Canadian PM ambushed by tar sands protest in London


8:00 am - June 14th 2013

by Newswire    


      Share on Tumblr

Canada’s controversial leader Stephen Harper was yesterday met by three separate protests as he attempted to deliver a speech to both Houses of the UK Parliament.

He arrived in the UK on Tuesday, and has been using the trip to lobby against the ‘Fuel Quality Directive‘.

This key piece of EU climate legislation would – rightly – label tar sands oil as more polluting than conventional oil. 50 campaigners representing various groups gathered outside Parliament to greet Harper’s car with anti-tar sands banners, placards and chants.

Meanwhile, in a separate protest two activists from a group calling themselves “Love Canada, Hate Tar Sands” attempted to block the Sovereign’s Entrance Gate to the room where Harper was speaking. They poured “oil” on themselves and the ground, and their anti-tar sands shouts were heard inside the room as Harper stood up to begin his address. They were then arrested by police.

Yesterday, 6 MPs from four different political parties tabled an Early Day Motion calling on the UK government to resist Canada’s lobbying campaign, support the Fuel Quality Directive and discourage future tar sands imports.

Other MPs will now be encouraged to sign, in the run-up to an EU Member States’ vote later this year.

The protest outside Parliament had transatlantic support from 30 organisations, including Greenpeace UK, Friends of the Earth – England, Wales and Northern Ireland and World Development Movement in the UK, the Council of Canadians and the Canadian Indigenous Tar Sands Campaign in Canada, and 350.org and the Gulf Coast Fund in the US.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author

· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: News

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. So Much For Subtlety

So the Canadians offer us cheap non-OPEC oil that will greatly extend the period of wealth and prosperity in the West, and the usual suspects come out with their pathetic street theatre agitprop to protect the established multi-national oil companies?

What a wonderful world we live in.

2. So Much For Subtlety

Future generations are meaningless to me. So what if they grow up in a polluted hell hole and die early riddled with cancers? And if they want a fish supper, they can just eat around the tumours. I’m alive right now and I don’t want my privileged capitalist bubble to burst any time soon.

Oh and abolish welfare, the minimum wage, and most taxes and if by some miracle the poor aren’t all saved by the private sector’s plethora of jobs then presumably the rich will donate some of what they would’ve been taxed to charity, and the poor can get free soup. If not, well, the poor will just starve. In any case, they’re not my responsibility.

Also, I heart eugenics.

And bring back workhouses.

Ayn Rand gives me a stiffie.

3. So Much For Subtlety

How dare this imposter use my name to childishly and yet accurately summarise my beliefs!

4. So Much For Subtlety

3. So Much For Subtlety

How dare this imposter use my name to childishly and yet accurately summarise my beliefs!

You were doing so well down to this point. After all, I don’t object to your accurate summary of my beliefs at all.

5. Robin Levett

@SMFS #1:

So the Canadians offer us cheap non-OPEC oil

Cheap? It is only because oil has become so expensive that it has become economic to mine the tar sands; and the enrgy cost of doing so is ludicrously high.

Which SMFS do we respond to from now on? Lol

7. So Much For Subtlety

5. Robin Levett

Cheap? It is only because oil has become so expensive that it has become economic to mine the tar sands; and the enrgy cost of doing so is ludicrously high.

You read what you post before you post it? Yes, conventional oil is so expensive that tar sands and a whole range of other alternatives have become price competitive. That is they are cheaper than the more conventional alternative.

As, you know, I said.

Dissident

Which SMFS do we respond to from now on? Lol

All of them! He is doing such a good job of being me I am thinking of out sourcing.

@ SMFS (both)

“So the Canadians offer us cheap non-OPEC oil that will greatly extend the period of wealth and prosperity in the West”

Cheap??? The only reason there’d be any profit in turning asphalt into fuel for your Stupid Ugly Vehicle is because the price of a barrel of crude has gone through the roof. And asphalt is a very, very dirty fuel source. As for extending the prosperity of the west, wrong. It is solely to enhance the power of a few billionaire bribe masters over us all. But then you masochistically want that…

“I’m alive right now and I don’t want my privileged capitalist bubble to burst any time soon.”

Pity the fossil fuel industry is doing just that then, by lobbying against our economy transforming into something that can actually go the distance. But never mind eh, before they totally tank our civilisation they’ll make trillions out of mugs like you. It’s just a pity the value of them trillions would be meaningless in the polluted wreckage of what you affectionately term the west.

Other civilisations have faced a combination of resource depletion and environmental breakdown. The survivors changed their policies. Most failed as their economic elites chose not to. They chose instead the SMFS way.

9. fuck stats

Stephen Harper is a tory (a Canadian term too) so of course SMFS is defending that moron.

10. Robin Levett

@SMFS:

So in your world “cheap” can mean “wildly expensive but marginally less wildly expensive than the alternatives”?

At best, here on planet Earth, that’s a definition of cheaper, not of cheap; but “less wildly expensive” would be truer.

And, in any event, even your somewhat odd approach is not borne out by the facts. You are confusing costs and prices. Tar sands oil casts far more to produce than conventional oil; new production (and that is what is required for an expansion) needs oil to be at $60-100 per barrel simply to break even; the cheaper cost is for in situ production (pump steam down, get water and oil up), which produces 2.5 times more CO2 than mining. For comparision, conventional oil runs between $6 and $39 per barrel.

Oil is currently trading at below $100.

You might want to look at this:

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Have-the-Canadian-Tar-Sands-had-their-Day.html

and the linked stories for a discussion

11. Charlieman

@10. Robin Levett: “And, in any event, even your somewhat odd approach is not borne out by the facts. You are confusing costs and prices. Tar sands oil casts far more to produce than conventional oil; new production (and that is what is required for an expansion) needs oil to be at $60-100 per barrel simply to break even…”

To clarify and contradict Robin’s words…

Oil from current sources of tar sand is more expensive to extract than current/imminent conventional sources. Extraction is messy (see environmental clean up costs) and less efficient (more energy input/CO2 output to deliver a barrel of oil).

Oil from tar sands has only been economically viable in recent years when oil price is high (eg during Arabian Gulf conflicts). The capacity to extract oil from tar sands (or from coal) is an important standby supply mechanism.

Any rush to produce oil from tar sands is bonkers; the world needs to taper off its need for oil (a resource that is useful for so much more than fuel) using more convenient resources. But the move away from oil can only be achieved with oil.

At some time, economists, engineers et al will have to sit down to discuss how the oil resource types that we used in the 20th century versus tar sands will be exploited *. The two are not directly interchangeable.

* See also natural gas fracking

Cheap??? The only reason there’d be any profit in turning asphalt into fuel for your Stupid Ugly Vehicle
—-

Lol! Someone does not like cars! And of course breaths carbon everywhere!!! In his anger at their sight.

13. Dissident

@ Onbe

“Lol! Someone does not like cars!”

Or amusement at all the sheeple wasting thousands every year to become obese and stressed out in gridlocked rush hour traffic, especially in big cities that have good mass transport. Or worse yet commute 50-100 miles a day for a dead end job ticking boxes, when that same job can be done in another company less than 5 miles away (while in the other direction someone else commutes 50-100 miles a day to do the same kind of thing) do you think such colossal waste is good for the economy?

Of course, you accept without question those flashy ads on TV portraying cars as freedom & status, even though that combination is self contradictory. And ever so slightly different to reality (see above)

“And of course breaths carbon everywhere!!!”

Denial squeak 101 – presumably you are talking about this:

“Pollution; none of us are supporting putting substances into the atmosphere or the waterways that might be pollutants, but carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If Senator Wong was really serious about her science she would stop breathing because you inhale air that’s got 385 parts per million carbon dioxide in it and you exhale air with about ten times as much, and that extra carbon comes from what you eat. So that is absolute nonsense.” (Ian Plimer)

Of course that is a distraction, the science states this…

“The very first time you learned about carbon dioxide was probably in grade school: We breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Any eight-year-old can rattle off this fact.

More specifically, the mitochondria within our cells perform cellular respiration: they burn carbohydrates (in the example shown below, glucose) in the oxygen that we breathe in to yield carbon dioxide and water, which we exhale as waste products, as well as energy, which is required to maintain our bodily processes and keep us alive.

C6H12O6 + 6O2 ? 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

carbohydrates + oxygen ? carbon dixoide + water + energy

It should come as no surprise that, when confronted with the challenge of reducing our carbon emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, some people angrily proclaim, “Why should we bother? Even breathing out creates carbon emissions!”

This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle. As you also learned in grade school, plants are the opposite to animals in this respect: Through photosynthesis, they take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen, in a chemical equation opposite to the one above. (They also perform some respiration, because they need to eat as well, but it is outweighed by the photosynthesis.) The carbon they collect from the CO2 in the air forms their tissues – roots, stems, leaves, and fruit.

These tissues form the base of the food chain, as they are eaten by animals, which are eaten by other animals, and so on. As humans, we are part of this food chain. All the carbon in our body comes either directly or indirectly from plants, which took it out of the air only recently.

Therefore, when we breathe out, all the carbon dioxide we exhale has already been accounted for. By performing cellular respiration, we are simply returning to the air the same carbon that was there to begin with. Remember, it’s a carbon cycle, not a straight line – and a good thing, too!”

The problem with wasting oil/coal/gas by burning it, is that it adds more CO2 to the atmosphere that was sequestered away millions of years ago. Ironically most oil reserves are the decayed corpses from previous mass extinction events, like the Permian/Triassic one for example. The only way you can turn corpses into oil is by having anoxic conditions in the world’s oceans, like happened in that mass extinction.

What caused that mass extinction? Ah yes, massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere from the Siberian Trapps eruptions, where magma flooded huge swathes of the land, and cooked out of the existing rock trillions of tonnes of CO2 from limestone and other carbon rich minerals.

In short, the corpses you “fill her up” with are evidence of what happens when you inject huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere. What do you want to do, repeat the Permian mass extinction? Is that a smart thing to do? Especially when it is avoidable.

Or amusement at all the sheeple wasting thousands every year to become obese and stressed out in gridlocked rush hour traffic, especially in big cities that have good mass transport. Or worse yet commute 50-100 miles a day for a dead end job ticking boxes
—-

Nice of you to take such a dim view of your fellow human beings, who are just simply going about their lives to make ends meet, sheeples..as you say.

Of course, you accept without question those flashy ads on TV portraying cars as freedom & status, even though that combination is self contradictory. And ever so slightly different to reality
—-

100%! Having your own mode of transporation is freedom & fun, especially if its 400BHP.

Denial squeak 101 – presumably you are talking about this:
—-

Not quite, rather, just pointing out that unless you fuck off to India and live in a cave, your “carbon foot print” is gigantic to! (the plants love you) which in all, basically removes your right to talk down to others on the issue.

Its more than clear from your wording:

~ You accept without question those flashy ads on TV

~ Stupid Ugly Vehicle

That at the core your issue here has nothing to do with the enviroment, because if it did a mode of transportation with pollution problems would present only the issue of pollution, yet what we see here is your deep seated hate of freedom, both personal and economic, and modern day life its self.

I used to know a lady who would go off the deep end about the death penalty in America, she would lecture with passion how it is wrong, despite never having stepped one foot in that country, despite having no connection to a single person on death row, or a murdered soul who was the victim of such a case.

Its morally wrong! But why do you put your entire heart and soul into this issue, to the point its burning you from within? Especailly when there are people you could donate your time to in the local area and make a real difference in life, then it hit me, she could never win with this issue, she could never make any impact what so ever, which of course meant, she could never lose, she never had to put anything in the game.

It was an issue she could inject her unrelated rage into, and as a person would never have to step up and put her actions where her mouth was, whilst ignoring issues around her that action could make a difference to..and here you are, in a country with 40,000,000 plus cars…against…cars..

15. Charlieman

@13. Dissident:

C6H12O6 + 6O2 ? 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

So you can know the formula without having about much?

16. Dissident

@ Onbe

“Nice of you to take such a dim view of your fellow human beings, who are just simply going about their lives to make ends meet, sheeples..as you say.”

There are better ways to make ends meet, that don’t use up so many resources. Why do you defend such pointless waste?

“100%! Having your own mode of transportation is freedom & fun, especially if its 400BHP.”

Ahhhh, the triumph of ego over IQ. Is it such fun when your stuck in traffic, breathing in a smog of partially combusted, toxic and carcinogenic petrochemicals? I bet it isn’t!

“Not quite, rather, just pointing out that unless you fuck off to India and live in a cave, your “carbon foot print” is gigantic to! (the plants love you) which in all, basically removes your right to talk down to others on the issue.”

The fact that what is necessary, is a transfer from hugely expensive and dirty fossilised corpse fuels, which is technically and economically viable now simply passes you by.

“That at the core your issue here has nothing to do with the environment, because if it did a mode of transportation with pollution problems would present only the issue of pollution, yet what we see here is your deep seated hate of freedom, both personal and economic, and modern day life its self.”

You actually think freedom is to be stuck in a traffic jam, commuting to a dead end job where you are treated like a number? Or to the shops to buy next month’s landfill?

Ironic isn’t it, how you let yourself think slaving away in today’s corporatist world and in the process poisoning the future is somehow freedom…

17. Dissident

@ Charlieman

“C6H12O6 + 6O2 ? 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy

So you can know the formula without having about much?”

Um, not sure what you mean by that question, but I have noticed a typo, thanks! C6H12O6 + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy. Does that help?

There are better ways to make ends meet, that don’t use up so many resources. Why do you defend such pointless waste?

Because my freind I work with the system I not only find my self presented with, I find my self in the middle of it. To get by in this life I have to work with whats happening around me.

This in no way means one can not invision a better way, cleaner technologys & more for all, one can both invision and create on that front, of which I am all for. What I am not for is the square root of fuck all ~ AKA your baseless absolutely productivity free moaning, born out of privilege and the sense of entitlment you have leached from the lottery of birth, whilst doing nothing to adress any problem of any significance on any front.

News Flash: your mouth does not change the world, and if all you can do is be toxic towards the rest of the world for employing a technology, that tells us the rest of the world is not ready or capable of changing yet.

Ahhhh, the triumph of ego over IQ. Is it such fun when your stuck in traffic, breathing in a smog of partially combusted, toxic and carcinogenic petrochemicals? I bet it isn’t!
—-

I assumed you would not know, I guessed you would be in bed at the hour the orderly are traveling to work, with your state funded lifestyle, and all. I have never expereinced smog or the war zone you are describing whilst using the road networks, traffic congestion yes, adults have a way of dealing with these things in life without falling into a nervous break down..

The fact that what is necessary, is a transfer from hugely expensive and dirty fossilised corpse fuels, which is technically and economically viable now simply passes you by.
—-

Its neither and its not up for debate, deal with it.

You actually think freedom is to be stuck in a traffic jam, commuting to a dead end job where you are treated like a number? Or to the shops to buy next month’s landfill?

Ironic isn’t it, how you let yourself think slaving away in today’s corporatist world and in the process poisoning the future is somehow freedom…

No, I think freedom is being a political activist! Earning, creating, building anything in life is for losers, moaning and squatting is where its at.

I understand that you are neither mature or smart enough to have any normal, never mind significant role in this society, thrown around by emotions you have no handle on in response to things you may never understand, I dont hold this against you.

@ Onbe

“Because my freind I work with the system I not only find my self presented with, I find my self in the middle of it. To get by in this life I have to work with whats happening around me.”

Conformity – tyranny’s friend.

“What I am not for is the square root of fuck all ~ AKA your baseless absolutely productivity free moaning, born out of privilege and the sense of entitlment you have leached from the lottery of birth, whilst doing nothing to adress any problem of any significance on any front.”

So both directly funding through my wages and raising money through sponsored events (which the multinational corporation I work for have sponsored too) for a NGO who is involved in lobbying for the transfer from fossil fuels and other environmental campaigns. With some successes, is called nothing?

Or how about in 2006 doing the smart thing of recycling my last car and opting for more efficient, cheaper and healthier options of public transport and cycling to work – in the process freeing up what was dead money in fuel, tax and maintenance costs and been able to redeploy that portion of my income for other things, is that doing nothing too?

As for sense of entitlement leached from the lottery of birth. In my experience it is takers with multi megabucks who are the most guilty of that attitude, in other words that is a Tory outlook.

“News Flash: your mouth does not change the world, and if all you can do is be toxic towards the rest of the world for employing a technology, that tells us the rest of the world is not ready or capable of changing yet.”

Merely rubbing the noses of idiots who drink fossil fuel Kool Aid in the sulphurous stench of their drink. Especially when they believe without question that industry’s propaganda that their products are the only game in town.

“I assumed you would not know, I guessed you would be in bed at the hour the orderly are traveling to work, with your state funded lifestyle, and all. I have never expereinced smog or the war zone you are describing whilst using the road networks, traffic congestion yes, adults have a way of dealing with these things in life without falling into a nervous break down..”

Everybody who lives within 200 metres of a main road are at risk of elevated levels of respiratory diseases because of what belches out of the exhaust pipe. That especially includes you as you drive along them, as you are breathing in exhaust fumes straight through the air ducts into your car! Also you’ve never heard of road rage have you? What causes it? Could it perhaps be the mismatch between adland car travel that “inspires” people to drive and the reality you face daily?

“Its neither and its not up for debate, deal with it.”

So solar panels and wind turbines popping up everywhere are a figment of my imagination? As are the almost daily announcements of advancements in those technologies. Which can already compete on a level playing field with fossilised corpse fuel, and it is only a matter of time before we complete the transfer. That of course explains the frenetic pace of their desperate campaigns against them, and all the denialist propaganda you’ll no doubt try to throw at me regarding renewables.

“No, I think freedom is being a political activist! Earning, creating, building anything in life is for losers, moaning and squatting is where its at.

I understand that you are neither mature or smart enough to have any normal, never mind significant role in this society, thrown around by emotions you have no handle on in response to things you may never understand, I dont hold this against you.”

Pmsl. What a stereotypical response, like everything else really. Cato, Heartland and other BAU propagandists have a whole stock library of such squeaks. Got any more?

Conformity – tyranny’s friend.

Growing up ~ realising the world is not about you, you are not special. Humanity and society do their best, hence you and I were born into comfort. Accepting that society has not reached perfection, knowing that if it is to develope to that point, those developments are coming from the hard workers, from those who drive to work daily to create, those same people you hate, from the discovery of oil to the creation of the internal combustion engine to the eventual clean energy products and means of the future, all born out of the same mind set, to move forward, to expand, to inrich.

So both directly funding through my wages and raising money through sponsored events (which the multinational corporation I work for have sponsored too) for a NGO who is involved in lobbying for the transfer from fossil fuels and other environmental campaigns. With some successes, is called nothing?

Square root of fuck all ~ one can lobby to manipulate, one can not lobby to create, creation comes from the natural ways of society, the very ways you are trying to stop and hate. Hey turn off your heating and walk 30 miles to work, look you can have a windmil in return.

Or how about in 2006 doing the smart thing of recycling my last car and opting for more efficient, cheaper and healthier options of public transport and cycling to work – in the process freeing up what was dead money in fuel, tax and maintenance costs and been able to redeploy that portion of my income for other things, is that doing nothing too?
—-

How you manage your travel affairs and use your income is a matter entirely of your concern and none of mine or anyones business, likewise how another decides to manage theirs has nothing to do with you, and you have zero right to pass toxic judgment upon them because they behave differently to you, you are not the poster boy of how the world should be.

Merely rubbing the noses of idiots who drink fossil fuel Kool Aid in the sulphurous stench of their drink. Especially when they believe without question that industry’s propaganda that their products are the only game in town.
—-

Uhuh – well, you cycle to work in the rain while I will save mine for a sunny day, you slave.

Everybody who lives within 200 metres of a main road are at risk of elevated levels of respiratory diseases because of what belches out of the exhaust pipe. That especially includes you as you drive along them, as you are breathing in exhaust fumes straight through the air ducts into your car!
——

Not so long ago every one who lived within 200 miles of an industrial zone faced issues beyond comparison, everybody who lived in a house drank water from lead pipe work. Progress, slow and steady.

Also you’ve never heard of road rage have you? What causes it? Could it perhaps be the mismatch between adland car travel that “inspires” people to drive and the reality you face daily?
—-

Not really, most people do not form complexes and psychological issues due to consumerism, at worst some become a bit vain and feel a bit empty, mostly due to misplaced priorities.

So solar panels and wind turbines popping up everywhere are a figment of my imagination?
—-

To the cost of and little benefit to all, they are littered all over the place.

As are the almost daily announcements of advancements in those technologies. Which can already compete on a level playing field
—-

Give it another 50-100 years and the technologies created will power the world, for the time being they are not capable, end of. Nice to know you are responding to a blog on a computer powered by solar panels at night by the way.

Pmsl. What a stereotypical response, like everything else really. Cato, Heartland and other BAU propagandists have a whole stock library of such squeaks. Got any more?
—-

I know, what next? Am I going to call you a Denialist? “pmsl”…

21. So Much For Subtlety

8. Dissident

Cheap??? The only reason there’d be any profit in turning asphalt into fuel for your Stupid Ugly Vehicle is because the price of a barrel of crude has gone through the roof.

Indeed. What’s the problem with that? If nothing else, it is an insurance policy against OPEC blackmail. Good for the Canadians!

And asphalt is a very, very dirty fuel source. As for extending the prosperity of the west, wrong. It is solely to enhance the power of a few billionaire bribe masters over us all. But then you masochistically want that…

Absolutely. But only if they come from noble families. I am not wrong. We all benefit from more fuel.

Pity the fossil fuel industry is doing just that then, by lobbying against our economy transforming into something that can actually go the distance.

Umm, this would be the same industry that has invested billions into renewables? Mostly without result. I agree we should invest more in nuclear power, but otherwise, we are better off with fossil fuels.

Robin Levett

So in your world “cheap” can mean “wildly expensive but marginally less wildly expensive than the alternatives”?

Cheap is, by and large, a comparitive. So yes.

And, in any event, even your somewhat odd approach is not borne out by the facts. You are confusing costs and prices. Tar sands oil casts far more to produce than conventional oil;

No I am not and yes that is just what I said.

Gulf oil is price-volatile because of the political instability of the region. Canadian oil is not. It may cost more to produce, but at any one time, it may well be cheaper simply because Canadians do not yet blow each other up with car bombs. It will serve as a buffer to keep prices rising too much. And if the OPEC countries wish to pay for the initial costs by their incompetence, well good for them. We ought to exempt Canadian sources from fuel duty.

22. So Much For Subtlety

13. Dissident

do you think such colossal waste is good for the economy?

Yes. Obviously. Or they would not do it.

This statement fails to take into account the other half of the carbon cycle.

But of course with fossil fuels you are also not looking at the other half of the carbon cycle. Fossil fuels were, supposedly, in the atmosphere and now about half of all we have emitted is biomass. However the carbon cycle does not care where its CO2 comes from. Coal or your breath is all the same to the Amazon. So it is no contradiction to say that if you want to reduce emissions, topping yourself would work.

Ironically most oil reserves are the decayed corpses from previous mass extinction events, like the Permian/Triassic one for example. The only way you can turn corpses into oil is by having anoxic conditions in the world’s oceans, like happened in that mass extinction.

Umm no. It is highly unlikely that our fossil fuels come from those events. If only because it is likely they were caused by a large asteroid hitting the planet which would have burnt up most of the biomass. It is perfectly reasonable to assume most fossil fuels were formed in swamps and rivers that laid down sediment quickly and which also happen to be anoxic.

What caused that mass extinction? Ah yes, massive injection of CO2 into the atmosphere from the Siberian Trapps eruptions, where magma flooded huge swathes of the land, and cooked out of the existing rock trillions of tonnes of CO2 from limestone and other carbon rich minerals.

Maybe. Maybe not. Hard to say.

Dissident

There are better ways to make ends meet, that don’t use up so many resources. Why do you defend such pointless waste?

No there are not. Perhaps because it has made so many people rich and wealthy and happy? Why do you want people to be miserable mediaeval serfs?

Ahhhh, the triumph of ego over IQ. Is it such fun when your stuck in traffic, breathing in a smog of partially combusted, toxic and carcinogenic petrochemicals? I bet it isn’t!

Actually it is better than the bus or the underground. In my experience. But you are focusing on one narrow use of the car. Cars are even more fun when you take the family camping in Wales. Or you drive to your son’s school to see him play rugby. Or you go to your brother’s wedding in the countryside. There are a billion and one uses for the car that nothing else can substitute for – bringing freedom and happiness to virtually everyone. Not to mention feeling up your first girlfriend in the back seat. You can do that on a bus but I wish people wouldn’t.

The fact that what is necessary, is a transfer from hugely expensive and dirty fossilised corpse fuels, which is technically and economically viable now simply passes you by.

Perhaps because it is not true? It is not necessary. And perhaps it never will be.

You actually think freedom is to be stuck in a traffic jam, commuting to a dead end job where you are treated like a number? Or to the shops to buy next month’s landfill?

Sure. So much better to be forced into the countryside to engage in corrective re-education on one of your new rural collectives. It is freedom as it is what we choose.

Dissident

Conformity – tyranny’s friend.

Says someone who does not dissent from the Green-Left orthodoxy at all.

Also you’ve never heard of road rage have you? What causes it? Could it perhaps be the mismatch between adland car travel that “inspires” people to drive and the reality you face daily?

No. It is caused by people being arses. As you can see with bicycle rage. When riders behave like arses they make other people – and other riders – as angry as them. But not as self righteous.

Which can already compete on a level playing field with fossilised corpse fuel, and it is only a matter of time before we complete the transfer.

Cute. One day solar may be cheap enough but it is not now. Even then it will be diffuse and unreliable. Wind is a waste of time.

23. Charlieman

@17. Dissident: “Um, not sure what you mean by that question, but I have noticed a typo, thanks! C6H12O6 + 6O2 = 6CO2 + 6H2O + energy. Does that help?”

Yeah, I screwed up my comment.

C6H12O6 is sugar, a great fuel for human beings but not for industry.

C2H5OH (ethanol) is a more practical fuel option, of course, depending on how you make it. At the moment, I don’t see any point other than to pretend to be oil independent.

24. Dissident

@ Charlieman

http://www.biofuelsdigest.com/bdigest/2013/03/11/algenol-hits-9k-gallonsacre-mark-for-algae-to-ethanol-process/

http://www.google.com/patents/US5578472

Is this the method of producing bio ethanol that you were talking about? Which according to this article is already exceeding expectations regards its performance? What really stands out is production costs are less than $1 a gallon. From using atmospheric CO2 and a bit of sea water. Yet another nail in the fossil fuel industry’s coffin. Incidentally, the tech can be placed on rooftops alongside solar photovoltaics, in addition to other areas without much existing biomes (fields that are no longer fertile due to soil erosion and desert zones etc) Also what are the combustion products? CO2 (putting back into atmosphere what was there anyway, not introducing more) and H2O – not a toxic witches brew of carcinogens that you get from petrol.

The company behind this are also researching ways to directly produce fuels similar to diesel and kerosene, only with purity engineered in from the start, with none of those impurities so prevalent in asphalt, from there its a short step to production of polymers. Another advantage, as that will undercut fossil fuel industry further.

25. Dissident

Also Charlieman. The USA can supply all it’s needs from less than a hundred square miles of such bio ethanol factories. The equivalent of a mid sized town or city. A lot more practical than having to scour the earth for every last drop of oil…

26. Dissident

Gish Galloping away there, SMFS 1 & Onbe (possibly released from the same batch as SMFS 1) SMFS 2 is obviously a parody of SMFS 1…

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop

The thing about that way of ‘debating’ is its impossible to address all points without getting bogged down and losing track. Even the combined intellects of the most powerful minds would eventually give it up as a waste of time. Not because the Gish galloper wins, just there’s not enough hours in the day.

Try writing actual essays with thousands of words, describing your arguments properly. Then I and everyone else will be able to answer honestly, with our own essays of rebuttal (or even occasional acceptance of a good point)

Are you capable of that? Or will I just end up dismissing you entirely as trolls?

27. Charlieman

@24. Dissident:

Re: Algenol

“Is this the method of producing bio ethanol that you were talking about? Which according to this article is already exceeding expectations regards its performance? What really stands out is production costs are less than $1 a gallon. From using atmospheric CO2 and a bit of sea water.”

It’s a very interesting technology — a lot more efficient than other biofuels — but you have to retain a bit of scepticism. It relies on a concentrated source of CO2 (captured waste from an industrial process) so it isn’t a magic bullet solution.

28. Dissident

@27 Charlieman.

Indeed it isn’t a magic bullet solution. None of them are, so as a thought experiment, use a wind turbine powered atmosphere scrubber to capture CO2 from the air, then use the concentrated CO2 for the Algenol process. In itself that is far from perfect, but it is only bolting on a ‘ off the shelf unit’ to do the CO2 concentration. In short, it only requires relatively minor engineering skills, not a Manhattan Project. Since the Algenol produced can cheaply be stored indefinitely until it needs to be used, this process may be useful for the storage of surplus power from turbines on windy days. Although like I say, that is only a thought experiment expressed in a blog.

Long term, what I anticipate is engineering another form of microbe to do the job of capturing enough atmospheric CO2 from the air, or further development of the Algenol process itself so it doesn’t have to rely on concentrated CO2.

It is also, even with the current flaw of requiring a concentrated source of CO2, part of a whole portfolio of technologies we can deploy to wean us off fossil fuels.

So that just begs the question, why spend hundreds of billions every year to find, extract, refine and distribute fossil fuels, when that same money can instead be used to expand all these new ways of generating the power our civilisation needs. More importantly, why even bother with Alberta’s tar sands?

Could little inconvenient details like this be the real reason Canada’s Tory PM is lobbying in Europe on behalf of his own corporate masters?

29. So Much For Subtlety

26. Dissident

Try writing actual essays with thousands of words, describing your arguments properly. Then I and everyone else will be able to answer honestly, with our own essays of rebuttal (or even occasional acceptance of a good point)

Diss, you are out of your depth and dealing with people who know so much more than you it is not funny. Accept it. Move on with your life.

28. Dissident

so as a thought experiment, use a wind turbine powered atmosphere scrubber to capture CO2 from the air, then use the concentrated CO2 for the Algenol process.

Inefficiencies pile on inefficiencies. You are linking two useless technologies together in a hope that they will amount to something. In my experience if you sew the back end of a mule to the front end of a donkey, you do not get a racehorse.

So that just begs the question, why spend hundreds of billions every year to find, extract, refine and distribute fossil fuels, when that same money can instead be used to expand all these new ways of generating the power our civilisation needs. More importantly, why even bother with Alberta’s tar sands?

Because those other methods do not work. They are not cheap, they are not efficient, they are not reliable. You may as well say we should run the economy of unicorn farts. Fossil fuels work and are cheap. So we should go on using them.

Could little inconvenient details like this be the real reason Canada’s Tory PM is lobbying in Europe on behalf of his own corporate masters?

So you think it is all a vast conspiracy theory? Riiight.

30. Charlieman

@29. So Much For Subtlety: “Inefficiencies pile on inefficiencies. You are linking two useless technologies together in a hope that they will amount to something.”

Dissident presented a thought experiment in response to my observation (mutually agreed) that Algenol is not a magic bullet answer. Dissident was trying to address some limitations of the Algenol process.

With regard to inefficiencies, let’s have a look at one of the other non-fossil power sources: nuclear. Ask a turbine engineer what they think about the nuclear power plants that we use today and they’ll say that the steam is not hot enough to be efficient. But technology moves on and new nuclear power plant designs deliver hot steam with thermal efficiency approaching that of a gas fuelled plant.

“Fossil fuels work and are cheap. So we should go on using them.”

Fossil fuels extracted from the ground are finite. Whilst they are relatively cheap and available, it would be foolish not to prepare for the day when they are less accessible. I differ with Dissident because I’m more sceptical about the rush for alternative energy sources. I disagree with you because you expect an eternal, inconsequential supply.

31. Dissident

@ Charlieman

“Fossil fuels extracted from the ground are finite. Whilst they are relatively cheap and available, it would be foolish not to prepare for the day when they are less accessible. I differ with Dissident because I’m more sceptical about the rush for alternative energy sources. I disagree with you because you expect an eternal, inconsequential supply.”

Genuine skepticism is what I hope for from people, what masquerades as skepticism right now from trollbots on the blogosphere is a poisonous mix of misinformation, conspiracist ideation and fecklessness. All wrapped up in what all too frequently becomes a Gish gallop. I’ve seen lots of it on other sites too.

With regards to your personal relative skepticism about renewables. Keep it up. They are not yet fully integrated. They need a whole spectrum of industries moved beyond experimental stage to be truly effective. Like I stated earlier in this thread. New, efficient, viable technological approaches and peer reviewed scientific discoveries are released almost daily.

That is the biggest reason why I see the hundreds of billions spent on finding, extracting and refining increasingly dirty, low grade fossil fuels – there are good reasons why I said asphalt, because that is what that industry is reducing itself to – as a waste of money. I would instead redeploy that wealth to upscale what renewables we already have and improve them.

However, we still have a long way to go before we are out of shit creek.

As a background to us having to grub out nearly worthless asphalt or fracking the ground under our feet to turn into used once fuel, we are watching as the worlds ice melts, the biome zones move poleward (at a faster rate than most species can cope with), anoxic deadzones expand around the continental shelves, weather patterns become more screwed up, sea level creeps up ever higher, and ever more species go the way of the dodo. To say nothing of the thousands of other indicators that anyone with even half a brain, would be aware are happening.

Unfortunately too many powerful people are – shall we say, spitting their dummies out and batting the paddle out of our hands. Purely because they are themselves hogtied to socioeconomic and technological models that are either already obsolete or on the fast track to obsolescence.

32. So Much For Subtlety

30. Charlieman

Dissident was trying to address some limitations of the Algenol process.

And displaying a massive lack of competence to do so.

With regard to inefficiencies, let’s have a look at one of the other non-fossil power sources: nuclear. Ask a turbine engineer what they think about the nuclear power plants that we use today and they’ll say that the steam is not hot enough to be efficient. But technology moves on and new nuclear power plant designs deliver hot steam with thermal efficiency approaching that of a gas fuelled plant.

Nuclear power plants are, indeed, not very efficient in a thermal sense. But then so do coal-fire thermal power stations. That is interesting if you are interested in the thermal efficiency of such a plant. I am not. Not that much anyway. Most people are not. Solar is, after all, even worse at converting sunlight and wind is not much better. And, as you say, gas cooled or liquid salt reactors promise to be as thermally efficient as gas fired reactors.

Fossil fuels extracted from the ground are finite. Whilst they are relatively cheap and available, it would be foolish not to prepare for the day when they are less accessible.

I agree. And because there is a risk from climate change, and because coal is so vile, we should be doing all we sensibly can to move away from it to something cleaner. Like nucleaer power.

I disagree with you because you expect an eternal, inconsequential supply.

So I don’t. We have no reason to foresee a lack of fossil fuels in the near future. We find coal almost everywhere we look for it and we have not looked so many places yet. Africa for instance. Fracking has opened up vast new sources. But it is finite. One day fossils fuels will not be common in our energy mix. But that day is not here yet, nor is there any sign of it coming soon. So no need to change yet. And whatever consequences there are, MMGW is not one of them. Or at least no sign of it so far.

Dissident

Genuine skepticism is what I hope for from people, what masquerades as skepticism right now from trollbots on the blogosphere is a poisonous mix of misinformation, conspiracist ideation and fecklessness.

Yeah. Plenty of time to regurgitate this sort of tripe, no suddenly no time when dealing with someone who knows more than you. Well keep up the good work. You may fool someone with this nonsense.

That is the biggest reason why I see the hundreds of billions spent on finding, extracting and refining increasingly dirty, low grade fossil fuels – there are good reasons why I said asphalt, because that is what that industry is reducing itself to – as a waste of money.

It is not a waste of money because it is profitable and more importantly, it is more profitable than any of the alternatives. That is why we do it. People are not stupid you know. You need to stop assuming you know best. You don’t.

I would instead redeploy that wealth to upscale what renewables we already have and improve them.

And we would be back in caves eating our food raw. This is just not a sane policy.

we are watching as the worlds ice melts, the biome zones move poleward (at a faster rate than most species can cope with), anoxic deadzones expand around the continental shelves, weather patterns become more screwed up, sea level creeps up ever higher, and ever more species go the way of the dodo.

Not a single one of those claims is true.

33. Dissident

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
SMFS, which planet do you live on?
And how much do you get paid, by the word or according to how many whoppers you peddle?


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy: Canadian PM ambushed by tar sands protest in London | moonblogsfromsyb

    […] via Newswire Liberal Conspiracy http://liberalconspiracy.org/2013/06/14/canadian-pm-ambushed-by-tar-sands-protest-in-london/ […]





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.