No, of course we don't "need" to do so. It's just economically more efficient because there's a concentration of refining capacity around Houston that can efficiently handle the specific chemistry of the Canadian Alberta tar sands.
No, of course we don't "need" to do so. It's just economically more efficient because there's a concentration of refining capacity around Houston that can efficiently handle the specific chemistry of the Canadian Alberta tar sands.
Jerry, your argument stuns me. You have really bought into the oil companies' mindset, haven't you? You talk of "efficiency" and routing pipelines as if they were givens and as if other people here had no idea how that works. For many of us, those were the starting points. In Vermont, we were fed those same arguments about a natural gas pipeline (by company within same holding company as the midwest pipelines, about costs and about the "efficiency" argument, including the supposed "transition" argument. We did the research and proved the companies were lying. Not merely wrong. Lying. Though the corporations managed to stave off the challenges for a while, time proved us right. ULtimately we won, but not before a lot of damage was done and people's lives upended.
The pipelines are dangerous no matter where they are put. And they are costly no matter where they are built: every single one has huge cost overruns. I've been in the tar sands and in the fracking fields. They are ugly, and they are toxic, in addition to being disruptive (understatement) to the communities they are near.
Ultimately, their product is not needed. These pipelines are not "interim solutions". We already have the technology to completely replace the oil. It is irrational to ship (by any means) toxic sludge from Canada to Texas for refining - except for the corporations who buy off politicians so they can keep alive their cash cow.
What if Texas began to willingly transform from allowing itself to be economically dependent on a technology that is dirty, affects human health, destroys ecosystems both directly and indirectly? What if Texas took advantage of the other sources of energy it has access to (wind and solar, for instance) and began to built a multi-state grid that benefited all Texans and not just a few? That's the real transition: recognizing the historical reality of how oil companies do things, and choosing to shift away from being complicit.
Texas's disaster wasn't the storm. Texas's disaster was its own decision to ignore the needs of its people, and put the interests of big corporations above their responsibility to both human beings and the environment.
Something maybe for you to think about. I have friends in Texas. They get it.
I wasn't arguing, only repeating the oil companies' logic. I intimately understand their approach because I worked in that industry. That doesn't mean I agreed with everything.
However, you keep wanting to blame oil companies for the public's demand (thirst) for oil. To meet that demand, pipelines are necessary. Yes they could be safer as a group, but it's not a given that a given pipeline is unsafe. It IS a given that pipelines are a safer means of transport than rail. For the time bring, transport is necessary.
I agree we need to accelerate transition to renewable and Texas could lead there (Houston is working to create a green energy tech hub). But demand is where the challenge lies. That is a global issue, and even if the transition to green goes as fast as possible, global demand for oil and gas will continue to rise for a couple of decades or more.
Note that I'm not trying to protect oil and pipeline companies (they're often separate). Sheer scale of human demand for energy will fo that.
No, of course we don't "need" to do so. It's just economically more efficient because there's a concentration of refining capacity around Houston that can efficiently handle the specific chemistry of the Canadian Alberta tar sands.
Jerry, your argument stuns me. You have really bought into the oil companies' mindset, haven't you? You talk of "efficiency" and routing pipelines as if they were givens and as if other people here had no idea how that works. For many of us, those were the starting points. In Vermont, we were fed those same arguments about a natural gas pipeline (by company within same holding company as the midwest pipelines, about costs and about the "efficiency" argument, including the supposed "transition" argument. We did the research and proved the companies were lying. Not merely wrong. Lying. Though the corporations managed to stave off the challenges for a while, time proved us right. ULtimately we won, but not before a lot of damage was done and people's lives upended.
The pipelines are dangerous no matter where they are put. And they are costly no matter where they are built: every single one has huge cost overruns. I've been in the tar sands and in the fracking fields. They are ugly, and they are toxic, in addition to being disruptive (understatement) to the communities they are near.
Ultimately, their product is not needed. These pipelines are not "interim solutions". We already have the technology to completely replace the oil. It is irrational to ship (by any means) toxic sludge from Canada to Texas for refining - except for the corporations who buy off politicians so they can keep alive their cash cow.
What if Texas began to willingly transform from allowing itself to be economically dependent on a technology that is dirty, affects human health, destroys ecosystems both directly and indirectly? What if Texas took advantage of the other sources of energy it has access to (wind and solar, for instance) and began to built a multi-state grid that benefited all Texans and not just a few? That's the real transition: recognizing the historical reality of how oil companies do things, and choosing to shift away from being complicit.
Texas's disaster wasn't the storm. Texas's disaster was its own decision to ignore the needs of its people, and put the interests of big corporations above their responsibility to both human beings and the environment.
Something maybe for you to think about. I have friends in Texas. They get it.
“we already have the technology to replace oil”
Oil conversion to CO2 by combustion has only one peer where energy is relevant.
Nuclear.
Mike, really? I thought you were more cognizant than that.
I wasn't arguing, only repeating the oil companies' logic. I intimately understand their approach because I worked in that industry. That doesn't mean I agreed with everything.
However, you keep wanting to blame oil companies for the public's demand (thirst) for oil. To meet that demand, pipelines are necessary. Yes they could be safer as a group, but it's not a given that a given pipeline is unsafe. It IS a given that pipelines are a safer means of transport than rail. For the time bring, transport is necessary.
I agree we need to accelerate transition to renewable and Texas could lead there (Houston is working to create a green energy tech hub). But demand is where the challenge lies. That is a global issue, and even if the transition to green goes as fast as possible, global demand for oil and gas will continue to rise for a couple of decades or more.
Note that I'm not trying to protect oil and pipeline companies (they're often separate). Sheer scale of human demand for energy will fo that.