Weepy Bill gets Wapo’d

Heh, even the liberal mouthpieces think the 350.org campaign led by Bill McKibben against the Keystone XL pipeline is stupid, calling it “bizarre”. They write in a forceful editorial today:

Mr. Obama should ignore the activists who have bizarrely chosen to make Keystone XL a line-in-the-sand issue, when there are dozens more of far greater environmental import. He knows that the way to cut oil use is to reduce demand for the stuff, and he has begun to put that knowledge into practice, setting tough new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. That will actually make a difference, unlike blocking a pipeline here or there.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-obamas-second-chance-on-keystone-xl-pipeline/2013/01/23/3b6f709c-5b77-11e2-beee-6e38f5215402_story.html

I predict weepy Bill’s next line in the sand will be in Australia.

About these ads
This entry was posted in 350.org connect the dots, Energy, petroleum and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Weepy Bill gets Wapo’d

  1. Eliza says:

    Mainstream media is rapidly changing sides, especially now with the bitter cold
    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/whatever-happened-to-global-warming/article7725145/
    Fortunately the greenies who then stupidly attack a “believer” convert her into a fully blown skeptic LOL

  2. Terry Bixler says:

    So far the bird choppers continue to kill birds and bats. The President’s agenda is to skyrocket the cost of electricity. Wapo gets cut the demand, just freeze the people.

  3. Ian L. McQueen says:

    Unfortunately, the new fuel-efficiency standards are pie-in-the-sky. Unattainable unless everyone wants to drive around in dangerously crushable mini-cars. Powered bicycles, anybody?

    IanM

  4. pokerguy says:

    Eliza…

    I’m sorry to say that one article in the Globe and Mail, however welcome and enjoyable) does not a sea change make. It’s going to take another 4 or 5 years in my inexpert estimation as not only the “pause” continues but we actually begin to get noticeably cooler. They can blame snow and cold on global warming for a while. But they can’t blame global cooling on global warming. Once that starts, all bets are thankfully off.

  5. pat says:

    The opposition to this pipeline is inexplicable.

  6. Rattus Norvegicus says:

    Liberals generally don’t consider the WaPo opinion writers to be liberal. Yes they have some liberal columnists and bloggers, but they also have Jennifer Rubin, George Will, Charles Krauthammer, etc. etc.

  7. WaPo are just being a mouthpiece for the unions who want the jobs the pipelines would bring. They would otherwise be on the side of McKibben.

    I would like to see a full-on battle betwixt the greenies and the unions. Those two leftist factions tearing at each other would be an entertaining spectacle.

  8. Billy says:

    If every environmentalist, politician and native leader was required to carry 2 five gallon gas cans in their carry-on when they fly to anti-industry conferences there would be no need for pipelines.
    sarc/

  9. Bill says:

    The opposition to fracking is even harder to understand.

  10. Peter Miller says:

    Trying to stop this pipeline became an ecoloon crusade. All the green activist groups were there, seeking something new to replace the fading cause of ‘global warming’ and thus refill their coffers. The arguments against the pipeline were asinine and only served to indicate the supremacy of eco-lunacy over common sense in the USA.

    As for fuel efficiencies,diesel cars currently use around 30% less fuel. Technology continues to advance and new cars can be made from lighter, stronger materials.

  11. Tom J says:

    “… setting tough new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks. That will actually make a difference”

    Precisely why should the government be involved in setting fuel economy standards in the first place? What particularly unique knowledge does Mr. Obama or the EPA possess about cars and trucks anyway? What superior knowledge do they have that surpasses that of the manufacturer or consumer of those products? If the fuel economy standards save fuel costs above and beyond the actual costs of implementing the standards then why oh why would they have to be mandated in the first place? To be sure, the consumer is oftentimes not intimately familiar with all the products the consumer buys. But, is the Obama administration? And, more to the point, just how intimately familiar is the consumer with the Obama administration itself? Did Obama discuss climate change during the campaign? No. Why?

  12. John W. Garrett says:

    When even the economic buffoons at the WaPo “get it,” you know it’s obvious.

  13. D.B. Stealey says:

    The Sierra Club has declared war on the KeystoneXL pipeline. When the enemy is making a mistake, don’t stop him.

    Really, what difference would one more pipeline make? There are already thousands of oil and gas pipelines in the U.S. and Canada.

    KeystoneXL will create thousands of new, high paying jobs, and help protect U.S. consumers from the vagaries of Middle East politics. Unfortunately, the Sierra Club has been hijacked by anti-American activists. And I am getting mighty tired of that ‘hate America’ crowd. Who elected them, anyway?

  14. MiCro says:

    Ian L. McQueen says:
    January 24, 2013 at 8:16 am

    “Unfortunately, the new fuel-efficiency standards are pie-in-the-sky. Unattainable unless everyone wants to drive around in dangerously crushable mini-cars. Powered bicycles, anybody?”

    Oh, they’re figure a way, it will just increase the cost of the car 30-100%
    The upside will be they’ll finally be able to mass produce Carbon Fiber sports cars.

  15. Joe Grappa says:

    “The opposition to fracking is even harder to understand.”

    Isn’t fracking allowing some sort of crud to get into groundwater, not to mention causing earthquakes?

  16. More Soylent Green! says:

    The fuel-efficiency standards are a joke. They’re full of loopholes and special give-aways to American car manufacturers.

    If I said the fuel-efficiency standards are red meat for the greens, would that be oxymoronic? Should I say “the fuel-efficiency standards are sprouts for the greens” would it make more sense?

  17. Doug Proctor says:

    Alberta, where I am, has this view:

    The oilsands are not just “Canadian”, but part of American energy plans, known as North American Energy Security. VP Dick Cheney toured the sites; we recognized that American political views are the oilsands are AMERICAN, i.e. for the use and benefit of America. In the same way that Mexican gas supplies were identified as part of the North American Energy Security, i.e. for America.

    If the pipeline to Texas doesn’t get the oilsands oil, Japan and China will. No dispute here: the oil is going somewhere. If not the US, then to others.

    We don’t believe that the oilsands are going to anyone except the American people. That oil will keep Texan refineries going and American people employed. Our first desire was to refine the stuff ourselves, and that was immediately called a no-go by …. American politicos. The US is not going to pay Canadians profits for the crude and the refining when there are American refineries able to do the job.

    So the Keystone XL is happening. Now, you wonder, what about the fuss? Nobody along the pipeline route at a State level doesn’t want the oil coming through. Individuals on the land don’t, they want it to go through someone else’s land, but that is NIMBY. You don’t have to be a Californian to be a NIMBY-supporter. So who is actually objecting?

    New England and Californian, urban eco-green. Who vote Democrat. Everyone else? Either “yes” or “whatever”.

    If Americans didn’t want the oil, each State could have stopped it. Funny that Billy doesn’t rally each State: of course not, that would offend those who want the work or want Americans to have the oil or Americans elsewhere to get the work. Billy wouldn’t do that. He’d find that he was in a minority, and the eco-green don’t want the truth about their minority position to come out.

    All the fuss, you’d think the American people don’t want the tarsands. Hardly. All the fuss, you’d think that the tarsands oil is not coming south. Hardly.

    What a waste of energy. Emotional, political and BTUs. That come from either coal, natural gas or oil.

  18. john robertson says:

    But the pipeline will cut into Buffets profits, so Obama bin Lying must stop it.

  19. Michael Moon says:

    Nope! The only way to meet these fuel economy standards is with smaller lighter vehicles with less frontal area. Even the hideous Smart Car does not meet them. Those tiny three-wheelers with the motorcycle engines just barely meet them. This will never happen in the USA, we like our big cars. Trucks are still exempt, so everyone will be driving an SUV if they ever actually go into effect.

  20. dscott says:

    The environmental lobby is funded by greedy cronies like Warren Buffett, who coincidentally owns a significant percentage of the railroads currently moving oil out of the Bakken. If the pipeline is built, the oil won’t be transported by the more expensive rail tankers. Just as with Ethanol, the Keystone XL pipeline decision is a POLITICAL contrivance. Obama must decide if Warren Buffett’s campaign contributions are sufficient to continue to block the project. There are no merits to be considered on that level of decision making. Merits are for the little people who have to weigh every penny, Obama deals in billions. Bill is just a very well compensated useful idiot.

  21. David L. says:

    Becoming president (a.k.a. winning a popularity vote) automatically makes them an expert in everything. For the rest of us it takes years of study and practice in a particular field. And then the president’s opinion still holds more weight.

  22. Mooloo says:

    Precisely why should the government be involved in setting fuel economy standards in the first place?

    The government’s roles include the changing of standards in order to progress, because often inertia and previous investment prevent logical change.

    The US for many decades used the NTSC standard for colour TV despite it being distinctly inferior to PAL. But the investment in NTSC meant that changing over was costly. No government instruction to change meant that decades of US users got inferior colour. That’s what happens in a pure free market — the first standard wins, whether it is the best or not.

    The same with car efficiency, particularly in the US where it is apparently beneath a man’s dignity to actually drive a fuel efficient car. If everyone changes over, then everyone wins. Without government mandate, everyone loses – unless by “winning” you mean that your supplies of oil and gas run out more quickly and your foreign deficit balloons a bit more.

    In most of the world the setting of standards is one of the givens of government. The knee-jerk opposition to that role in the US is yet one more area of its uniqueness.

    (This is not to say the standards being imposed are the right ones. Just that the job of government is to actually set standards.)

  23. William Astley says:

    The Keystone pipeline is a no brainer from the standpoint of US short term and long economic interests and US security of oil supply.

    The largest oil sand producer is “Imperial Oil” which is controlled by the US oil company ExxonMobil which owns 69.8% of its stock. A significant percentage of the oil sand revenue flows directly back to the US.

    Canada is the US’s largest trading pattern. Increased purchases of Canada oil sand oil will result in increased purchase of US goods. The majority of Canada retail companies are US owned.
    Canada is politically stable and closely aligned to the US in the NAFTA free trade agreement. The NAFTA free trade agreement contains a clause that Canada cannot restrict the flow of oil to the US.

    US Strategic Petroleum Reserves
    The Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) is an emergency fuel storage of oil maintained by the United States Department of Energy. It is the largest emergency supply in the world with the capacity to hold up to 727 million barrels (115,600,000 m3).
    The current inventory is displayed on the SPR’s website. As of December 21, 2012, the inventory was 694.9 million barrels (110,480,000 m3). This equates to 36 days of oil at current daily US consumption levels of 19.5 million barrels per day (3,100,000 m3/d).

  24. DirkH says:

    Mooloo says:
    January 24, 2013 at 12:53 pm
    “The government’s roles include the changing of standards in order to progress, because often inertia and previous investment prevent logical change.”

    And we all know that the government acts more logically than the owner of a truck who has to spend his own money to maintain the old truck or decide to buy a new one. /sarc

    A government that runs a deficit of 10% of GDP. Any householder operating like that would find himself homeless very soon. So that’s the higher form of logic you endorse. Do you make sure to always spend 10% more than your income, Mooloo?

  25. harrywr2 says:

    Michael Moon says:
    January 24, 2013 at 11:13 am

    ” Trucks are still exempt, so everyone will be driving an SUV if they ever actually go into effect.”

    Trucks are not still exempt…
    http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/documents/420f12051.pdf

  26. Catcracking says:

    Ian L. McQueen says:

    January 24, 2013 at 8:16 am

    “Unfortunately, the new fuel-efficiency standards are pie-in-the-sky. Unattainable unless everyone wants to drive around in dangerously crushable mini-cars. Powered bicycles, anybody?

    Amen. I wonder why so few of us are willing to speak out and state the obvious facts.”
    56 MPG is delusional at best in the proposed timeframe. Due to the MSM I doubt that very many realize the difficulty of achieving this with a vehicle that meets the needs of a typical family. No vehicle today meets that criteria unless you gin up some phoney numbers like the EPA have for electric cars.
    My rule is that before any such criteria is imposed by Washington on the public, the Washington crowd shoul live under the criteria for 5 years to prove it is viable even for the privileged. No exceptions, starting with the President like the kind they have provided for themselves for Obama care and Social Security. This nonsense would end quickly.

  27. Gail Combs says:

    Joe Grappa says:
    January 24, 2013 at 10:32 am

    “The opposition to fracking is even harder to understand.”

    Isn’t fracking allowing some sort of crud to get into groundwater, not to mention causing earthquakes?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    No the scary “fracking technology” was PATENTED just after the CIVIL WAR. It is the technique that has been used for over a hundred years but it is a great way for the Econuts to scare the pants off the ignorant.

    A “Fracking” History
    For more than 100 years, nitroglycerin detonations increased a well’s production from petroleum bearing formations. Modern hydraulic fracturing technology can trace its roots to April 25, 1865, when Civil War veteran Col. Edward A. L. Roberts received the first of his many patents for an “exploding torpedo.”

    ….Civil War veteran Col. Edward A.L. Roberts fought bravely with a New Jersey Regiment at the bloody 1862 battle of Fredericksburg, Virginia.

    Amid the chaos of the battle, he saw the results of explosive Confederate artillery rounds plunging into the narrow millrace (canal) that obstructed the battlefield.

    Despite heroic actions during the battle, he will be cashiered from Union army in 1863. But the Virginia battlefield observation gave him an idea that would evolve into what he described as “superincumbent fluid tamping.”

    Just a few years later his revolutionary oil field invention will greatly increase production of America’s early petroleum industry.

    Torpedoes filled with gunpowder (later nitroglycerin) were lowered into wells and ignited by a weight dropped along a suspension wire onto a percussion cap.

    Roberts was awarded U.S. Patent (No. 59,936) in November 1866 for what would become known as the Roberts Torpedo. The new technology would revolutionize the young oil and natural gas industry by vastly increasing production from individual wells.

    The Titusville Morning Herald newspaper reported:

    Our attention has been called to a series of experiments that have been made in the wells of various localities by Col. Roberts, with his newly patented torpedo. The results have in many cases been astonishing.

    The torpedo, which is an iron case, containing an amount of powder varying from fifteen to twenty pounds, is lowered into the well, down to the spot, as near as can be ascertained, where it is necessary to explode it.

    It is then exploded by means of a cap on the torpedo, connected with the top of the shell by a wire….

    On March 17, 1949, a team of petroleum production experts converges on an oil well about 12 miles east of Duncan, Oklahoma – to perform the first commercial application of hydraulic fracturing.

    Later that same day, Halliburton and Stanolind company personnel successfully fractured another well near Holliday, Texas. Another experimental well fractured two years earlier in Hugoton, Kansas – home of a massive natural gas field – had proven the possibility of increased productivity.

    By 1988, the technology will have been applied nearly one million times…..

  28. policycritic says:

    Unfortunately, the new fuel-efficiency standards are pie-in-the-sky. Unattainable unless everyone wants to drive around in dangerously crushable mini-cars. Powered bicycles, anybody?

    I worked on an assembly line at Chrysler during the summer to put myself through school. This was over 30 years ago. The old guys on the line–one had worked there for nearly 50 years–said that it was easy to produce a big car that ran 100/mpg, and that they (Chrysler) had produced tires that never ran out. He said the technology had been around for years (and by that he meant decades).

    I asked the 50-year vet, Then why aren’t they making them? He smirked and and rubbed his right thumb, index, and middle fingers together. He said there was a much better engine than the internal combustion engine to run cars, more efficient and quieter, but they kept it locked up. It had been locked up since WWII.

  29. Streetcred says:

    “I predict weepy Bill’s next line in the sand will be in Australia.”

    Let him come, we’ll use his pathetic digit to draw that line … and then, to use ‘The Rock’s’ famous term, “turn is sideways and shove it up … “

  30. Jean says:

    “The government’s job is to set standards”, wow. And here I thought Attenborough was going to have said the dumbest thing I heard this month.

  31. Jeff Alberts says:

    policycritic says:
    January 24, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    I worked on an assembly line at Chrysler during the summer to put myself through school. This was over 30 years ago. The old guys on the line–one had worked there for nearly 50 years–said that it was easy to produce a big car that ran 100/mpg, and that they (Chrysler) had produced tires that never ran out. He said the technology had been around for years (and by that he meant decades).

    I asked the 50-year vet, Then why aren’t they making them? He smirked and and rubbed his right thumb, index, and middle fingers together. He said there was a much better engine than the internal combustion engine to run cars, more efficient and quieter, but they kept it locked up. It had been locked up since WWII.

    And you believed him??

  32. Rosco says:

    “I predict weepy Bill’s next line in the sand will be in Australia.”

    We have more than enough of our own morons thank you !

    We already have protests against coal seam gas where a small plant occupying a few hundred square metres extracts gas from coal seams rather than open cut mines destroying hundreds of hectares.

    Greens also favour biodiesel where the deforestation in Borneo to plant palm oil is threatening the orangutan.

    People behave like sheep rather than use their intellect.

  33. M Simon says:

    He knows that the way to cut oil use is to reduce demand for the stuff, and he has begun to put that knowledge into practice, setting tough new fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

    Greater efficiency in fuel use will increase total consumption.

    http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2013/01/us-energy-usage-and-jevons-paradox

  34. I’m ROFL at Ian L. McQueen’s mention of powered bicycles, given stupid laws here in BC.

    The dividing line between a motor-assisted bicycle and a motor scooter, thus requirement for licenses, is pedals. Some people ran afoul of the law by removing the pedals from their device, which is integrated like a light version of a motor scooter like a Vespa, not like a bicycle with add-on motor. (Crude gasoline engine decades ago, electric today.)

    More silliness is that bicycles are not allowed on sidewalks, never mind that adjacent WA state allows them (and has appropriate rules for all surfaces and conveyances including feet), but electric mobility scooters are (used by people with mobility problems). Those compact skateboards with a handle are verboten if electric powered.

    All by the same people trying to control your carbon – bureaucrats and politicians.

  35. As for “pokerguy” on pauses, keep in mind that if the 60-year sinusoidal cycle is valid, its reversal of trend will not be sudden – it’s like the change of daylight duration away from the equator. Near a peak or valley rate of change will be low, so easily obscured by other phenomenon, though we are halfway into max>min timing of a 60-year cycle thus at the greatest rate of change.

    Other factors may be at work, besides variations like ENSO and volcanoes there is the slow rise from the LIA.

    But I doubt there is enough knowledge to accurately predict if a trend like the 60-year variation or the slow trend will continue – the MWP and LIA did not.

    And there are lags, notably the massive heat sink called oceans.

  36. Aidan Donnelly says:

    policycritic says:
    January 24, 2013 at 5:35 pm

    I worked on an assembly line at Chrysler during the summer to put myself through school. This was over 30 years ago. The old guys on the line–one had worked there for nearly 50 years–said that it was easy to produce a big car that ran 100/mpg, and that they (Chrysler) had produced tires that never ran out. He said the technology had been around for years (and by that he meant decades).

    I asked the 50-year vet, Then why aren’t they making them? He smirked and and rubbed his right thumb, index, and middle fingers together. He said there was a much better engine than the internal combustion engine to run cars, more efficient and quieter, but they kept it locked up. It had been locked up since WWII.
    =====================================================================
    My Grandad used to say similar stuff – “if all the advances for automobiles had been applied instead of bought up and locked away by the manufacturers, you would buy one car which would last all your life with only the need to add fuel, oil & water occasionally”

    He wasn’t daft enough to say tyres would never wear out, I am sure the more science/physics minded here would explain why.

Comments are closed.