North American energy independence has been an elusive dream that could at last become reality.
It would take government to ruin an opportunity this big.
Some of us are old enough to remember waiting in long lines to buy gas during the Arab oil embargo of the 1970s. Many of us had to buy locks for our gas tanks to keep thieves from siphoning our precious fuel away.
“Energy independence!” Politicians promised, but they did not meaningfully try to deliver.
A nihilistic Green movement attacked our energy and kept us dependent — and vulnerable. They came up with climate change and renewed their assault.
An investigation into Russian meddling into America’s energy economy over the years might be an eye-opener.
Yet, free markets are powerfully efficient. Despite obstacles of every kind, a North American energy revolution took hold allowing us to access vast quantities of oil and gas from fracking, offshore rigs and Canadian oil sands.
Pipelines are the safest, cleanest and most efficient way to move this treasure trove of energy to refineries and consumers. Obstructing pipelines is a favorite tactic of the anti-energy Left.
The Keystone XL pipeline has passed every environmental and economic test, yet has been thwarted time and again. Barack Obama became Keystone’s obstructor in chief. CFACT’s Paul Driessen explains at The Hill that Keystone just took a giant step forward.
“The Nebraska Public Service Commission voted 3-2 to approve Nebraska’s share of the $8 billion, 1,200-mile Keystone XL Pipeline route, seemingly clearing its final regulatory hurdle and allowing construction to move forward.”
This is good news, long overdue, but the Greens are not done.
Regulators and lawmakers at every level should put an end to all obstruction and make this vital energy artery a reality.
As Driessen sums up, ” Keystone XL is a vital addition to America’s pipeline system. It is not perfect. But it is essential for a healthier, safer, more prosperous United States.”
Only a lunatic would not want cheap oil to fuel our lives. Greens want expensive and unreliable energy. They also like government subsidized energy versus energy supplied by profit seeking businesses (that also pay taxes to pay for the government subsidized “green” energy).
If you want cheap oil, just mine it from Alaska, there’s probably more there than in the rest of the world.
Trump is opening up more land in Alaska for oil development. And it’s certain that as the need arises, more drilling will occur in Alaska.
You dream of Trump opening up more, don’t you. Don’t get too wet.
But that pesky solifluction and proven affect of atmospheric carbon on climate . . . ah the economic externalities we all wish we could ignore until they come around to bite you in the ass.
Did you take into account how much water is used in extracting tar sands? Did that externality get put into your calculation of “cheap oil”? How about the global effects of carbon on climate, which I know you deny even though the science is on the side of greenhouse warming. Guess a rational person will look “lunatic” from that messed up perspective. #Dunning-Kruger
There’s a shortage of water in Canada?! LOL!
That you didn’t realize water was a part of this issue speaks volumes to your ignorance:
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/av47e5/indigenous-lawsuits-could-paralyze-the-tar-sands
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/keep-it-in-the-ground-blog/2015/apr/08/life-above-alberta-tar-sands-why-were-taking-government-to-court
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/pawnee-nation-erin-brockovich-sue-oil-gas-fracking-oklahoma-earthquakes/
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122016/standing-rock-dakota-access-pipeline-native-american-protest-environmental-justice
That you equate “carbon” and “carbon dioxide” as the same thing reduces your argument from a scientific standpoint. Why don’t you specify which one you mean so there is no ambiguity in your debate? Unless you consider that specificity “lunatic”?
So you’ve never used shorthand descriptions? Seriously, do you think anyone wouldn’t know I was talking about CO2, you clearly did. Nice try to find a flaw, but the “flaw” you found says a lot more about your thinking than my communication. #Dunning-Kruger x 2