|
|
|
|
|
|
by Boothroid
3213 days ago
|
|
|
Here: 'But pretending that boycotting Canadian products and instead consuming more coal, fracked shale oil and tanker-shipped crude from corrupt autocratic regimes is somehow an important part of solving the problem just makes you look like you're not paying attention. As does supporting corrupt officials and corporate misbehavior in places like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria and Venezuela' I never said any of what you refute above. Also you set up a false dichotomy by implying that we either choose to use tar sands or are forced to support corrupt regimes - there are of course other alternatives scenarios - I note you avoid mention of LNG. Bottom line though: tar sands are generally accepted by those that do not have a stake of some kind as being environmentally disastrous, far worse than the alternatives, but I'm guessing that's not in your corporate refutation manual. |
|
|
(2) I did mention LNG. I just spelled it 'fracking'. Currently, two thirds of US-produced natural gas is retrieved by hydraulic formation fracturing, and that fraction has been steadily growing.
(3) Arguing that "tar sands are generally accepted by those that do not have a stake of some kind..." is inaccurate and sloppy goal-post moving. I'm also not claiming that petroleum production isn't a serious and global environmental problem, I'm arguing that a belief that Canadian bitumen is the heart of the problem is dangerously misinformed. I'd much rather we shut it down and invested heavily in molten salt reactors, but until that happens the problem isn't tar sands: it's global demand and dependence on burning petroleum.
(4) I don't even know why I'm writing this---when you implied I'm a corporate shill and claimed that the only people who disagree with you are those who have a stake of some kind in tar sands, you conceded the argument. Have a good day.