Study: Keystone carbon pollution more than figured
Source: ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) The much-debated Keystone XL pipeline could produce four times more global warming pollution than the State Department calculated earlier this year, a new study concludes.
The U.S. estimates didnt take into account that the added oil from the pipeline would drop prices by about $3 a barrel, spurring consumption that would create more pollution, the researchers said.
Outside experts not connected to the study gave it mixed reviews. The American Petroleum Institute found the study to be irrelevant because regardless of the pipeline, the tar sands will be developed and oil will be shipped by railroad if not by pipeline, spokeswoman Sabrina Fang said.
The researchers estimate that the proposed pipeline, which would carry oil from tar sands in western Canada to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast, would increase world greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 121 million tons of carbon dioxide a year.
-snip-
Read more: http://www.salon.com/2014/08/10/study_keystone_carbon_pollution_more_than_figured/
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'm not sure I'd call them 'outside experts'.
SnakeEyes
(1,407 posts)Are they?
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)what comes up under their actual website link (www.api.org) is
www.api.org/and so on.
American Petroleum Institute
Represents all aspects of the U.S. petroleum and natural gas industry.
So I'd say, yeah, they are.
2naSalit
(86,536 posts)Why am I not surprised?
leftyohiolib
(5,917 posts)BlueJazz
(25,348 posts)SnakeEyes
(1,407 posts)it's core is the debunked premise that this will do a damn thing about the price of a barrel of oil. No additional driling in NA will affect the price. We can't drill enough, worldwide consumption is massive, what is produced is a small insignificant fraction of that consumption. If we accept this study then we accept the core premise and we open ourselves up to the continued scam attempt to drill ANWR and other places.
mathematic
(1,439 posts)Geez, does anybody read these things before they huzzah, or knew-it-would-be-worse, or otherwise have their biases confirmed?
So people endorsing this greater carbon figure are also endorsing the claim that keystone will lead to lower oil prices. Good luck building opposition with that tactic.
J_J_
(1,213 posts)It is not about supply and demand, it is about the Koch brothers speculation