Much enviro-ado about nothing: EPA analysis shows Keystone XL tar sands oil not meaningfully ‘dirtier’ than conventional oil

How much extra CO2 will be emitted by the Keystone XL project?

In its comments to the State Dept., the EPA says that over a 50-year period the extra CO2 emitted from transporting tar sands oil via the Keystone XL will be 935 million metric tons.

Over this same period, global manmade emissions will be about 1.7 trillion tons — i.e., assuming constant 2011 emissions for the next 50 years, 34 billion tons (2011 est.) x 50 years.

So extra the Keystone XL emissions amount to 935 million tons/1.7 trillion tons or 0.055%.

As global emissions for the next 50 years are like to exceed 2011 levels, the actual ration of Keystone Xl emissions to total manmade emissions will be less.

2 thoughts on “Much enviro-ado about nothing: EPA analysis shows Keystone XL tar sands oil not meaningfully ‘dirtier’ than conventional oil”

  1. It’s true that the tar sands petroleum, even with transport, will have a teeny effect on CO2 and CO2 is okay anyway. I don’t know if tar sands production means other forms of real pollution — or rather, of course it does because all production involves waste products. The industrial wastes from producing the tar sands may be about par with other production methods; at any rate, the nannies have focused on CO2.
    “Over this same period, global manmade emissions will be about 1.7 trillion tons — i.e., assuming constant 2011 emissions for the next 50 years, 34 billion tons (2011 est.) x 50 years.” The CO2 in the atmosphere, from all causes, The atmosphere is measured in quadrillions of tons. Of course human production of CO2 adds to what’s in the atmosphere, but only by a tiny amount of the atmosphere’s weight or volume. And CO2 in the atmosphere goes through cycling processes.
    As you note, the production of CO2 is nearly sure to rise because people want better standards of living. And in this case I mean people like the Chinese farm and factory workers, who’d like to keep warm and have clean clothes. Any American above the bottom quartile of income has a decent standard of living, though I would never constrain ours either, but it’s the really poor who always suffer the most.

  2. But wait, there’s more!

    The Libtard EPA and environmentalists have a static view of the Canadian oil. U.S. consumption of oil is independent of production in Canada. I.e., it’s likely that if we don’t get the oil from Canadian oil sands, we will get it from Nigeria or even Indonesia. Hence the “the extra CO2 emitted from transporting tar sands oil [sic]” is likely LESS than what will be emitted if we don’t.

    It is also less that what will be emitted by transporting it over Buffett’s Burlington Norther Santa Fe railroad.

    All-in-all, EPA’s statement is grossly stupid.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.