Post navigation

3 comments for “Pipeline

  1. January 26, 2012 at 3:38 pm

    The ethical oil person is aggressive about pushing her rhetorical point, but the Sierra Club guy (Bennett) is just being hypocritical. He complains about oil sands GHGs, but supports gas-fired power generation in Ontario. The same substance, methane (natural gas) belches out GHGs in either case. What’s the difference if it comes from Alberta or Ontario?

  2. January 26, 2012 at 3:50 pm

    … and further to my previous point about Sierra Club hypocrisy: they’ll complain to the high heavens about greenhouse gases from the oil sands and in the next breath oppose the use of nuclear energy in the same oil sands. Nuclear energy is a GHG-free energy source which would replace natural gas, which is the major source of GHGs related to oil sands processing and upgrading.

    That is to say, Sierra is not interested really in solving any environmental or energy problems. They just advocate silly things like banning oil. Meanwhile, they’ll dash off to every international climate conference held in every remote exotic location accessible only by kerosene powered air transport.

  3. darcy
    January 26, 2012 at 9:29 pm

    I sent a note to the “ethical” people to see what their funding is composed of:

    kathryn@ethicaloil.org:

    I’m looking for a breakdown of your funding.

    There is some secrecy about it as you can see here: http://incandescent.ca/pipeline/

    I’d like to ask you directly if you can show a breakdown of the locations your donations and funding comes from. Also what percent comes from Enbridge (including any form of support).

    Thanks in advance…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *