Sentences with phrase «developing tar sands»

In the US opposition to developing the tar sands has focused on the Keystone XL pipeline, while in Canada the situation is more complicated, because the product has several possible routes out of the country.

Meanwhile, oil companies are recklessly developing the tar sands, with plans to increase production to a dangerous level of five million barrels per day or more by 2030, a 1500 per cent increase since 1999.

Tar Sands Environmental Destruction Not Worth It At the risk of sounding flippant, sounds like too little too late: I'll stand by the WWF's assessment that the economic and environmental costs of continuing to develop tar sands and oil shales — in energy speak «unconventional fuels» — are simply unthinkable.

When NASA's James Hansen famously wrote in The New York Times that if Canada developed their tar sands to the full extent that they currently plan to, it would be «game over for the climate» he was not wrong.

Not exact matches

The tar sands are a resource that should be carefully developed.

Hal Hodson seems to suggest that if the US fails to build a connecting oil pipeline to Canada, the tar sands won't be fully developed (16 August, p 10).

However, the stark reality is that global emissions have accelerated (Fig. 1) and new efforts are underway to massively expand fossil fuel extraction [7]--[9] by drilling to increasing ocean depths and into the Arctic, squeezing oil from tar sands and tar shale, hydro - fracking to expand extraction of natural gas, developing exploitation of methane hydrates, and mining of coal via mountaintop removal and mechanized long - wall mining.

Michael Levi (and others) argue that the tar sands oil will be developed regardless of what the U.S. decides on Keystone XL — if we don't use, it someone else will — but this overlook the very serious opposition to other pipeline proposals in Canada.

In fact, similar arguments abound — BP's justification for developing Canadian tar sands was the same as that of British politicians who argued for slavery — «otherwise, the international competition will take over / those resources are going to be developed anyway.»

, we could still be the leader in developing safer clean energy for the future and producing a better future for our children, rather than going after the last drop of oil in pristine environments, off - shore, in the tar sands.

@drgrist it also ignores a principled alternative: «tar sands may be developed either way, but we choose not to be complicit»

The whole «tar sands will be developed either way» argument is belied by numerous statements from analysts & the industry itself.

They argue that even without Keystone Alberta tar sands would be developed to the same extent.

U.S. and Canadian governments must agree that the unconventional fossil fuels, tar sands and tar shale, will not be developed.

In addition to information on coal, CoalSwarm is developing information on other extreme energy sources including tar sands, natural gas and oil derived from fracking, nuclear power, offshore oil drilling, and biofuels.

NRDC and other environmental groups have called on government regulators to identify risks associated with tar sands pipelines and develop safety regulations to address those risks before any new dilbit pipelines are built.

Figure 1 helps make clear why the tar sands and other unconventional fossil fuels ought not to be developed and burned.

As the editorial argued, «the pipeline is not going to determine whether the Canadian tar sands are developed or not.

Tillerson has also overseen an expansion of Exxon's investment in developing Alberta's tar sands, some of the most carbon - heavy fuel in the world.

It is difficult to see how developing, transporting, and refining the tar sands would be anywhere near the most economical (let alone environmentally acceptable) option for burning a strictly limited quantity of fossil fuel while expediting a phase - out.

And, of course, supporters of the pipeline argued that the tar sands are going to be developed anyway and that it makes sense for it to be refined in the U.S. where it would create jobs and be done under stronger environmental controls.

And the next day, the NDP candidate in Winnipeg South - Center Matt Henderson said we should question the idea of developing any more of the tar sands — making it the second NDP candidate to come out on the issue this month.

Ezra Levant published Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands, which makes a case for further developing Alberta's tar sands and sister projects.

And it would be foolhardy to develop unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands.

the pipeline is not going to determine whether the Canadian tar sands are developed or not.

If they allow pipelines to get permits, the tar sands will be developed.

Estimates of the carbon content of all fossil fuel reservoirs including unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands, tar shale and various gas reservoirs that can be tapped with developing technology [114] imply that CO2 conceivably could reach a level as high as 16 times the 1950 atmospheric amount.

Or is it better to limit the expansion of the tar sands and focus on developing a clean energy future?

§ 15927 («[I] t is the policy of the United States that... United States oil shale, tar sands, and other unconventional fuels are strategically important domestic resources that should be developed to reduce the growing dependence of the United States on politically and economically unstable sources of foreign oil imports -LSB-.]»)

Furthermore, top climate scientists like NASA's James Hansen have warned against further developing «extreme energy» sources like tar sands, seeing as how global emissions are still ballooning.

So this story — reported by Cleantechnica — is about perfectly designed to make my little TreeHugging heart sing: Norwegian oil and energy giant Statoil has spent the end of 2016 selling off its assets in Canadian tar sands, and securing rights to develop a gigantic offshore wind farm off the coast of New York State.

Other countries with substantial potential for increasing production are Canada, largely because of its tar sands, and Kazakhstan, which is still developing its oil resources.

Oil Shale Development a Climate Change + Water Disaster In case you hadn't heard, developing oil shale is just as bad (if not worse in some ways) from an environmental perspective as tar sands.

I can see the energy independence pull on tapping into these fuel sources, but frankly any government which advocates developing oil shale or tar sands seriously loses its credibility in terms of its commitment to tackling climate change and on the environment more broadly.

After all, the world needs energy, the tar sands have it, and therefore, they're going to be developed, atmosphere be damned.

I concluded that the world would recognize that it had to phase out coal without burning it all, and not develop unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands.

The definition of how not to address climate change is to develop unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands.

Our trades — our welders and pipe fitters and so forth — train locally here at the Northern Alberta Institute of Technology and apprentice through places like that, then go up into the tar sands and help build and develop those areas.