State’s Keystone Report Is The Tar Sands Pits

By Tiffany Germain and Jackie Weidman

Friday, the State Department released a revised draft environmental impact assessment of the Keystone XL pipeline project that irresponsibly ignored the dire environmental impacts of building the pipeline.

In response to the announcement, environmental advocates — including Bill McKibben of and Sierra Club’s Michael Brune — held a press call to highlight one of the most unbelievable aspects of the analysis: that Keystone “is unlikely to have substantial impact on the rate of development of the oil sands.” It also didn’t account for the impact on climate change and national security. The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers’ own report stated that Keystone is necessary to increase the expansion of tar sands. In 2012, it noted that:

Production from oil sands currently comprises 59 per cent of western Canada’s total crude oil production. In this forecast, oil sands production rises from 1.6 million b/d in 2011 to almost double at 3.1 million b/d by 2020 and 4.2 million b/d by 2025 and 5.0 million b/d by the end of the forecast period in 2030. If the only projects to proceed were the ones in operation or currently under construction, oil sands production would still increase by 54 per cent to 2.5 million b/d by 2020 and then remain relatively flat for the rest of the forecast.

Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska also explained:

Tarsands does not expand unless Keystone XL is built. The State Department’s assumption that tarsands development does not change with or without this pipeline is wrong and laughable. Why would TransCanada spend billions on building the pipeline and millions on lobbying unless this piece of infrastructure is the — not a — but the lynchpin for the expansion of the tarsands. Without this pipeline Canada stays at 2 millions barrels a day, with it they get 3 million barrels a day.

With the addition of the Keystone XL pipeline, production of tar sands would more than double by 2025, leading to a sizeable increase in greenhouse gases. Estimates by the Environmental Protection Agency found that Keystone would increase annual carbon emissions by “up to 27.6 million metric tons, or the equivalent of nearly 6 million cars on the road.” Without the pipeline, tar sands production is estimated to fall flat by 2020.

The State Department’s report also made it clear that at least some of the Keystone oil will be refined and exported, thereby adding nothing to U.S. energy security, a primary reason for building it:

There is existing demand for crude oil, particularly heavy crude oil at refiners in the Gulf Coast area, but the ultimate disposition of crude oil transported by the proposed Project, and any refined products produced from that crude oil, would be determined by future market forces.

This indicates that the refineries will determine the amount of exports of refined fuels made from Keystone petroleum. There is no assurance that all — or any — of the Keystone oil will be consumed in the U.S. This means that the Keystone oil will add little to our energy security.

One thing that State got right is the dismal job increases associated with Keystone. Pro-Keystone groups like the Chamber of Commerce argue that the project would create tends of thousands of jobs, and would provide a much-needed boost to the economy. Yet the State Department’s report found that it would directly create only “3,900” temporary construction jobs. After construction is complete, the operation of the pipeline would only support 35 permanent and 15 temporary jobs, with “negligible socioeconomic impacts.”

During his State of the Union address, President Obama expanded on his Second Inaugural address, asserting “if Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations, I will.” New Secretary of State John Kerry — a long time climate hawk — reiterated the urgency of climate action in his first major speech:

The opportunity that we have now in this moment of urgency to lead on the climate concerns… We as a nation must have the foresight and the courage to make the investments necessary to safeguard the most sacred trust we keep for our children and our grandchildren, and that is an environment not ravaged by rising seas, deadly superstorms, devastating droughts, and the other hallmarks of a dramatically changing climate. President Obama is committed to moving forward on that, and so am I.

Both Kerry and Obama will play significant roles in deciding in whether this pipeline is ultimately approved. Secretary Kerry has echoed time and again the importance of acting on climate change:

I would respectfully say to you that climate change is not something to be feared in response to — the steps to respond to — it’s to be feared if we don’t… I will be a passionate advocate on this not based on ideology but based on facts and science.

Bill McKibben, founder of, is confident that this fight is far from over, and that the public continues to oppose the pipeline. “I don’t think anybody is going to walk away from this fight, because we really can’t walk away from it… my guess is this will produce more determination in a lot of people.” More than 1.4 million emails and letters have poured in from the public to the State Department over the Keystone assessments so far. And, over Presidents Day weekend, more than 35,000 people circled the White House during the largest climate rally in U.S. history.

After the 45-day comment period, a final impact statement will be issued by the State Department. Obama must then decide whether opening up the tar sands to increased development aligns with his inauguration promise to take action on climate, “knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations.”

Tiffany Germain is a Senior Climate/Energy Researcher in the Think Progress War Room. Jackie Weidman is a Special Assistant at the Center for American Progress.

60 Responses to State’s Keystone Report Is The Tar Sands Pits

  1. Gingerbaker says:

    If this pipeline actually gets built – they better bury it deep in the ground. [snip.]
    The line will have been drawn in the tar sands.

  2. Jack Burton says:

    “Tar Sands” mining and extraction is a sign that oil is no longer available in cheap forms. The energy put in to get it out is now rising fast. There is indeed lots of oil, but it is more expensive in terms of energy to get.
    If tar sands mining is now viable and growing, then the future price of energy will be high.
    The powers that rule this planet, political and economic have decided that fossil fuels will be the major energy source for a minimum of the next 50 years, most likely they plan for 100 years.
    Some of us know what this means. Run away CO2 emissions, already underway, and the beginning of extreme weather events linked to more energy in the oceans and atmosphere, also well under way.
    Seriously, does anyone believe this pipeline would not be built? Fossil fuels will continue to dominate, and worst of all, as oil rises in price, there will be a switch to coal. That is if the newly found natural gas supplies don’t live up to expectations. Either way, the future is written, and it ain’t good. The rulers of the nations have decided already and it is a fossil fuel century we face! The coming disaster is locked in. I say it is a 100% chance.

  3. I hate to say it but this isn’t exactly unexpected news. The Democratic party is substantially different from the Republican party on only a very narrow range of issues, breaking the nation’s addiction to oil not being one of those. Presidents have been talking the talk since Nixon but words mean very little when so much of the government is at the service of the oil industry and there is a perpetually revolving door between government and high paying lobbyist jobs & so forth.

    I think it is safe to say at this point: Breaking humankind’s suicidal addiction to fossil fuels has as likely a chance of success as breaking an addict from his/her drug of choice. Addicts are not rational and there isn’t any sort of scientific or medical argument which can overcome the immediate need to feed the addiction.

    Humankind is sick and cannot get well. If anyone wants to perform an intervention against an entire species you will find yourself at war with trillion dollar industries (fossil fuels, banks, retail and so forth) and at war with governments of all sorts and perhaps even actually engaged in warfare.

    Remember the Civil War?

    The oppression and exploitation of slaves was not resolved by democratic means. The nation had decades to resolve this issue peacefully but failed to do so even when the very real possibility of the nation’s demise threatened.

    It was only after a war was fought and hundreds of thousands of Americans died that the nation reached a consensus that slavery was morally reprehensible.

    Even so, the oppression and exploitation of the former slaves continued unimpeded for nearly century and it took a second national confict before Civil Rights were guaranteed.

    Yet today this long fought battle still remains because racism remains and the Supreme Court itself considers the right to vote a “racial entitlement” no longer needed nor worthy of federal protection.

    Now here is an example of how one nation tried and failed to resolve a potentially fatal problem, succeeded and failed, and struggles today with the same unresolved problem.

    Multiply such a struggle by 192 and include among them many states and nations addicted to oil, coal and natural gas revenues and billions of humans who seemingly cannot live without these … can anyone really entertain any hope?

    Humankind is a lost cause. The planet is lost. Humankind will go extinct rather than break its addiction to oil.

    President Obama isn’t going to address the climate in any substantial manner. Even if he did so, the Congress and the Supreme Court will prevent anything from occurring lawfully.

    Humankind will have an opportunity to regret its decisions, that is all.

  4. Jack Burton says:

    That’s a good point, and I believe it is possible. That is why the US government has been working to add environmental groups who carry out direct action onto the list of terrorist acts. This covers them under the Patriot Act. Subjects them to rendition and extra judicial execution. This is not wild eyed claims either. The Patriot Act allows a president the same powers as Stalin had in the USSR. I think that the first acts of environmental actions against pipelines or the like will be met with the full force of the national security state. Quite simply I advise environmentalists not to do anything of that nature. Unless they know what is going to come down on them. Death is not out of the question. Government is locked and loaded, and they are playing hard ball.

  5. Will Fox says:

    Typo – “up to 27.6 metric tons” should be 27.6 million metric tons (!).

  6. Thomas Rodd says:

    Here is a supposed quote from the executive summary, as posted on DailyKos. If anyone can point to a link to the places(s) in the draft EIS where this issue is fully discussed, I would appreciate it.

    Is it possible that reasonable minds could differ on this predictive point?

    “Based on information and analysis about the North American crude transport infrastructure (particularly the proven ability of rail to transport substantial quantities of crude oil profitably under current market conditions, and to add capacity relatively rapidly) and the global crude oil market, the draft Supplemental EIS concludes that approval or denial of the proposed Project is unlikely to have a substantial impact on the rate of development in the oil sands, or on the amount of heavy crude oil refined in the Gulf Coast area.”

  7. Thomas Rodd says:

    “ Influence of the Proposed Project on Oil Sands Development in Canada:

    “As stated in Section 1.4, Market Analysis, approval or denial of any one crude oil transport project, including the proposed Project, remains unlikely to significantly impact the rate of extraction in the oil sands, or the continued demand for heavy crude oil at refineries in the U.S. Limitations on pipeline transport would force more crude oil to be transported via other modes of transportation, such as rail, which would probably (but not certainly) be more expensive. Longer term limitations also depend upon whether pipeline projects that are located exclusively in Environmental Consequences 4.15-110 March 2013 Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
    Keystone XL Project
    Canada proceed (such as the proposed Northern Gateway, the Trans Mountain expansion, and
    the TransCanada proposal to ship crude oil east to Ontario on a converted natural gas pipeline). If all such pipeline capacity were restricted in the medium-to-long-term, the incremental increase in cost of the non-pipeline transport options could result in a decrease in production from the oil
    sands, perhaps 110,000 to 220,000 barrels per day (bpd) (approximately 2 to 4 percent) by 2030. If the proposed Project were denied but other proposed new and expanded pipelines go forward, the incremental decrease in production could be approximately 17,000 to 30,000 bpd (from 0.4 to 0.5 percent of total WCSB production) by 2030.
    In addition to the existing transport capacity into the United States, there would likely be market demand to put in place pipeline capacity into the United States similar to that of the proposed
    Project, including pipeline capacity to PADD 3. Also Canadian producers are actively seeking to develop alternative crude oil markets worldwide, including efforts to develop necessary transportation facilities to allow shipment of WCSB crude oil to British Columbia and onward to Asia, or eastward to Atlantic coast ports for marine shipment would continue. Other countries
    that would likely represent markets for WCSB crude oil are primarily located in Asia; those nations are experiencing increased demand for crude oil and are currently heavily dependent on OPEC for their supplies. In recent years, Chinese investment in WCSB crude oil production has greatly accelerated. Various pipeline projects have been proposed to transport crude oil from
    Alberta to the Canadian west coast, although they currently face significant opposition in the regulatory process (see Section 1.4, Market Analysis).”

  8. BobbyL says:

    According to the Sierra Club, if all the pipeline proposals by the Enbridge company for tar sands oil are built the capacity would increase by more than 2 million barrels per day, which is more than twice the capacity that Keystone XL would have.

    “Enbridge clearly learned a lesson from TransCanada’s politically-mired Keystone XL pipeline fiasco. Rather than a single huge project, this time the company is employing a connect-the-dots approach, proposing to expand old lines, revive formerly mothballed pipelines, and connect them to new interstate projects. But the end result, which would deliver toxic tar sands sludge all the way from Canada to the Texas Gulf Coast, would ultimately create a massive tar sands highway that would be even bigger than Keystone XL. If completed, this pipeline would deliver 850,000 barrels per day from Alberta to Houston.

    Enbridge proposes to link four major pieces of pipeline. The plan would connect Enbridge’s expanded Alberta Clipper to its expanded Southern Access Line 61 (part of the Lakehead system that spewed nearly 1 million gallons of tar sands into the Kalamazoo River in 2010), to its new Flanagan South pipeline, and then to the reversed and expanded Seaway pipeline. And BAM!—Enbridge has its own Keystone XL that would transport 850,000 barrels per day of dirty, dangerous tar sands crude from Alberta, Canada, to Houston, Texas.

    Enbridge’s tar sands expansion plan doesn’t stop there. The company plans to dramatically increase capacity on the infamous Line 6B that spilled into the Kalamazoo River, and is quietly backing Exxon’s plans to reverse the flow on a line that would deliver tar sands through Vermont, New Hampshire, and out for export through the ports of Maine. All told, Enbridge plans to expand their capacity to import tar sands by more than two million barrels per day.”

  9. Lore says:

    We’ve already seen reports that the whole venture is very much like another ethanol fiasco. The ratio for EROEI is ridiculously low. The hope here is to build out the pipeline infrastructure as quickly as possible before the economics make it impossible. At which point, once finished, they can jack up prices since there will be few alternatives now that we have spent our budget to stay on the fossil fuel track.

  10. Tom says:

    How can we make a comment during the public comment period?

  11. fj says:

    Pretty clear that this report is not based on reality.

    Are we regressing back to Bush era governance?

    . . . And, the likes of the Four Trillion Dollar War?

  12. Bob Lang says:

    Foggy Bottom’s Report ignores major impacts, most notably the impact on investment capital markets where more than $ 1 trillion remains sidelined because America’s continued BAU approach to Climate Disruption.
    Had this report rejected Keystone XL it would have sent a powerful message to the investment community that America is committed to a renewable-energy future with unprecedented potential for wealth and job creation, as pointed out by Secretary of State John Kerry in his recent Congressional Confirmation Hearings. How can Kerry’s highly touted business opportunities ever materialize with more than $ 1 trillion remaining sidelined.
    Needless to say, this report was rigged from the get-go. Transcanada never stopped building the Canadian part of this pipeline.
    Of course this sheds a hole new light on the resignations of Lisa Jackson and Steve Chu.
    Obama is all talk and no action because he simply doesn’t get Climate Change, as pointed out by Hansen and Chu.

  13. MarkF says:

    What plan is there other than more articles, more submissions, more emails, more phone calls, and more petitions?

    those don’t work.

    The elections is over, Obama won, and he doesn’t care about any of those things.

    Nothing could be plainer.

    So, what’s next?

  14. Thomas Cheney says:

    Wouldn’t the crude oil transported by Keystone, displace heavy (equally-carbon intensive) crude from Venezuela? How elastic is the market for heavy crude, as it requires specialized refining capacity?

  15. Rabid Doomsayer says:

    And I thought denial of reality was just a Republican thing.

  16. John Hartz says:

    The Foreward on Climate Coalition must continue to mobillize activists throughout the US and Canada.

    Power to the People!

  17. Superman1 says:

    Keystone is irrelevant; we have enough fossil fuel reserves to do us in many times over without Keystone. Unless we reduce demand harshly, game over.

  18. John Hartz says:

    If you have not already done so, I highly recommend Carl Pope’s analysis of why the oil industry desperately wants the Keystone SL pipeline to be built. Pope’s aanalysis is contained in his article, “The Key to Big Oil’s Sky-high Price Play: Keystone Export XL” posted on the Huffington Post on March 1.

  19. BobbyL says:

    Demand does need to be reduced but how is that supposed to occur with the Chinese now buying more new cars than Americans and India starting to build modern highways? Without a firm cap on global carbon emissions expect business as usual.

  20. rollin says:

    We have now entered the Outer Climate Limits. Do not adjust the horizontal, do not adjust the vertical. You are not in control.

  21. Brian R Smith says:


    Prof. Ranga B. Myneni, Professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University and 2014 IPCC lead author starts world-wide petition to Ban Ki-moon to lead on climate change.

    Goal: 1B signatures. Site is being translated into multiple languages.

    Article here:

    Also see American Geophysical Union (AGU) Facebook page:

    Perhaps the project would be willing to link its petition signers to a same-language sister petition directed to Obama, Congress & State with open ended signature goal. Or we could do it independently. I don’t have the web skills…

  22. Thomas Rodd says:

    I had hoped there would be some substantive response here to the quoted portions of the State Dept. draft EIS. Is it possible that there is some merit to their conclusions? Is it possible those conclusions were set out by honest people giving their best judgment? Or is the Keystone pipeline just demonic and that’s that?

  23. riverat says:

    I think you are right. Whether the Keystone pipeline is built or not is irrelevant. If there is demand it will be supplied from one place or another. If we reduce and eventually eliminate the demand side then suppliers have no one to sell to.

  24. Sasparilla says:

    Good points to be aware of Jack – although I don’t think Obama would allow that, at this point, others on the right sure would. Money and power want that authority with impunity (what wonderful stuff) – and president Obama doesn’t go play golf with Bill McKibben and fellow climate hawks, he plays with the heads of the oil companies.

  25. Sasparilla says:

    This is called Teeing up the XL for approval.

  26. BobbyL says:

    In my experience, people who prepare environmental impact statements are honest but are good at spinning things in favor of the developer since their future work depends on other developers. Therefore the people who prepared the EIS for the pipeline most likely tried to play down the harmful effects since they didn’t want a reputation of making a project look bad. Nothing demonic, simply a business decision.

  27. Sasparilla says:

    Wow, thanks for pointing that out BobbyL, great, depressing, details.

    Probably this goes forward with the XL, not in-spite of the XL. We a effing miracle.

  28. fj says:

    Climate Change is not going slow done for any fossil fuel boondoggles throwing away good money for bad.

    Shell had to give up the Arctic for at least another year.

    Keystone is a fool’s errand.

    Obama had better get moving before he’s swept away with a legacy of embarrassment and neglect.

  29. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Even if environmentalists leave the pipeline alone, I suspect that any failures will be blamed on ‘green terrorists’, giving the goons the excuse they require to crush environmentalism for good (so they think). If no failures materialise, a ‘false flag’ outrage can be manufactured to order, and the ‘secret team’ that runs the USA has plenty of experience there. It need not even be well done, because the MSM will cover up, as ever, and decry any leaks of the facts as ‘conspiracy theories’. Part and parcel of the psychological intimidation practised by the not-so-hidden forces that control Western societies is the ability to act with audacious impunity, which delivers the message, loud and clear, that they can do whatever they like, and the peasants are utterly impotent-or else.

  30. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Jack, if the fossil fuel lunatics keep burning the stuff there will be no ‘century’. We’ll be lucky to make it to 2050. The future of mankind will be decided in the next twenty years (if it is not already). It is the ‘Final Battle’ after all, but not as the Fundamentalist crazies imagined.

  31. fj says:

    Probably not likely as there’s a catchy saying going around:

    “Military full green ahead”.

  32. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    The Right rejected reality, long ago, preferring ‘magical thinking’. The Australian Treasury recently investigated itself, and its heroic record of almost unfailingly incorrect economic predictions. Naturally, being good little neo-liberal groupthinkers and fluent Newspeakers, they discovered that they were, actually, really clever and hardly ever got things wrong. The audacity is the key, the bare-faced cheek of delivering laughable crap, but insisting that it is ambrosia. Once you have lobotomised yourself and replaced your higher cognitive capacities with the fully annotated ‘Collected Works of Milton Friedman’, and sold your soul to the ‘Market Moloch’, then the mundane rules of the so-called ‘scientific method’ run backwards. Reality is revealed, a priori, as Eternal Truth, from perusing the work of sages like Friedman, Hayek and Ayn Rand, and science’s task is to work backwards providing retrospective justification for ‘The Word’ which was ‘In the Beginning’ and ever shall be.

  33. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Obama is, always has been and always will be (if he values longevity) the servant of those who talent-spotted him at college, got him his first job, pushed him into politics and financed him all the way to the White House. And they are not us. His actions are as predictable as the dawning of the Sun on a new day.

  34. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Tom, mate-have I got a deal for you, boyo. Lovely little Opera House, waterfront views, one owner, going dead cheap, buddy. Send your cheque to me, care of Po Box Infinity, Lagos, Nigeria.

  35. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Do you know Superman1 at all? Your comment seems remarkably similar to some of his. Are you aware that your ‘addicts’ shift to renewables as soon as they become available at reasonable prices, even if they cost a little more than the substance to which you allege they are ‘addicted? ME

  36. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Are you assuming that all those cars will run on petrol? ME

  37. Superman1 says:

    Merrelyn, That’s a cheap shot! I observe reality, and report it here objectively and truthfully, without any rose-colored glasses. David appears to have done the same; why would his honest observations and conclusions of objective reality be different from mine?

  38. Superman1 says:

    “how is that supposed to occur”. Demand will be reduced by one of two ways: we voluntarily cut back our fossil fuel use drastically now, or we will involuntarily be eliminated in a 6 C world.

  39. Superman1 says:

    Every credible fossil fuel usage projection I have seen for 2030 has it increasing, whether the projection is done by government sources, international agency sources, or industry sources. Demand has to be curtailed drastically, whether voluntarily or involuntarily. Increase in renewables doesn’t solve the problem, as the Carnival Barkers would have us believe; only decrease in fossil addresses the problem.

  40. Superman1 says:

    Everyone who works for the Federal government has one boss. They will do either what the boss has specifically asked for, or what they think he wants. Those at the top of the Agencies were selected because their views are aligned with those of the boss, and they have final say on any reports. Do not expect any independent objective evaluations on any proposals of this magnitude.

  41. fj says:

    Climate change will not slow down to comply with magical thinking, big lies, fossil fuel boondoggles, or the emperor’s got no clothes.

    It will quite soon and blatantly make one of those offers that are impossible to refuse.

  42. Mike Roddy says:

    My thoughts exactly, Mulga. A physicist friend wants to know who you are, and possibly communicate with you. He also supports activist causes. Maybe you can quietly send me your info at

  43. Mike Roddy says:

    Your line of thinking, which is to observe a war and surrender without firing a shot, is not productive. If we give up, we are certainly going to lose.

  44. Adrian says:

    Comments on the environmental review can be sent here:

    While there will be many petitions,and these are valuable, emailed comments do get read and included in the final versions of these types of reviews. Many pro-tarsands individuals and organizations will be sending extensive comments. So I suggest taking some time to write a cogent, fact-based, well reasoned statement and sending it off.

  45. Mike Roddy says:

    This analysis is not correct because it assumes current ROI. If renewables become competitive quickly, or (unlikely) Congress passes a carbon tax, additional costs such as rail transport could make tar sands a stranded asset.

    The report plays games with statistics. State, like Commerce and Interior, is a branch of Exxon and Peabody.

  46. Thomas Rodd says:

    “I had hoped there would be some substantive response here to the quoted portions of the State Dept. draft EIS.” Nothing yet, why not?

    “Is it possible that there is some merit to their conclusions?” Consensus here is “Nope, not possible.” At least it’s a simple answer.

    “Is it possible those conclusions were set out by honest people giving their best judgment?” Consensus is, “Nope, not possible. They believe that way because they are paid to do so.” I find this answer a little sad, and I doubt that it is entirely true.

    “Is the Keystone pipeline just demonic and that’s that?” Consensus here so far is, pretty much demonic. By demonic, I mean that a priori every statement that suggests the pipeline is not in all ways horribly evil and bad is clearly false – and that falsity is pretty much conclusively proven simply by the fact of the statement. It’s from Satan.

    There may well be very good reasons to challenge the statements from the draft EIS that I quoted, but I haven’t seen any here so far. Hopefully they are to come. Can anyone post links to such statements?

  47. fj says:

    Near-future inevitability driving action now of the extreme kind for The President, will prove prescient and triumphant with the fossil fuel “intelligentsia” naked shivering in a warming world where their cold will rapidly become a commodity they will not thoroughly enjoy.

  48. Camburn says:

    The pipeline will be built because it is safer to transport oil via pipeline than by rail.

    IF the pipeline is not built, rail will move the oil.

    Production is not going to slow nor stop based on the Keystone.

  49. Sasparilla says:

    At $90 a barrel for oil (and higher in the future) I don’t think having the XL expansion go forward will delay the Orinoco tar field exploitation – there’s too much money to be made and invested in the Orinoco to make it happen.

  50. Superman1 says:

    On the other hand, the present approach suggested on these pages of ‘friendly-fire’ will not achieve victory. We need to identify, and move in, the right direction.

  51. Thomas Rodd says:

    Camburn, you may be accused of being in the pay of the pro-pipeliners. I appreciated your link and I hope someone will comment on its merit.

  52. Merrelyn Emery says:

    Reality? Then presumably all those reports about the growth of renewables are fiction, ME

  53. Superman1 says:

    How many times do I have to repeat this? It’s not the growth of renewables that’s the issue; it’s the lack of reduction of fossil fuel use that will bring us down. All the government projections, international agency projections, energy company et al projections do not show fossil fuel use decreasing by 2030. And, I guarantee you they are reading the same optimistic reports as you.

  54. Merrelyn Emery says:

    It’s all in the assumptions Super, check those assumptions! We have only had the carbon price since July 2012 and emissions are down – now how could that be?

  55. Superman1 says:

    Merrelyn, You and SecularA must be reading from the same Lee Atwater Playbook on data ‘cherry-picking’. Look at global CO2 emissions for the past decades and for the foreseeable future: up, up, up, and away!

  56. Merrelyn Emery says:

    No cherries. Simply reporting from Oz and saying that it is perfectly possible to reduce emissions. I am not denying any of your facts, just the stance that says ‘give up, it’s hopeless’, ME

  57. Solar Jim says:

    Based on today’s actual GHG concentrations (about 470 ppm carbonic acid gas equivalent), the planet may be capable of heading toward that condition on its own. Then “climate change” reveals itself as what it is in truth, an Extinction Event.

  58. Solar Jim says:

    And people to the power, the seats of power.

  59. Solar Jim says:

    Otherwise known as CORRUPTION (as in organized criminal activity). It’s a setup, to destroy the boreal forest.

  60. Solar Jim says:

    Maybe they will fight off climate extinction with thermonuclear weapons, which are abundantly available thank God. At least those $7 trillion spent on the Cold War (US only) might come in handy for something.