McKibben is a radical environmentalist who wants to shut down fossil fuel production to the greatest extent possible. And his opposition is not limited to oil; he also wants to sharply curtail natural gas production.
If you think you can convince your political heroes to sell that idea to the public, go for it. Good luck!
In a perfect world, we would all be driving cars with inexpensive silicon nanowire Li-ion batteries that would hold enough juice to eliminate range anxiety. They could be charged with clean power from nuclear fusion power plants. Maybe we'll be there in 50 years, but we have to play the game today with the cards we've been dealt.
The simple fact is that the Canadian tar sands oil will be produced -- and will be consumed by someone. If it isn't transported through several U.S. states via the Keystone pipeline, it will be piped to the west coast of Canada and shipped to Asia on tankers. If that's the chosen course, emissions will actually increase relative to what they would be if transported within North America by pipeline. (Ocean-going tankers burn a lot of fuel.) What part of that do some of you guys have trouble understanding?
And since the subject of this thread is a "tangled story", how about this?
Little Stevie, you can hardly go more than a couple of days without hurling first grade-style insults, such as referring to everyone with whom you disagree as "dumb shits" or "morons."
Such behavior is usually the hallmark of insecurity or some other personality disorder. Perhaps in some cases it's just how people react when they fear that they can't craft any sort of cogent argument, and that everyone realizes it.
Which is it, Little Stevie? What's the "tangled story" behind that?
|
