NYT: We Can't Stop Canada From Producing Tar-Sands Petroleum, But We Can Force Them To Sell Their Dirty Tar Sand Oil to China!

The NYT, shocker, doesn't like tar-sand petroleum extraction. Why? Carbon dioxide, "The Invisible Killer."

Well, Canada doesn't care about Kyoto or the NYT and they're not going to stop producing valuable oil over Chicken Little nonsense.

The Times' carefully-crafted response? Block the pipeline into the US, and force those Snowbillies to sell their tar sand petroleum to China.

Canada’s government is committed to the tar sands business. (Alberta’s energy minister, Ronald Liepert, has declared, “I’m not interested in Kyoto-style policies.”) The United States can’t do much about that, but it can stop the Keystone XL pipeline.

A blogger asks:

What would stopping the Keystone XL pipeline accomplish? Do they not want the ten of thousands of jobs directly and indirectly created from the pipeline? Would they rather have the U.S. be less energy secure? Do they want to be on the side of anti-growth, anti-energy protesters?

It sure looks that way to me.

The pipeline goes to the Texas Gulf Coast. I assume that is because the slurry produced by the process requires additional refinement, and so, they send it to Texas.

Why stop Texans and Louisians from working, if the work is just going to be done elsewhere?

The left speaks of being pro-science, and yet they are ignorant Luddites.

It's an old saw that people like sausage, until they see the sausage factory.

The luddites of the left want (I assume) to be able to travel, heat their homes, and have electric light at night.

So they want the sausage, it seems.

But they are determined to shut down every sausage factory on the planet.

Where do they think the sausage will come from, then? The Sausage Fairies?

The left treats the wonder of artificial lighting and home heating and long-distance travel as if these are natural phenomena of the earth, like the wind or the tides.

They are not. When one turns on an electric light, that energy is coming from somewhere. 80% of such energy comes from the chemical combustion of substances. Another 10% comes from the nuclear combustion of substances, and 10% at most comes from renewables. (Which they also don't like -- they whine about the biggest generators of renewable power, dams.)

Like food, energy is farmed. There are bona fide workers providing it, extracting it from real-world sources.

It is not magic. God does many things but he does not send electrons streaming into liberals' homes.

Like children, they continue crying about the pretty cows being killed while also continuing to munch on their cheeseburgers.

This is understandable in children; children do not understand trade-offs.

Apparently neither do the ideologically extreme, purely-theoretical children at the New York Times.

posted by Ace at 05:33 PM

| Access Comments