5 ms·
The Natural Resources Defense Council says: >Tar sands extraction emits up to three times more global warming pollution than does producing the same quantity o
by hoppyhoppy2 5y ago
The Natural Resources Defense Council says:
>Tar sands extraction emits up to three times more global warming pollution than does producing the same quantity of conventional crude. It also depletes and pollutes freshwater resources and creates giant ponds of toxic waste. Refining the sticky black substance produces piles of petroleum coke, a hazardous by-product. “This isn’t your grandfather’s typical oil,” [senior policy analyst for NRDC’s Canada project] says. “It’s nasty stuff.”
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-fight-over-canadian-tar-sands-oil https://www.nrdc.org/stories/dirty-fight-over-canadian-tar-s...
- prepend 5y agoThis is unrelated to the claim that transport by pipeline is less environmentally harmful than transport by train or truck.
- ericd 5y agoSeems related? Making Canadian crude less competitive means less tar sands oil extraction.
- hoppyhoppy2 5y agoI was responding to the parent's last sentence: >If we agree that we want to reduce demand for certain types of energy than the first thing we should do is promote FF from Canada that are relatively clean, highly regulated and produced by a trusted democracy over the ones that will be used to fill this void from 3rd-world dictators with no environmental controls. I was pointing out that tar-sands oil probably does not meet the "relatively clean" criteria.
- codeulike 5y agoIf they can't transport as much by train or truck (due to capacity/expense) then thats a gain for the environment. If a big fat permanent pipeline makes it more cost effective to extract and sell even more tar-sand oil, then thats a loss for the environment.