Pages

Jump to bottom

25 comments

1 jaunte  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 4:03:50pm

New York Times:

…a new report (Canada’s Emission Trends) from Canada’s environmental ministry shows how great the impact of the tar sands will be in the coming years, even with cleaner production methods.

It projects that Canada will double its current tar sands production over the next decade to more than 1.8 million barrels a day. That rate will mean cutting down some 740,000 acres of boreal forest — a natural carbon reservoir. Extracting oil from tar sands is also much more complicated than pumping conventional crude oil out of the ground. It requires steam-heating the sands to produce a petroleum slurry, then further dilution.

One result of this process, the ministry says, is that greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector as a whole will rise by nearly one-third from 2005 to 2020 — even as other sectors are reducing emissions.
nytimes.com

2 EPR-radar  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 4:05:50pm

Propagandists everywhere will approve —- the best place for the big lie is right on the cover.

3 calochortus  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 4:35:09pm

WTF? Seriously-I went to the NRO site to check and see if this is the actual cover (Mark Steyn on zombies?)
What are they thinking?

4 cinesimon  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 4:53:57pm

Too twisted.
These idiots are beginning to embody the evil world destroyers of all those cheesy 1980s apocalypse movies.

5 Decatur Deb  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 6:05:11pm

re: #3 calochortus

WTF? Seriously-I went to the NRO site to check and see if this is the actual cover (Mark Steyn on zombies?)
What are they thinking?

They are thinking that they and their children will never have to live anywhere near the place.

6 EiMitch  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 6:41:32pm

Oil sand is possibly the filthiest, most destructive resource to mine. How does one spin its environmental impact? Just plain lie?

Do rich men have a bet going to see who can look more ridiculous than the villains of those old Captain Planet cartoons?

7 Romantic Heretic  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 7:06:47pm

Shrugs. That’s Our Dear Leader in action. He’s never met a source of oil that he doesn’t love.

8 calochortus  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 7:21:56pm

re: #5 Decatur Deb

They are thinking that they and their children will never have to live anywhere near the place.

Or the pipelines transporting it.

I will say they were honest enough to call them tar sands. They aren’t “oil sands” because they contain bitumen not oil.

9 rosiee  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 8:20:19pm

Canadians dig up their soil, Americans spill it in the ocean.

10 Mich-again  Thu, Apr 4, 2013 8:51:28pm

Apparently Canada really liked the LOTR and they all want to be Orcs..

11 Varek Raith  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 1:34:48am
12 Bulworth  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 7:08:05am
Still, this is the first time I’ve seen the magazine run a cover that literally looks like a Photoshop someone mocked up to make everyone on the masthead look like assholes.

Parody is dead.

13 dragonath  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 9:16:16am

re: #10 Mich-again

Apparently Canada really liked the LOTR and they all want to be Orcs..

Canada needs a Scouring of the its Shire.

14 rosiee  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 9:35:29am

ITT: Americans being hypocritical

15 dragonath  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 10:51:45am

So, wanting cleaner, more efficient energy sources = hypocritical?

What an unique and trenchant analysis

16 blueraven  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 11:22:53am

re: #14 rosiee

ITT: Americans being hypocritical

How so?

17 rosiee  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 12:10:10pm

re: #16 blueraven

USA has spilt more oil than any other nation on earth in the ocean, meanwhile, the american penchant for only caring about image shows here. Those dark and nasty oil rigs are far from sight yet our oil sands are proud and ugly. Exxon- Valdez, Gulf of Mexico. how many more spills will there have to be to convince the moonbats that the oilsands *is* the cleaner way?

18 rosiee  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 12:13:21pm

re: #7 Romantic Heretic

You really think supporting Israel buy him OPEC points?

19 blueraven  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 12:57:12pm

re: #17 rosiee

USA has spilt more oil than any other nation on earth in the ocean, meanwhile, the american penchant for only caring about image shows here. Those dark and nasty oil rigs are far from sight yet our oil sands are proud and ugly. Exxon- Valdez, Gulf of Mexico. how many more spills will there have to be to convince the moonbats that the oilsands *is* the cleaner way?

Yes, and every time one of those oil spills occur, the “moonbats” are all over it. They also protest the expansion of oil wells in the ocean. So where is the hypocrisy ITT?

Also, oil-sands are not clean by any definition.

20 rosiee  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 1:16:53pm

re: #19 blueraven

The blaring hypocrisy is to denigrate our exploitation of natural resources whilst ignoring thine own “mordors.”

They are very clean in comparison to killing our oceans.

21 blueraven  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 2:26:47pm

re: #20 rosiee

The blaring hypocrisy is to denigrate our exploitation of natural resources whilst ignoring thine own “mordors.”

They are very clean in comparison to killing our oceans.

No…people who dont like dirty energy, dont like it no matter where it comes from. Do you really think it would be any different if the oil sands were in the US? You are being disingenuous and petty while trying to deflect.

22 rosiee  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 3:52:17pm

Oil from any source is dirty, environmentalists apparently forget who we buy a majority of oil from, OPEC and Venezuela. Why not buy it from an ally? It’s worse for the environment by how it’s produced but much less risky in terms of transit. Once again you’ve not explained how american environmentalists will block a pipeline but not giant floating disasters like the Valdez, or the Gulf spill. Again I point to the fact that this is visable, unsightly, the oil rigs and ships are far from sight, so the fickle forget.

23 jamesfirecat  Fri, Apr 5, 2013 11:43:41pm

re: #22 rosiee

Oil from any source is dirty, environmentalists apparently forget who we buy a majority of oil from, OPEC and Venezuela. Why not buy it from an ally? It’s worse for the environment by how it’s produced but much less risky in terms of transit. Once again you’ve not explained how american environmentalists will block a pipeline but not giant floating disasters like the Valdez, or the Gulf spill. Again I point to the fact that this is visable, unsightly, the oil rigs and ships are far from sight, so the fickle forget.

Please show me your data saying we buy a majority of oil from OPEC and Venezeula, as I have heard that we buy most of it from Canada and Mexico. I can not easily find data to back this up however so I would like to see what data you have to advance your argument.

24 dragonath  Sat, Apr 6, 2013 8:16:35am

If one is in favor of the way the oil sands are being extracted, the health of the oceans can’t be terribly far up on their list of priorities.

25 rosiee  Sat, Apr 6, 2013 11:04:29am

re: #24 dragonath

Keep on projecting.


This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT
LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!

Subscribe now for ad-free access!Register and sign in to a free LGF account before subscribing, and your ad-free access will be automatically enabled.

Donate with
PayPal
Cash.app
Recent PagesClick to refresh