What are your thoughts on global warming?

[MitchM]

No, I'm thinking of African countries, I don't have a list handy right now.
As for your own petroleum supply, you'll have to increase fracking. That comes with it's own issues.
Our oil sand production facilities have reduced their CO2 emissions by 30%. I think it's a safer source of petroleum for the US than increasing your fracking method oil supply.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

If fossil fuel use is reduced (which it must) then there will be no need for the U.S. to import petroleum.
Fossil fuel reduction is the only solution, bitter pill that it may be. Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide levels must be reduced. This is basically what the Paris agreement is about with implementation already begun for the countries (114 of 197) that have ratified this agreement.

 

[morewater]

Although that may be true for Canada, it is not true for the U.S. as we are now producing enough energy to me our own demands. Importing is not needed.

And which of these countries are the ones that would suffer...Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Venezuela? Which of these countries would it really affect there current standard of living?

So, you suck it out of the ground........without a pipeline, how does it get to where it needs to go to be refined?

Transport by rail is dangerous, by truck is financially useless.

Let's face it, the internal combustion engine isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Transport by rail is dangerous, by truck is financially useless.

Transport of petroleum by any means is dangerous. Exxon Valdez ring a bell. Pipelines may be safe relative to other means of transport, but safe they certainly are not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century

Crude Oil Pipeline Incidents, 2010 to Present

Let's face it, the internal combustion engine isn't going anywhere, anytime soon.

Maybe not in our lifetime, but much sooner than you think. Although they may not go away completely, their numbers will certainly dwindle. A mix of gasoline, electric, diesel, and even natural-gas vehicles is more likely 30 or 40 years from now. The latter three having a much smaller Carbon footprint.
Natural gas vehicles have been in use in my area for several years by the sanitation department (130 vehicles) and the City government (28 vehicles). With annual savings to the county of $1 million in fuel costs and $350,000 in maintenance costs over gasoline.
With these kind of savings and reduced maintenance why would anyone not consider abandoning the gasoline-powered internal combustion engine. Add to this the fact that tail-pipe emissions are reduced by over 90%.

So, you suck it out of the ground........without a pipeline, how does it get to where it needs to go to be refined?

Eliminate the demand...no reason to keep pumping or transporting especially at anywhere near the volumes of today.

 

[MitchM]

Natural gas vehicles are only suitable for commercial applications in large urban centers, there is no infrastructure to handle natural gas vehicles for 99% of domestic users.
I drove a delivery truck in 1983 that was a converted natural gas vehicle....everyone then was saying that natural gas for everyone was less than 10 years away.......
Oil companies and the politicians that they control won't let nat gas cut too far into their operations.
Pipelines have a larger volume of oil released per spill vs rail cars or truck transport, but which is worse for the environment - oil spilled on the surface or the emissions generated by locomotives and truck engines that are transporting the oil?

.

 

[Meyer Jordan]

there is no infrastructure to handle natural gas vehicles for 99% of domestic users.

We have two (2) public access LNG stations in this backwater town. Based the map in this link, 99% may be somewhat of an overestimation.
http://www.cngnow.com/stations/Pages/information.aspx

 

[Meyer Jordan]

Pipelines have a larger volume of oil released per spill vs rail cars or truck transport, but which is worse for the environment - oil spilled on the surface or the emissions generated by locomotives and truck engines that are transporting the oil?

Since most trucks and locomotives are powered by diesel fuel which has an overall smaller footprint than gasoline and certainly coal, I would opt for rail and truck delivery.
Just because a method does not pollute the air but can greatly pollute soil and water does not make it better for the environment.
If any positive action is to be taken to combat climate change/global warming, then distribution of all fossil fuel needs to be frozen at present levels and then reduced as cleaner forms of energy become available. Expanding the distribution system is, without a doubt, a step in the wrong direction and counterproductive to addressing this global environmental threat.

 

[adavisus]

The planet has done this before. The Permian period. If I remember rightly it was a bumpy ride

buckle up...

 

[Meyer Jordan]

The planet has done this before. The Permian period. If I remember rightly it was a bumpy ride

buckle up...

Was that you?

 

[adavisus]

pleading the 5th

ahem. Checkout the co2 levels, and sea levels of that extinction event...

Then head for the nearest ark....

 

[Ruben Miranda]

Hello
Well weather you beleave we/humans are the cause
(although I think we are rapping/destroying this world)
The fact is it is happening and we.are.not doing enough to even slow it down let alone stop it. I don't we can stop it, I feel the world will take of it self and do a clean start again.
Ruben

 

[adavisus]

industrial output of co2 has pounded atmospheric levels from 290ppm to over 400ppm in a very short period of time.

Around 380ppm an ice age usually kicks in and balances the books over a few thousand years.

We scoooted past that option at a hellacious fast pace. We are crossing, right now a rubicon, called the methane clathrates, namely where the sea warms enough to emit methane, big time, trapped in cold arctic waters.

To put scale to the methane emissions, if theres 800 gigatons of carbon in the atmosphere, methane clathrate emissions will pile the equivalent of another 2,500 gigatons of global warming gases up there in a short space of time

This safely warps the plant into a permian phase of climate.

The last time that happened, it took 150 million years for the planet to settle down to what we knew in the 20c.

 

[MitchM]

If any positive action is to be taken to combat climate change/global warming, then distribution of all fossil fuel needs to be frozen at present levels and then reduced as cleaner forms of energy become available..

I agree, but that brings back to what I said earlier, that if we take that route and ignore who is affected by that action, I fear that extreme governments will be elected and work against the goal of reducing CO2 output.

I would vote for more money to be spent on research towards better technology but to first earn that money we need to profit from traditional avenues.

.

 

[MitchM]

We have two (2) public access LNG stations in this backwater town. Based the map in this link, 99% may be somewhat of an overestimation.
http://www.cngnow.com/stations/Pages/information.aspx

Unfortunately only 0.05% of vehicles in the US are nat gas feuled.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news...l-gas-vehicles-most-popular-and-most-numerous

I love nat gas powered engines. Our home generator is powered by nat gas.
We have a 2 foot diameter natural gas pipeline running through part of our property.
We also have both solar hot water heating and solar electric panels for our home.
How's that for being environmentally friendly?

.

 

[mgmine]

Ummm that article states the opposite of that... their habitat is disappearing and when the area of sea ice falls so does the polar bear population.[/QUOTE]
My point is that this is the type of article that "proves" what they want to prove. If you read it again you will see there isn't any proof at all. You can't prove something if you are starting with estimates.