The point of site battles is attrition- annoy the industry enough that they'll acquiesce to rational carbon policy, rather than having to have extended court and political battles every time they want to build something. And site battles are easier to mobilize for.
Dan Sent from my iPad > On Jan 11, 2015, at 7:04 AM, Andrew Lockley <[email protected]> wrote: > > With my moderator hat on.... > > If people think this is an appropriate topic for the list, it would be > helpful to have some numbers to demonstrate why. > > The pipeline would have to make a significant difference to price globally to > significantly increase the quantity of FF demanded by the market. Will it do > this? I have seen no evidence here, or elsewhere. If not, this is off-topic. > > Without my moderator hat on... > > My personal view is that carbon taxation or energy-efficiency regulations are > far more effective a tool to manage carbon output than what environmentalists > call "site battles" (squabbling over this-or-that piece of infrastructure). > Site battles lead to haphazard and irrational decisions. > > As an aside: The pipeline could potentially be reused in the post-oil age to > redistribute hydrogen, biofuels, water, etc. > >> On 11 Jan 2015 11:19, "David Lewis" <[email protected]> wrote: >> The New Yorker just published a Ryan Lizza piece on Keystone, in which Lizza >> noted that: "the philosophical gulf between Obama and congressional >> Republicans is relatively narrow". ' >> >> See: "The Keystone XL Test: Can Obama make a deal?" New Yorker, January 9 >> 2015. Ryan Lizza is the New Yorker's Washington correspondent. He also >> contributes to CNN. >> >> Lizza pointed out that Obama's "veto statement was silent on the merits of >> the project itself". That is, the veto threat is stated to exist because >> the executive branch asserts that H.R.3 (the Keystone Pipeline Act) >> "conflicts with longstanding Executive branch procedures regarding the >> authority of the President", and hence, if Congress sends such a bill to the >> President to sign into law, "his senior advisers would recommend that he >> veto" it. >> >> Lizza claims to have inside information regarding Obama's view of Keystone: >> "In private, Obama has been dismissive of environmentalist claims that >> building Keystone XL would significantly affect climate change", and adds >> that "his State Department, with some caveats, came to the same conclusion >> in an environmental-impact statement". >> >> Hence, Lizza reasons, a deal may be possible. He advocates that Obama make >> one. He speculates: "What would the G.O.P. be willing to trade to get >> Keystone approved? A carbon tax?". >> >> My question: could the US environment movement give up its adamant >> opposition to Keystone if, in exchange, Republicans signed on to a federal >> carbon tax? >> >> >>> On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 4:17:04 PM UTC-8, Alan Robock wrote: >>> You all might also be interested in my blog on the subject in March last >>> year. It seems President Obama listened to me. >>> >>> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-robock/president-obama-say-no-to_b_4913672.html >>> Alan Robock >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "geoengineering" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "geoengineering" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
