy imports.  I'm sure they will use any tools that they can. The best economic lever they could deploy would seem to me to be reducing their reliance through renewable sources.

[brenthutch 383]

6 hours ago, lippy said:

Many on here don't have the Fox News talking points decoder ring...I think you're referencing the "if Biden hadn't canceled Keystone, we'd be producing more oil and Russia wouldn't have as much leverage in the energy game" talking point....Is that what you're trying to say?

If the Biden/Obama administration had not canceled the Keystone we would have a more efficient delivery system in place.  How’s that?

[billvon 2,396]

20 hours ago, metalslug said:

We've already had a glimpse of how green energy policies in the west have weakened their energy positions vs eastern dictators.

Switching more rapidly to EV's would strenghen our position against Putin.  We get ~2% of our oil from Russia; a minor increase in the number of EV's on our roads would reduce demand to the point where we don't need to import any.

Using more ethanol is another way to accomplish that.  Increasing the percentage of ethanol in gasoline in some states would have an instant effect.  Ethanol is a terrible fuel; it takes a lot of energy to produce and it's far worse than (say) biodiesel.  But during wartime, it's a fast and easy way to reduce our need for foreign oil.  The infrastructure is already in place.  And that also means money straight to US farmers (which is why it's popular the rest of the time.)

 

[JoeWeber 2,298]

3 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If the Biden/Obama administration had not canceled the Keystone we would have a more efficient delivery system in place.  How’s that?

Close but no cigar. It was actually the Biden/Obama/Chamberlain/Arnold/Doody administration.

[metalslug 31]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

Switching more rapidly to EV's would strenghen our position against Putin.  We get ~2% of our oil from Russia; a minor increase in the number of EV's on our roads would reduce demand to the point where we don't need to import any.

Using more ethanol is another way to accomplish that.  Increasing the percentage of ethanol in gasoline in some states would have an instant effect.  Ethanol is a terrible fuel; it takes a lot of energy to produce and it's far worse than (say) biodiesel.  But during wartime, it's a fast and easy way to reduce our need for foreign oil.  The infrastructure is already in place.  And that also means money straight to US farmers (which is why it's popular the rest of the time.)

 

Err.. OK, I accept all that as plausible, but my question was more in line with global sea level rise within the scope of the OP. -2% oil from Russia within the USA would probably not do much for the total global sea level rise. It's hence a much broader question of absolutely everything that impacts that. If these eastern powers are aware that the rest of the world is pouring trillions into green initiatives, they could still proceed with their cheaper, faster fossil options to undermine the green benefit, keep the west's spending up and potentially be quite pleased when parts of their ('the west') coasts get flooded. Yes, their own coastlines may flood too, but who loses more by that? Yes, China is probably inconvenienced by the need to import much of it's energy, although they are increasingly doing that from Russia, who looks to be their longer term ally at this point with like-minded thinking.

[gowlerk 1,910]

No one really knows for sure who are the biggest winners and losers are when the climate warms. China has a lot of people to feed.

[billvon 2,396]

1 hour ago, metalslug said:

Err.. OK, I accept all that as plausible, but my question was more in line with global sea level rise  . . . .

OK.  I was talking about short term, in terms of what we can do NOW to stop a particular Eastern dictator.  It was an example of how "going green" can augment our foreign influence, and improve resilience against bad behavior by bad actors.

Quote

they could still proceed with their cheaper, faster fossil options to undermine the green benefit

Sure.  But that's the classic 'tragedy of the commons' and is an international issue far beyond climate or pollution.  What gives me hope is that occasionally we do manage to get together and do what's best for the world in the long term rather than what's best for an individual country in the short term.  The Montreal Protocol, the ISS and the UN are all examples of that.  Not perfect examples of course, but examples where countries gave up short term profit/money/control for longer term (and only potential) benefit.

Quote

Yes, their own coastlines may flood too, but who loses more by that?

Actually third world countries do.  They have more concentrated populations close to sea level - and less money to move populations, build seawalls, reroute rivers etc.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

22 hours ago, brenthutch said:

If the Biden/Obama administration had not canceled the Keystone we would have a more efficient delivery system in place.  How’s that?

Current Keystone isn't running at capacity. So for now it is hard to believe it would make an impact.

[brenthutch 383]

12 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Current Keystone isn't running at capacity. So for now it is hard to believe it would make an impact.

Is that because of lack of production or lack of refining capacity in the Midwest?  

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Is that because of lack of production or lack of refining capacity in the Midwest?  

Neither option would change that currently Keystone XL wouldn't be making much of a difference.

[brenthutch 383]

36 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Neither option would change that currently Keystone XL wouldn't be making much of a difference.

The Keystone XL would be delivering oil to Texas which has massive refining capacity easily making up for any Russian oil lost in the event of a boycott.  
 

The Biden administration’s policy is to have Iran and Venezuela fill the gap instead 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

10 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

The Keystone XL would be delivering oil to Texas which has massive refining capacity easily making up for any Russian oil lost in the event of a boycott.  

The current Keystone pipeline delivers oil to Texas and is not running at full capacity.

[billvon 2,396]

17 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The current Keystone pipeline delivers oil to Texas and is not running at full capacity.

I find that most conservatives don't know that there is already a Keystone pipeline up and running, and the XL was just a second pipeline that would increase capacity in case the first one became 100% utilized (which it has not yet.)

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, billvon said:

I find that most conservatives don't know that there is already a Keystone pipeline up and running, and the XL was just a second pipeline that would increase capacity in case the first one became 100% utilized (which it has not yet.)

If that is the case, why was it opposed?  If it wasn’t going to make a difference why did Michael Mann say “if Keystone is approved, it will be game over for the climate”?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

54 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

If that is the case, why was it opposed?  If it wasn’t going to make a difference why did Michael Mann say “if Keystone is approved, it will be game over for the climate”?

If what is the case? That there is an actual keystone pipeline? That isn't really up for debate, at least not among sane people.

What happens when you find out Keystone XL wasn't even going to end in Texas?

[brenthutch 383]

18 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

What happens when you find out Keystone XL wasn't even going to end in Texas?

Yup, only it’s oil was.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Just now, brenthutch said:

Yup, only it’s oil was.

It still is, that is what the Keystone pipeline does. 

[brenthutch 383]

2 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

It still is, that is what the Keystone pipeline does. 

So why the big hubbub if it was a nothing burger to begin with.  Apparently a lot of bandwidth was wasted on both sides on a pipeline that did nothing.  The environmental wackos said it would be “game over for the environment” the right said it would help our energy independence and you say it wouldn’t matter one way or another.  Is that right?

[SkyDekker 1,121]

1 minute ago, brenthutch said:

you say it wouldn’t matter one way or another.  Is that right?

No. I said the Keystone XL decision wouldn't have made a difference with what is going on now. Keystone capacity is not at 100% and Keystone XL would not have been completed yet based on the last timeline.

Personally I would have been in favour of building Keystone XL, your talking points just don't make sense.

[brenthutch 383]

2 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

No. I said the Keystone XL decision wouldn't have made a difference with what is going on now. Keystone capacity is not at 100% and Keystone XL would not have been completed yet based on the last timeline.

Personally I would have been in favour of building Keystone XL, your talking points just don't make sense.

My “talking point” was predicated on the Keystone XL being approved during the Obama/Biden administration. 

[SkyDekker 1,121]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

My “talking point” was predicated on the Keystone XL being approved during the Obama/Biden administration. 

Great, than maybe it would have been built, however considering the current Keystone pipeline is not running at capacity it would not have meant anything material currently.

You want more oil, maybe ask ConocoPhillips to drill more in the Permian Basin position they bought from Shell. In stead they have said they will not increase production but pay a special distribution to shareholders. They are sitting on an additional 20,000,000,000 barrels.

If you want to look at reasons why production hasn't increased, I would suggest you don't only look at Pennsylvania Ave and also take a very hard look at Wall Street.

Edited March 8, 2022 by SkyDekker

[brenthutch 383]

40 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Great, than maybe it would have been built, however considering the current Keystone pipeline is not running at capacity it would not have meant anything material currently.

You want more oil, maybe ask ConocoPhillips to drill more in the Permian Basin position they bought from Shell. In stead they have said they will not increase production but pay a special distribution to shareholders. They are sitting on an additional 20,000,000,000 barrels.

If you want to look at reasons why production hasn't increased, I would suggest you don't only look at Pennsylvania Ave and also take a very hard look at Wall Street.

Well you guys mocked the investors when drillers were going bankrupt, now that they are raking in the bucks you still complain.  Don’t you lefties like $7 gas?  It’s like a carbon tax that never has to go through Congress.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

4 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

Well you guys mocked the investors when drillers were going bankrupt, now that they are raking in the bucks you still complain.

This sentence doesn't make any sense. Actually the whole post is a little unhinged.

The point is that investors/Wall Street have been punishing companies who are not distributing profits to shareholders or buying back stock. Hence that is what the big oil companies are doing, hoarding profit in stead of investing in drilling.

 

[brenthutch 383]

50 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The point is that investors/Wall Street have been punishing companies who are not distributing profits to shareholders or buying back stock. Hence that is what the big oil companies are doing, hoarding profit in stead of investing in drilling.

 

AKA capitalism.  It’s all part of the boom/bust cycle that has been going on in the oil batch for more than a century.