[HN Gopher] TC Energy scraps Keystone XL pipeline project after ...
___________________________________________________________________
TC Energy scraps Keystone XL pipeline project after Biden revokes
key permit
Author : pseudolus
Score : 121 points
Date : 2021-06-09 21:06 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.reuters.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com)
| protomyth wrote:
| Oil is all going to get transported by rail or truck. BNSF stock
| going up should please Buffet.
| newacct583 wrote:
| Or... maybe the market will react to higher oil prices and
| choose other fuels? Might be wanting to hodl TSLA and not rail
| stocks.
| ArkanExplorer wrote:
| The more fossil fuel infrastructure we build out, the harder it
| will be to make the transition to clean energy. Adding costs to
| fossil fuels is not a bad thing.
| sixothree wrote:
| Imagine if we seized property and gave it to a private
| company to build wind farms. I'm sure the response would be
| worse than what happened here.
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| Who is downvoting you? Why? Your comment is perfectly on
| point IMO.
| bigbillheck wrote:
| Why do we have to do the 'g[i]ve it to a private company'
| part?
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Absolutely. We should be exploring ways to financially
| disadvantage refineries and fueling stations as well. Have to
| find every weak point in fossil infra to exploit towards a
| failure mode. This drives the cost up, making electrified
| options (that don't emit carbon) more competitive sooner.
| hogFeast wrote:
| Must be nice to be so rich that you can choose to pay more
| for things.
| [deleted]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I don't have a solution for the species constantly
| borrowing from the future. The bill comes due eventually.
| If you think being poor sucks now, wait for water
| shortages and crop failures. I get it, everyone wants the
| benefits without the costs.
|
| Obligatory "we should have carbon taxes and cap and trade
| to help make the transition fair and equitable". I'm
| aware the wealthy are culpable for higher per capita CO2
| emissions, and as such they should bear a greater burden
| in this regard.
| make3 wrote:
| Not sure why you're getting downvoted. Energy is a money
| game.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| Adding costs due to adding inefficiency in the supply chain
| is definitely a bad thing, since you could easily achieve
| the exact same outcome with a tax instead.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| > Oil is all going to get transported by rail or truck.
|
| ... which is more expensive than transporting by pipeline, thus
| increasing the cost of oil, cutting the development of
| marginally-viable oil exploration projects, and hastening the
| point at which it is uncompetitive with renewables and killed.
| This is working exactly as intended.
| vetrom wrote:
| You could also stretch and call it an indictment of
| externalizing oil production costs. I'm aware that building
| and running a refinery is an extremely expensive operation,
| to the point where it isn't economical to either mobilize a
| refinery, or base them at the site of extraction.
|
| That said, running a refinery also has local costs that are
| usually externalized, in terms of local pollution and
| populace movement. Canada itself though has a fairly large
| amount of space, but perhaps a surfeit of people. Why doesn't
| TC energy (or other Canada producers) build a refinery
| somewhere in Canada and transport to there?
| dblohm7 wrote:
| I don't know about your second sentence, but your first
| sentence is absolutely correct.
|
| I am an Albertan who lives in Calgary, where TC Energy is
| headquartered. I am by no means a shill for Big Oil and am
| thankful that I do not work in that industry.
|
| Having said that, I do not think that blocking the supply side
| of the equation helps as much as certain parties believe that
| it does. As long as the demand for oil exists, the suppliers
| will find a way.
|
| This also has side effects that some parties do not consider:
| Railroads have finite capacity, and when more of that capacity
| is absorbed by oil shipments, there is less capacity for the
| transportation of other goods, like grain.
| admax88q wrote:
| Demand is partly driven by how cheap oil is.
|
| There is demand for energy. Cheap oil is a great source. If
| oil gets more expensive because it now has to be shipped with
| more risk in smaller quantities via rail/truck, then
| renewables can compete even better.
|
| I don't think there's any realistic policy option to reduce
| energy demand as a whole, but if we can reduce demand for
| certain types of energy we might have a shot.
| jlmorton wrote:
| No doubt this is true, but it sure would be nice if we
| could instead tax the oil and raise revenue for the public
| good, rather than deliver profits to private railroad
| companies.
| [deleted]
| panny wrote:
| Biden lifted sanctions on Russia to allow an undersea oil
| pipeline,
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-57180674
|
| I don't think demand reduction was an objective with
| Keystone.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| this is only kind of true. WHile rail IS more expensive you
| can't compare a barrel in a pipeline with a barrel on a
| train. Pipelines need to carry diluted oil products to make
| them flow and then sometimes return that back to the
| source, so there's extra flow. Pipelines use far LESS
| energy to transport which is kind of ironic; and they are
| way, way safer.
|
| I don't see this as an environmental move based on the
| political signalling it buys and other moves made by the US
| administration. 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.
| toss1 wrote:
| The track system of course has finite capacity, but how close
| to that finite capacity are they running, and how much of
| that capacity is the new oil demand?
|
| If new new oil demand makes the capacity go from 9% to 12%
| that is one thing, and quite another going from 68% to 98%...
| dimes wrote:
| The alternative methods of transport will be more expensive,
| which will lead to a decrease in demand.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| Why not tax the pipeline to simulate that cost increase?
| Isn't that the best of all worlds?
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| that pipeline that now will never exist was substantially
| owned by the Canadian and ALbertan government. If it was
| built we would see a very efficient transfer of profit
| directly to new initiatives. Now we're no further ahead
| AND we own a pipe-less pipeline project.
| lettergram wrote:
| Yeah, I'll just not drive to work...
|
| This has never been true for consumers. The only "demand"
| it impacts are companies, who then move their jobs to China
| where they can use coal powered plants.
|
| There is no world where this artificial increase in prices
| is good.
|
| Green energy is improving, nuclear is improving. It's
| improving because it has to compete with alternatives, like
| oil. Green energy is not cheap or widespread enough today
| for consumers or industry. So it's only the people of the
| country that lose.
| gpm wrote:
| This has always been true of consumers.
|
| - Let's buy a smaller/more efficient car instead of the
| bigger/less efficient one
|
| - Let's move closer to work
|
| - Let's carpool
|
| - Let's not buy our teenager a car just yet
|
| Etc, etc. Cost of ownership effects all sorts of choices,
| always has, always will.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| Except I doubt everyone is going to walk to work, eat only
| locally grown produce in the winter (hope you like
| potatoes), feed the world without fertilizer and replace
| plastics with ... what, smug self-satisfaction?
| ayngg wrote:
| I think it is a case of popular politics but poor policy. It
| appears like Canada has decided that they do not want to be in
| resource extraction for environmental purposes, but in their
| bid to be socially responsible, they are for the most part
| ignoring the potential political and social fallout of such a
| policy. Sure, it will make oil and gas operations more
| untenable in Canada, but ultimately that probably wont matter
| much since other producers that already dictate the price
| through cartels will quickly fill demand to their own benefit.
|
| Whether or not people want to think about it, Canada exports a
| lot of natural resources, and if they want to stop, which is
| fine, they better have a real plan for transitioning those
| industries, and have an idea of what they will do in lieu of a
| that huge chunk of their exports going away. Its really easy to
| say something like "just transition away from oil" but history
| has shown that it is very difficult to do, especially for a
| province beholden to federal policy.
|
| These costs are massive but are largely being ignored, or just
| offloaded as only Alberta's problem. They are running the risk
| of hollowing out a huge portion of the economy without any real
| plan which has pretty severe consequences as seen in places
| like the rust belt, which will end up sowing the seeds of
| populist resentment amongst communities that will feel used and
| abandoned, especially in places that already feel largely
| ignored by federal politics like western Canada.
| Romanulus wrote:
| Like it or not, all the oil in the ground is coming up and out
| sooner or later.
| ineedasername wrote:
| How does that work?
|
| I mean, putting aside the political & scientific issues around
| clean energy etc.
|
| How does the government get to revoke a permit after significant
| work and money was already spent based on getting the permit in
| the first place? Does the government pay compensation? Does the
| company have to file a lawsuit?
| maxerickson wrote:
| The text of the permit included a clause that said it could be
| revoked solely at the discretion of the president. So all it
| takes is the president deciding to revoke it.
|
| I'm kind of fascinated that people see such a breezy permit as
| an important factor in the decision to build something or not.
| Of course they need the permit to construct the border
| facility, but they aren't going to make the investment decision
| just based on the existence of the permit.
| toyg wrote:
| Government gonna govern. Unless there are specific appeal
| clauses in the relevant permission processes, most governments
| can (and will) do what they want on this sort of issue. You can
| interpret it as a prevarication over the private
| individual/company, or as a reaffirmation of society's right to
| change its mind.
|
| This sort of scenario is precisely why private interests lobby
| so hard to add arbitration rules to international free-trade
| agreements, btw; they want to protect their investments against
| changes in political winds, by moving judgements on
| compensation to a dodgy world of ad-hoc pseudo-legal
| structures.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I don't like the oil economy at all, but revoking permits after a
| company has spent billions laying pipes using government-granted
| permits does leave a bad taste in my mouth.
|
| It seems like bad precedent for the assumption to be that the
| federal government will pull the carpet out from under your feet
| (losing you your entire investment) whenever the political winds
| shift.
|
| Today it's an oil pipeline, but tomorrow it could be for a solar
| installation in a nature reserve, or new hydropower, or a nearly-
| complete nuclear power plant.
| ARandumGuy wrote:
| Are you proposing that governments should be unable to revoke
| permits? Because that's really the only way to prevent permits
| being revoked after a company has spent billions of dollars.
|
| I think the more pragmatic answer to these companies is "don't
| invest billions of dollars in controversial projects that can
| be undone if your permits are revoked"
| fallingknife wrote:
| Governments should only be allowed to revoke permits in
| narrowly defined circumstances laid out in the permit at the
| time it is granted. Governments should have as much (I would
| say even more) of an obligation to keep their word as any
| other party doing business in the economy.
| trixie_ wrote:
| You contradict yourself arguing that the government should be
| able to revoke any permit, and then saying, don't invest in
| projects with permits which can be revoked.
|
| Any project can be 'controversial' depending on who is in
| power. The real pragmatic answer is that the government
| should be liable for investments lost by revoking a permit.
| grecy wrote:
| > _revoking permits after a company has spent billions laying
| pipes using government-granted permits does leave a bad taste
| in my mouth._
|
| I agree that it's not ideal, but we have to remember things are
| changing rapidly, and we need to take decisive action if we
| have any hope of minimizing the most severe impacts of climate
| change.
|
| With the rapid price decline in solar and batteries, the shift
| to EVs and so many other things going on, we have to remember
| that anyone who invests in the "old way" is taking a huge risk.
| In this case their risk did not pay off.
|
| They could have chosen not to take that risk, or invest in
| something less risky.
| dlp211 wrote:
| Investments have risks. This is a risk. I'm so tired of how we
| constantly frame things in terms that investments can't go bad.
| Analemma_ wrote:
| The Keystone XL permit was originally denied, then (illegally)
| approved by Executive Order. The nature of Executive Orders is
| that they can be, and frequently are, tossed out by the next
| guy in office. This isn't a big secret, so I don't have a ton
| of sympathy for anyone who "spent billions laying pipes" under
| a permit granted by EO. If they wanted a lower risk of losing
| everything, they should've waited for the standard permit
| process, instead of gambling on the EO and that Trump would win
| another term.
| defaultname wrote:
| It was originally denied by political decree.
|
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/nov/06/obama-
| re...
|
| It was political from end to end, and was never denied on
| fundamental grounds, but instead has been governed by
| protectionism. What made it particularly farcical is that at
| the same time Obama was pontificating about the horror's of
| Alberta's oil and turning an environmental new leaf, US shale
| oil exploration (just as bad in every dimension) was growing
| at a staggering pace, and is now multiples the output of
| Alberta's oils ands.
|
| The quicker we transition to renewables the better, but the
| farce of Keystone was always just politics.
| zbrozek wrote:
| This is key. It erodes trust in institutions, in this case the
| government itself. I personally wish it weren't permitted in
| the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the
| worst possible outcome.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place,
| but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible
| outcome.
|
| Why?
|
| It was obvious from the start of the planning that this
| project was at risk from political intervention given the
| continuous protests and the general political landscape
| (being blocked by Obama and then unblocked by Trump, with
| Democrats calling for the reversal of the decision).
|
| It was obvious that long-term political trends are leading
| towards ecological conservation, that international treaties
| limit CO2 emissions and that oil consumption will only go
| downwards given the rise of viable electric car models.
|
| The companies behind Keystone XL accepted this risk, and if
| they now go bankrupt or face massive losses as a result of
| not accounting for _obvious_ risks, I don 't shed any tears
| for them. They were aware, never forget that.
| zbrozek wrote:
| The loss of trust in the finality of approvals is the key
| thing we should be shedding tears over. It would obviously
| have been far better not to permit it in the first place.
| Suppose a big offshore wind project gets underway now and
| an opposing government wins the next election - now there's
| precedent to just pull the plug.
|
| Or at a much smaller scale, suppose you've just won
| permission to build a house and a new city council is
| elected and revokes your permit. How much are you going to
| trust your government after that?
|
| It also widens the door for more forms of corruption.
| "Shame if that permit were to suddenly evaporate..."
|
| If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or
| don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke
| permits of projects you've approved!
| fallingknife wrote:
| You missed some details there. It was approved under the
| Obama administration before it was rejected by the state
| department on the vague grounds that it is "not in the
| national interest." The state department was only involved
| since it crossed the border with Canada, and for deals with
| close allies like Canada, this approval is typically a
| formality. It sets a bad precedent when the government
| capriciously steps in to block a deal that has been years
| in the making because of political pressure.
| sixothree wrote:
| Taking people's property and giving it to a private company
| erodes trust as well.
| panny wrote:
| It certainly does,
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
| yongjik wrote:
| If this erodes trust in the government's commitment to
| allowing new fossil fuel projects, I'd consider that an
| absolute win.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| Inducting this lesson only to the most convenient level for
| your argument is intellectually dishonest to the point that
| I really hope you understand, deep down, that you are
| playing semantic games and don't actually believe this
| argument.
| yongjik wrote:
| Sure, it's convenient that I agree with the decision now,
| but why would that be intellectually dishonest?
|
| If the government overturns a previous decision and
| blocks an oil pipeline, I'll be happy. If the government
| overturns another previous decision and blocks a wind
| farm, I'll be angry. There's nothing contradictory about
| this. Arguably, reducing it into "the government changed
| its mind on something; imagine it does on (something
| different)" _is_ also playing semantics. You can 't take
| decisions out of real-world context: there's always
| context.
| cryptoz wrote:
| A government that ignores climate change loses far more trust
| than one who pays attention and acts in response. Permitting
| the building of new pipelines is absolutely a sign of an
| untrustworthy government.
|
| A government needs to be able to change its mind and always
| act in the best interests of the people. Building a pipeline
| because some rich corporation has some sunk costs is insane.
|
| Edit: Also, I only addressed the environmental issues, but
| the article also cites "U.S. landowners, Native American
| tribes". Don't you think its also good that they get a say in
| what gets built? And that it is likely that the early
| construction was done without full understanding by those
| groups impacted directly?
| happytoexplain wrote:
| >revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome
|
| It seems like many people feel that it's the second to worst
| possible outcome.
| munk-a wrote:
| I think it's important to also realize that Canada
| domestically (outside of Alberta) has been strongly opposed
| to expanding natural resource exportation[1]. The Kinder
| Morgan pipeline through BC was ~shut down~[2] - as have been
| multiple propositions to get the oil out through the maritime
| provinces. If Alberta had a coast they would never consider
| the keystone pipeline as an option but this is sort of a
| effort of last resort - every direction except south wants
| nothing to do with this and the constantly shifting political
| winds in America mean it's extremely unlikely that this
| project would actually be complete while the tar sands remain
| profitable.
|
| I think it's a bit unfair to talk about this permit being
| withdrawn without warning when literally every other route
| open for export has been shut down - it's like asking your
| dad for candy after your mom said no, they might go along
| with you for a bit but the outcome is likely to be swayed by
| the same basic facts.
|
| 1. Existing transportation is also highly problematic, one of
| the really big questions for Canadians here is whether the
| additional safety of pipelines is worth the cost to the
| environment, we've specifically paid that lack of safety cost
| several times including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C
| 3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... and more generally
| https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-
| crude-... this is very much not a simple issue in Canada.
|
| 2. Oh hey - no it isn't - this is still actively ongoing as
| pointed out by the comment below
| mig39 wrote:
| Isn't the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion still going
| ahead?
|
| Didn't the Canadian federal government actually buy the
| pipeline company, and offer to indemnified any investor for
| any delays caused by other governments?
| munk-a wrote:
| Apparently yes, it's unshutdown for the moment - but the
| NDP provincial government is still impeding it. It's been
| up and down so many times now I'd lost track.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It erodes trust in institutions
|
| So the sequence of events here was:
|
| Permit denied in normal administrative course.
|
| Permit approved, illegally reversing factual determinations
| without sufficient support by subsequent administration,
| resulting in the approved permit being struck down by the
| courts, which was maintained through extensive litigation
| after the initial decision.
|
| Permit reapproved by executive order bypassing the
| environmemtal and procedural law constraints that resulted in
| the previous approval being revoked.
|
| Permit rerevoked by executive order undoing the previous
| order.
|
| Its certainly not a history that inspires trust in
| institutions generally, but focussing on the last step for
| that criticism is...bizarre.
| ryanong wrote:
| I would not have been revoked if it wasn't illegal.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| That's... a wild contortion of what it means to be legal.
| When the government grants a permit for me to do something,
| the sane thing is to assume that it is a legal thing to do.
|
| You can redefine, or re-interpret the law later to make
| something _now_ illegal, but that absolutely does not mean it
| was illegal at the time. That's 1984-style history rewriting.
| takeda wrote:
| Previous permit was also revoked by court. The analogy
| someone else already provided is apt.
|
| Kid asked dad if he can get a candy after mom said no. Then
| started crying when mom came and said it's not allowed.
| JuettnerDistrib wrote:
| > or a nearly-complete nuclear power plant.
|
| Nah, that would never happen.
|
| "Construction of the plant at Zwentendorf, Austria was finished
| but the plant never entered service. The start-up of the
| Zwentendorf plant, as well as the construction of the other 2
| plants, was prevented by a referendum on 5 November 1978, in
| which a narrow majority of 50.47% voted against the start-up."
|
| [1]
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwentendorf_Nuclear_Power_Pl...
| ikiris wrote:
| They should have known going in it was a sham permit. When you
| take advantage of one of the most corrupt and inept
| administrations in modern times, you get what you pay for.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Revocation is one of the first terms in the permit:
|
| https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/04/03/2019-06...
|
| (in that permit, it comes right after revocation of an earlier,
| similar permit)
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Yeah. Would you put private money into infrastructure in the US
| after this? I wouldn't.
|
| That leaves just government-funded infrastructure, with all the
| efficiency that usually brings...
| nielsbot wrote:
| The pipeline wasn't for public use, so I don't think talking
| about public infrastructure applies here.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| From dictionary.com: "The fundamental facilities and
| systems serving a country, city, or area, as transportation
| and communication systems, power plants, and schools." In
| this sense, pipelines are infrastructure.
| [deleted]
| eagsalazar2 wrote:
| Live by the sword, die by the sword. These companies have been
| playing politics and lobbying all along themselves. And they
| only _got_ the permit to begin with because of political winds
| shifting. This is the risk they take (like drilling in the
| arctic) when you make big bets on things that are extremely
| politically controversial and arguably not in the public
| interest (certainly not in the interest of the people whose
| lives are being turned upside down by eminent domain to make
| this possible).
|
| So in that sense your solar installation example isn't
| appropriate because generally solar installations aren't that
| controversial, aren't built on the broken backs of people who
| lived there, aren't against the public interest, and don't
| require millions in lobbying $$ to manipulate politicians to
| get it done to begin with.
| frankydp wrote:
| Or more micro, the reversion of your homes building permit and
| HVAC as the unit you installed is now out of code, and some
| force of the government would be used to enforce your
| compliance, such as taxes or fines.
| eloff wrote:
| As a Canadian, born in Calgary, Alberta, I'm saddened to hear
| this. But it seems to be part of the platform of the Democrats.
|
| As a citizen of Earth, I'm of mixed feelings. On the one hand
| heavy crude from the tar sands, which is some of the most
| polluting oil on the planet, because it requires so much energy
| to extract, will keep shipping by rail to the United States. That
| involves more spills than a pipeline and burning yet more fuel.
| That's bad.
|
| On the other hand that makes the prices higher and both
| constrains the volume of output and the price at which it's
| profitable to extract. Both things that mean more of that tar
| sands oil will stay in the ground. That's good.
|
| On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the
| ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from
| politically unstable or unfriendly regimes will replace the oil
| the US otherwise would have imported from Canada. That's
| potentially bad.
|
| I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or the
| world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had any
| accurate idea either.
|
| Edit: and the downvotes are because you disagree with my economic
| analysis? Or because you think any of those politicians actually
| have a solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional
| consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons, that's
| why they came out on different sides of the issue based on party
| lines. Actually judging by the downvotes, I think it was a smart
| political move. I really wish HN would require a comment with a
| downvote, even if it's only visible to the OP.
| gautamcgoel wrote:
| Yeah. My first reaction is that this is great news, but as you
| say, the oil may now come from Brazil, Iran, etc. On the whole,
| I think it's a win for the environment, but I would like to see
| a detailed analysis of the predicted effects of this decision
| on oil exploration, extraction, and consumption.
|
| I do feel a bit sympathetic for the company driving this
| project. They invested billions of dollars and over a decade of
| time only to see the project killed at the last minute. This is
| a consequence of our erratic and unpredictable political system
| - every four years we seem to completely change energy policy.
| It's the price of our democracy, but I'm sure it's frustrating
| for CEOs.
|
| Edit: It's frustrating to see the parent comment get downvoted.
| If you disagree, explain why in a comment - no need to bury a
| perfectly reasonable perspective.
| pseudolus wrote:
| It's hard not to be sympathetic to those Albertans whose lives
| will be impacted by this decision. However, for too long Canada
| has relied on extractive industries leading to a mild case of
| Dutch disease. Perhaps the loss of Keystone will jump-start
| Alberta's nascent start-up scene and other non-polluting
| sectors of its economy.
| eloff wrote:
| Alberta fundamentally has to shift gears - just like Saudi
| Arabia. The world will move on from fossil fuels and they had
| better have a plan to transition.
|
| Norway has been handling their fossil fuels remarkably
| intelligently.
| jgon wrote:
| Norway is an entire country that has just slightly more
| people than the province of Alberta, which is to say that
| is it much smaller than Canada, while having oil reserves
| equal to or greater than those in Alberta. Alberta should
| obviously have been more diligent in saving up oil revenues
| generated, but this ignores the fact that a huge amount of
| oil revenues generated in Alberta have gone to help the
| rest of the country develop as well. Roughly 250-300
| billion dollars from Alberta has transferred to the rest of
| the country since Alberta's discovery of oil, which would
| essentially give funding equivalent to the Norwegian
| sovereign fund. So when people say "where did all the money
| go?" the answer is that it went to hospitals in Chicoutimi,
| roads in Neepawa, schools in Battle Harbor, etc, etc.
| Trying to compare sovereign Norway, with a single province
| in a confederation is always going to give a skewed view of
| what Alberta should or should not have done with its
| resource wealth.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > Norway has been handling their fossil fuels remarkably
| intelligently.
|
| How so? Oil production is ticking back up and is higher
| than any time since about 2010.
| munk-a wrote:
| Most of Canada, outside of Alberta, has long transitioned
| away from extraction dominant industries. There still is a
| whole bunch of it around - but, in BC it accounts for 5.7% of
| the economy and in Canada at large all natural resource
| extraction only accounts for 10% of the economy. The majority
| of Canada's economy is now service oriented.
| jgon wrote:
| This claim is nominally true, but leaves out a metric boat-
| load of context, in the classic "the truth, the _whole
| truth_ , and nothing but the truth" sense. BC only has
| resource extraction take up 10% of it economy, but it is
| more dependent on real estate (aka flipping houses) as a
| percentage of its economy that Alberta is dependent on Oil
| and Gas. Flipping real estate isn't exactly a great
| foundation for an economy, but sure it has transitioned
| away from extraction.
|
| Secondly, the majority of Canada's economy is service
| oriented, but due to the way Canada is structured, the
| super-majority of the transfer payments that the federal
| government makes to the various provinces comes from
| resource extraction generated revenues.
|
| The following statements are not meant to be value
| judgements, they are just simple statements of fact that
| should give color to the context that is missing from the
| parent comment. For non-Canadian HN users, in order to
| guarantee a relatively equal standard of living for
| Canadian citizens regardless of where they happen to live,
| the federal government distributes billions of dollars
| every year to various provinces, taking from the more
| wealthy provinces and helping shore up the budgets of the
| less wealthy provinces. These revenues have been generated
| in overwhelmingly large part by resource extraction, and
| the service oriented economies of other provinces show 0
| possibility of taking up the slack for these revenues
| should resource extraction end, they simply don't generate
| enough surplus on a per-capita basis. Without these
| revenues large portions of Canada would face absolutely
| devastating cuts to government revenues and thus services,
| and frankly no government has really put forth any sort of
| solution to this, outside of larger deficits on a temporary
| basis. How Canada navigates this difference between its
| aspirations, a service oriented non-resource economy, and
| the reality on the ground, an absolute dependence on
| resource revenues for current quality of life, is probably
| the biggest question it will face in the 21st Century.
| munk-a wrote:
| At least when it comes to BC and Ontario we've got some
| insanely high margin businesses kicking around now in the
| form of tech companies and banking and investment - I am
| quite skeptical of your assessment that these industries
| would fail to carry the homesteading supplements and,
| honestly, I'm not really certain how much sense those
| supplements continue to make. I don't know if they're
| significantly impacting Canada's ability to project
| territorial claims at this point - most border issues
| outside of underwater resources and transportation
| control (i.e. the northwest passage for shipping) seem
| pretty well settled. Does supporting population living in
| such inhospitable areas really make economic sense to
| Canada?
|
| For non-Canadians, if you live in certain economic
| development zones the Canadian government effectively
| pays you a bunch of money annually (Northern Residents
| Deduction) to just keep living there. We just saw how
| vulnerable these communities are to natural disasters
| like a pandemic - they also often suffer food security
| problems during blizzards and rail outages[1]. If there's
| an economic reason to support communities up there I'm
| all for it, but I really don't see why we want to go out
| of our way to subsidize that life choice.
|
| Also specifically on the topic of BC real-estate-as-a-
| service - it's pretty fucking insane and I have no idea
| why this market is sustaining itself at this point, we're
| all due for a shock one of these days that will hurt
| really bad. That said - BC's economy is still only ~20%
| driven by the real estate market and, if we saw a price
| drop, we'd likely see a lot more labour market
| accessibility go along with it.
|
| 1. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-
| rail-servi...
| munk-a wrote:
| > On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the
| ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from
| politically unstable or unfriendly regimes will replace the oil
| the US otherwise would have imported from Canada.
|
| This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it
| will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given
| supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from
| other sources.
|
| Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average
| production price of that good is increased (assuming there is
| an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the
| removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands
| extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely
| unnoticeable dip in supply.
|
| Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have
| recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary
| as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a
| lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now,
| while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy.
| It is not a feasible long term revenue source.
| eloff wrote:
| > This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that
| it will literally result in more oil from other places, but,
| given supply and demand, it will result in less additional
| oil from other sources.
|
| Given strongly inelastic demand, I would say very marginally
| less.
|
| > Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average
| production price of that good is increased (assuming there is
| an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the
| removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands
| extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely
| unnoticeable dip in supply.
|
| I think we're saying the same thing?
|
| > Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands
| have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in
| Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined.
| There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs
| to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition
| their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source.
|
| Yes, they had better get serious about transitioning the
| economy away from oil before Calgary becomes a ghost town.
| People sure aren't there for the weather.
| munk-a wrote:
| Hrm, my wording might have been a bit off itself but I
| mostly just wanted to highlight and rebut what could be
| worded in your original statement as a sort of fatalist
| "Even if we reduce what's coming from Canada it won't
| effect overall production". I do agree that the impact
| won't solve global warming or potentially cause a
| reflection in gas pump prices, but the supply is definitely
| elastic and while the demand is inelastic in the long term
| short term price fluctuations do actually cause short term
| fluctuations in demand so there is a fair bit of elasticity
| there as well.
|
| People will find ways to reduce their car commute when
| prices spike and, especially, oil power plants will defer
| operation to cheaper (possibly less clean :sigh:)
| alternatives.
| eloff wrote:
| Given how large the oil market is and how generally
| inelastic the demand is, I would wager any overall
| reduction in demand will be marginal. There won't be no
| effect, but I don't see there being a large effect
| either.
| verelo wrote:
| The oil from the tar sands isn't clean, there's no great
| reasons for it to come from Canada (I'm Canadian too before
| anyone jumps on that). Sure, it's extracted under better
| working conditions than many places in the world, but the
| damage to the environment is substantial, it's a very energy
| intensive process and furthermore it is much worse in terms
| of impact and energy use than almost all other means of
| obtaining oil.
|
| Alberta seems to be expecting this oil thing to keep the
| province going forever; it is over. Diversify, try new
| things, for your sake and the sake of the rest of Canada.
| Please stop expecting this to get better. 2015 was a warning,
| it's now officially ending and the time to start moving on
| has passed, every day not diversifying the economy of Alberta
| is just a day of economic procrastination.
|
| Edit: Sure energy security, keep some for us, but let's not
| make it the backbone of our economy.
| eloff wrote:
| > there's no great reasons for it to come from Canada
|
| Energy security, not propping up authoritarian regimes with
| terrible human rights records, not requiring military
| interventions to protect a stable supply of oil.
|
| Maybe not good enough reasons to change the balance, but
| reasons nonetheless.
| hilbertseries wrote:
| The US is the largest oil producer in the world.
| YarickR2 wrote:
| Yet Russia is the largest oil supplier to the US
| nielsbot wrote:
| Alternative: phase out oil. Also solves those problems.
| verelo wrote:
| This. To me it's like being a paper form printing company
| when computers were just becoming mainstream. Your days
| are numbered, deal with it and survive or don't and you
| wont.
| munk-a wrote:
| A lot of innocent people are going to feel a lot of pain
| when that happens (along with completely guilty people of
| course) - I don't think it's avoidable myself but I can
| definitely sympathize with the people fighting to try and
| cushion the transition.
| eloff wrote:
| Right, while you wave your magic wand to try and
| accomplish that, the world will keep using oil.
|
| Obviously, you're right long-term but it's a slow
| transition not a switch we can flip.
| munk-a wrote:
| I think that economies are stubborn beasts, if they can
| avoid change they will. I don't think it's reasonable to
| expect any sort of energy transition to occur gracefully
| while oil is in supply. As the price goes up we'll see
| some industries priced out and over time we'll see early
| adopters convert but we're not going to see a smooth
| transition for the populace at large.
| SECProto wrote:
| > Obviously, you're right long-term but it's a slow
| transition not a switch we can flip.
|
| And trains lend themselves much better to slow declining
| transition than a new pipeline. Can be used for other
| cargo; are a bit more expensive so they are a mild
| financial disincentive; the contaminated material (tanker
| cars) are by definition mobile and therefore easier to
| deal with at EOL.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Do you trust the Kenney government to diversify properly?
| All we've seen so far is them waste a bunch of money on
| Hydrogen.
| munk-a wrote:
| I trust them more than I trusted Clark, but that's not
| saying much.
| eloff wrote:
| Not as far as I can throw them.
| jgon wrote:
| The economy of Alberta depends less on revenues from oil
| and gas than the economy of neighboring British Colombia
| depends on real estate (aka flipping houses), and is
| roughly as diversified as Ontario (in terms of % of economy
| coming from various sectors) which is the other heavy
| weight economy in Canada.
|
| People keep saying that Alberta needs to diversify as
| though this is some sort of epiphany that the province
| refuses to have, but it honestly just reveals the ignorance
| of the person making that claim regarding the current
| economic state of Canadian provinces.
| eloff wrote:
| Yet Alberta is feeling economic pain in a way that
| Ontario and BC do not seem to share.
|
| They aren't diversified enough.
| jgon wrote:
| Yeah because housing hasn't crashed (yet). Also Alberta
| is feeling economic pain only in comparison to the crazy
| boom years prior. It is still literally the highest
| GDP/capita of any province, its unemployment rate ranks
| it 5th amongst Canadian provinces, its government is
| still the least indebted on a per-capita basis of any
| province, it has the highest labor force participation
| rate of any province, etc, etc. The fact that Alberta is
| still paying federal transfer payments to the rest of
| Canada should be sufficient shorthand to convince you
| that the economy is not as dire as you would think when
| viewing it from the outside.
| whatever1 wrote:
| Not sure why they are downvoting you. People here seem to not
| get the concept of supply and demand. Specially when the demand
| is inelastic in the short-medium term
| tamersalama wrote:
| Coincidentally, four major Canadian producers are uniting in an
| alliance for net-zero by 2050. The four are responsible for 90%
| of oil-sands production [1]. To me, this makes Canadian energy
| a more responsible source compared to many US-based and other
| international producers. [2]
|
| [1] https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/major-canadian-oilsands-
| producers...
|
| [2] https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/features/oil-companies-
| net-...
| eloff wrote:
| Well, I don't think we can take all the credit. Suncor is a
| US company, my dad used to work there during the takeover
| when it was Petro Canada.
|
| Edit: I take that back, it's always been a Canadian company.
| I'm thinking about something else, there was another takeover
| or merge with a US company back before 2000. That's before
| the Suncor merger.
|
| Very heartening to see though.
| cmehdy wrote:
| Net-zero amongst companies is often a matter of paying a tax
| on what you still emit or shifting the accounting of
| emissions to not fully measure the entirety of your emissions
| (or to offload that onto other parts of society).
|
| It's fine to encourage companies to try and do things like
| that, but it's also important to keep that congratulatory
| tone in check when it comes to a world that still
| incentivizes profits singularly and doesn't necessarily put
| the price of ecologic externalities that they might deserve.
|
| Net-zero sounds perhaps cool but there should be some
| important education done for everybody to understand that
| it's far from Gross-zero (or near zero), which would be much
| closer to what we actually need to avoid some pretty
| cataclysmic collapses sooner than most people realize.
| kokanator wrote:
| > and the downvotes are because....
|
| The downvotes are because they disagree with your politics.
|
| The tough part is all your statements hold truth. We must face
| that if we want to find real answers.
|
| Down voting is supposed to be used to indicate a comment has no
| relevance to the conversation. Conversely, each of your
| statements must be part of the conversation.
|
| [ upvoted ]
|
| ( instantly downvoted )
| WalterGR wrote:
| _Down voting is supposed to be used to indicate a comment has
| no relevance to the conversation. Conversely, each of your
| statements must be part of the conversation.
|
| [ upvoted ]
|
| ( instantly downvoted )_
|
| This site's guidelines: "Please don't comment about the
| voting on comments. It never does any good, and it makes
| boring reading."
| eloff wrote:
| It's odd because I'm all over the place on the political
| spectrum, and I didn't even take a side here other than to
| discuss how it makes me feel thinking about the place of my
| birth, which will suffer, and expressing my uncertainty in
| whether this is a good or bad thing overall - which is more
| honest than what any of those politicians have done.
|
| Maybe people don't like nuance and prefer to see the world in
| black and white where it agrees or disagrees with their
| views. I don't like to believe that's true, but it probably
| is in general.
| happytoexplain wrote:
| It seems unfair and unnecessarily hostile to speculate
| about a subset of people you just addressed ("Maybe people
| don't like nuance and prefer to see the world in black and
| white") when the only thing you know about them is that
| they disagreed with you for some reason. It is of course
| natural to be annoyed by downvotes, but the urge to start
| painting yourself as a victim and the anonymous mass as
| unthinking tends to create a really bad atmosphere for
| discussion.
|
| Now, if you wanted to criticize the downvote mechanism in
| general, maybe it would be considered off topic by HN
| rules, but it certainly wouldn't be unreasonable.
|
| Edit: Also, perhaps some of your downvotes are due to your
| commenting on your own downvotes. Personally, I always
| downvote those kinds of comments (including the self-
| fulfilling-prophecy version: "I'll be downvoted/flagged for
| this, but..."), _even_ if I find the rest of the post
| interesting, or completely agree with them. But I have no
| idea if other people do that.
| eloff wrote:
| Other reasons I might speculate about are just as
| uncharitable. Such as, they have no understanding of
| microeconomics as applied to a good with inelastic
| demand. Or they just read the first sentence and down
| voted and moved on.
|
| At best I think one could argue I phrased things such
| that it rubbed people the wrong way. Possibly the last
| comment about politicians.
| rcurry wrote:
| I agree - it's a well reasoned post and I enjoyed reading it.
| raclage wrote:
| > I'm not sure which outcome is better for Canada, the USA, or
| the world. I'm pretty sure neither Obama, Trump, not Biden had
| any accurate idea either.
|
| > Or because you think any of those politicians actually have a
| solid, fundamental analysis including unintentional
| consequences? Get real, they did it for political reasons,
| that's why they came out on different sides of the issue based
| on party lines.
|
| Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about what
| "better for the USA" meant that led to them making reasonably
| rational but different decisions? Maybe, maybe not. But I'm not
| sure your assumption that all three of those presidents have a
| worse understanding of this issue than you do is justified.
| eloff wrote:
| > Or maybe Obama, Trump, and Biden had different ideas about
| what "better for the USA" meant that led to them making
| reasonably rational but different decisions?
|
| Yes, that's basically what politics is about in a nutshell,
| making different tradeoffs based on values. I'm not sure any
| of them actually had a sufficiently detailed analysis or
| model to justify having any certainty in their decision.
|
| > But I'm not sure your assumption that all three of those
| presidents have a worse understanding of this issue than you
| do is justified.
|
| Don't get me wrong, I don't understand the issue either. I'm
| just honest about that fact and merely espoused why it's a
| complicated dilemma. This is all unintentional consequences
| and it's not clear which was the best call for the
| environment, the countries involved, or the world at large.
|
| I would have liked to see an in-depth study of the tradeoffs
| and a rational decision based on that rather than a political
| decision, which seems to be what we got all three times.
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| We all need to transition to renewable energy. It's not good
| for Canada to become more invested in the oil economy, just as
| electric cars, trucks and renewables are starting to boom. It's
| neither good for you environmentally or economically if you
| have a 10+ year horizon.
| eloff wrote:
| I think you just read the first sentence of my comment.
| treeman79 wrote:
| So we continue prop up terrorist regimes for the next few
| decades.
|
| Electric is approaching winning on its own merits. Giving
| billions to horrible people in the mean time is not an
| acceptable solution.
|
| Oil independence is great for America and Canada.
| Independence "from" oil is a separate if related matter.
|
| A half way point is to allow drilling and pipeline and add
| taxes to local oil and major tariffs on external oil.
|
| We get oil independence, alternative tech will be encouraged
| to replace expensive oil. Only losers are people that use
| oil.
| tachyonbeam wrote:
| Isn't the US already a net exporter of oil at the moment?
| treeman79 wrote:
| https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=41754
|
| That is a recent thing. It can easily go the other way
| again.
| edoceo wrote:
| I only downvote cause of your comments about voting. Like the
| guidelines say "that shit boring".
|
| Your other points were creative even if a little /edgy/ and
| could(will?) get conversation on their own.
| marricks wrote:
| Our current government structures seem incapable of planning
| more than 1 year out. Without radically higher oil prices it
| seems unlikely we'll see the large scale changes needed.
|
| Shut down as many pipelines as we can, stop producing oil,
| build solar farms, build wind farms, build nuclear, everything
| should be on the table and done simultaneously if we want our
| grandchildren to have a live remotely similar to ours.
|
| The framing of governments and media seems like only half steps
| are possible, but those steps will still kill us.
| throwaway316943 wrote:
| I wish we had a more informed perspective on oil. Yes it's
| very important that we move individual and public
| transportation to electric now that we have the batteries to
| do so. Yes we need to switch energy production to renewables
| and zero carbon generation. Yes we need to get as much heat
| generation as possible for homes, commerce and industry
| switched to electric. All of these have in common the fact
| that we should not be burning oil. But, and this is a big
| but, we still need oil to produce a vast array of materials
| and compounds that our civilization depends on. Medicine and
| agriculture are two huge users that we cannot do without. We
| can't shut down all oil production and drive the cost through
| the roof without destroying healthcare and creating famine.
| Please argue rationally, frame combustion of oil as wasteful
| while lionizing responsible usage that does not contribute to
| atmospheric CO2 and improves the human condition.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Alberta oil sands oil is the most expensive and dirtiest
| oil source on the planet. So when oil demand drops, the
| Alberta oil sands will be the first place to stop
| operating. Plastic will be made from the cheapest oil.
|
| It's also possible that eventually we'll make plastic using
| CO2 as the feed-stock rather than oil.
| marricks wrote:
| The lack of productivity in the conversation comes from
| voices like yours which compromise themselves internally
| before even facing the opposing side.
|
| Obviously if all oil companies magically shutdown today
| human society would be cataclysmically affected. That would
| never going to happen short of a "Childhood's End" style
| alien invasion. Any change, even with extreme external
| pressure, would be gradual.
|
| That's why one must always advocate for the position purely
| and without compromise. Shut down this pipeline, shut down
| the next one that comes up. Etc etc.
|
| "Reasonable" perspectives have not helped the planet at all
| in the past 50 years.
|
| ==========
|
| EDIT:
|
| One more thought, let's consider how EFFECTIVE the oil
| industry has been. Continuous profits, continuous increase
| in production, great subsidies. How did they do this?
|
| Well, for one thing, they knew about global warming was
| caused by burning fossil fuels decades before admitting it
| publicly. They argued from the strongest framing of their
| position: "fossil fuels don't cause global warning so
| nothing should change"
|
| It's only in the past decade or so that they put on a face
| of caring about renewables. That's because public pressure
| grew enough that the strongest portrayal of their side was
| acting like they're already doing everything they can.
|
| Moral of the story, if you want to be affective don't
| compromise. The benefit of caring about the environment is
| at least we don't have to lie about our side, just boldly
| state truths and what should happen.
| stale2002 wrote:
| > That's why one must always advocate for the position
| purely and without compromise.
|
| If that is your perspective then don't expect anyone to
| compromise with you in return.
|
| You drive away both the opposition, as well as people in
| the middle, like myself, with policy positions like the
| one you are giving.
|
| You could not hope to convince much of anyone in the
| middle, if you are unwilling to recognize opposing
| arguments, or address points of criticism.
|
| If you won't budge an inch, then you should expect to
| lose to status quo bias, from people who would just
| choose to do nothing, instead of taking on an extreme
| position.
| epigen wrote:
| That sums up the dilemma.
|
| Killing the pipeline will help but not in a vacuum. Continued
| policy/pressure needs to be applied to move away from oil,
| which is probably best for the sake of the world.
| koolba wrote:
| This is a disaster, fiscally, environmentally, and politically.
| It's a waste of all the money spent thus far, it will lead to an
| increase of statistically more dangerous transportation methods,
| and raise the price of other foreign oil imports to compensate.
| All around just bad policy.
| krastanov wrote:
| Oil being less convenient and more expensive is a win if you
| are a green energy absolutist (like me). It makes other energy
| sources that much more enticing.
| fighterpilot wrote:
| It's simply ridiculous that there's going to be oil brought
| in on trucks which will be significantly less efficient than
| a pipeline.
|
| The only sensible thing would be to have a pipeline, with
| zero trucks doing that work in its place, plus a carbon tax
| on top of that oil to adjust the price.
|
| The carbon tax could be applied uniquely to oil brought on
| the pipeline so as to equalize the cost of that oil with that
| which will instead be brought over on trucks.
|
| Which means no misaligned incentives to increase oil
| consumption but also no inefficiency from trucks doing the
| work in its place. That tax revenue is effectively new wealth
| since it represents the saved inefficiency of the alternative
| of having no pipeline.
| InTheArena wrote:
| Here is your Friday afternoon, dump it when no one things we are
| looking.
|
| I do believe that we should be doing alternative energy at this
| point - but it's also clear that this particular decision has a
| lot of negative side-effects (including greater exports over
| trains and trucks, and increased dependency on oil-fracking and
| bad middle eastern regimes).
| ineedasername wrote:
| What do you mean Friday/no one's looking?
|
| I understand traditionally that's when you break bad news, but
| this is the middle of the week.
| newacct583 wrote:
| I don't know that that's so clear at all. It's an oil pipeline
| to import canadian oil for domestic refiners. Domestic refined
| petroleum consumption peaked in 2018 and has been going _down_
| (and of course has cratered during the pandemic).
|
| There's actually no good case to be made for this thing at all
| from current data. You have to project an increase in demand
| that doesn't seem to be coming.
|
| Bottom line: this pipeline was proposed in the middle of the
| post-peak-oil boom in oil prices. It made sense in an imagined
| world of ever rising oil prices and ever largers SUVs. The
| world kinda moved on.
|
| Also:
|
| > increased dependency on oil-fracking
|
| This is tar sand oil. While not every drop necessarily
| qualifies, depending on your definition, this is process-
| extracted secondary petroleum. It's very much in the same
| category as "fracked" oil in terms of extraction efficiency.
| jonas21 wrote:
| It's Wednesday.
| [deleted]
| invisible wrote:
| There is no mention in the article about the previous permit
| being revoked by the court for being illegal.
| AnimalMuppet wrote:
| Could you supply some specifics/citations for the previous
| permit being revoked for being illegal?
| invisible wrote:
| Sure.
|
| https://www.npr.org/2018/11/09/665994751/judge-puts-
| keystone...
|
| Edit (add NEPA info): https://www.epa.gov/nepa/what-national-
| environmental-policy-...
| kokanator wrote:
| It doesn't say it is illegal rather that the analysis
| wasn't as thorough as necessary.
|
| >In Thursday's ruling, Morris wrote that the State
| Department's analysis of potential environmental effects
| fell short of a "hard look" on the effects of current oil
| prices on the viability of Keystone, cumulative effects of
| greenhouse gas emissions, cultural resources and potential
| oil spills.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > It doesn't say it is illegal
|
| Yes it does.
|
| > rather that the analysis wasn't as thorough as
| necessary.
|
| It was revoked because it was illegally issued (in
| violation of the National Environmental Policy Act and
| thr Administrative Procedure Act) because the analysis
| was not sufficient to meet the legal requirements for
| issuing it.
| maxerickson wrote:
| https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-
| action...
|
| Section 6 doesn't say any of that. (b) talks about an
| exhaustive review, but it just says it would be bad for
| the climate and economy.
|
| The text is the same in the Federal Register. https://www
| .federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01...
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-06-09 23:00 UTC)