Poster's note : paper link below with abstract. NB plain English article
previously posted on list -
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/41564/title/Complexities-of-Carbon-Lowering/
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n12/full/ngeo2285.html
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?
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.
That's exactly what was attempted against geoengineering with SPICE. It
leads to bad science, bad policy, and flight of investment to rogue
States. (A parallel is the adult industry fleeing California to escape
regulation.)
We can expect endless and tiresome assaults on geoengineering work in
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
Judging the ultimate impact of a Keystone rejection based on the direct
market impact of the pipeline seems to miss the point entirely, because
there is no single infrastructural linchpin to carbon emissions. The
development of FF infrastructure is, like FF consumption, a commons problem.
Thanks for weighing in, Andrew. I agree that pricing is the effective
signal in this market; note that there are not major investments being made
in infrastructure like refining, because there are not secure long-term new
supplies. This is an opportunist industry at this point. Saudi pricing
Charles
It's a bad week to go around accusing those with security concerns of
paranoia.
My comments were not about the Keystone protesters, and I didn't even use
them as an example. I know little about the campaign.
I did use the following examples : GM protesters, who *have* destroyed
I can't access the paper, but I'd be a little concerned about differential
degradation of the OC and IC in the traps in making this interp. Is the OC/IC
constant with depth of trap? Anyway, it is important to keep track of export
IC. As (more) CO2 is drawn down in surface water by phytos, pH,
The McGlade paper is indeed very important and well worth reading since it
works backwards from the 2-degree target to provide what amounts to a
regional hit list for declaring carbon resources unburnable (see Table 1
in the paper). Most of the Canadian oil and gas resources are found to be
One observation that flows from this analysis is that it is other resource
owners' excessive use of their assets that strands the assets at the top of
this hit list. While the atmosphere is legally a public good, these fossil
assets are private goods and their value is being diminished by the
Is there now an economic rationale for the KXL? As for energy security, what
premium will Americans be willing to pay for KXL oil and shouldn't the premium
also apply to exploiting domestic non-fossil energy? Wouldn't this also reduce
the very high cost of militarily protecting foreign oil
Relatedly:
http://theconversation.com/as-the-arctic-melts-the-us-needs-to-pay-attention-35578
Sent from the Rau's iPad
On Jan 11, 2015, at 11:46 AM, Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Via aqueous- and geo-chemistry, the ocean is already the proven savior of the
planet wrt excess CO2
13 matches
Mail list logo
