Dirtiest Oil on Earth

Its a lot smaller than that, the problem is that it takes a bit of change by EVERYONE.

That's my point … I have a car. I do drive it. But every time I put gas the tank I feel like a total shit. (I had lived 30+ years of my life without owning or having direct access to a vehicle). So I try to find ways around it to do it as little as possible. I didn't tell people not to drive their cars. My point is that everytime you drive when you could walk, cycle, coordiate your trips in the car, or use public transit, you are feeding the Beast. How many cars in rush hour traffic are SOVs? 90%? 95%? What would it take to get some of those people to take even the simple step of thinking of organizing car a car pool? Something NEEDS to motivate people to do this, to make simple (and maybe not-so-simple) lifestyle decisions that they will receive a benefit (whether its real or perceived) from.

A big part of this is available alternatives. Riding bikes in traffic in the rain is a huge problem for a lot of people. In denser cities (or cities that put a higher priority on transit than we do) it's simply more convenient to take the subway. The fancy people who drive solo in SUVs tend to prefer trains and streetcars to buses.

How many cars in rush hour traffic are SUVs? 90%? 95%? What would it take to get some of those people to take even the simple step of thinking of organizing car a car pool?

Its funny that years from now we may look at the invention of the SUV as the destruction of the planet. Or at least the epitome of ignorant attitudes toward the planet.

Its funny that years from now we may look at the invention of the SUV as the destruction of the planet. Or at least the epitome of ignorant attitudes toward the planet.

Ooops … I actually meant SOVs. But the notion may apply to SUVs as well. Isn't the reason SUVs are exempt from emission/fuel efficicy standards for cars because they are categorized as "light trucks" in the US? Actively fighting fuel efficiency standards seems to be the most counter-productive/suicidal thing any vehicle maker could do.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/oilsands-study-confirms-tailings-found-in-groundwater-river-1.2545089

Released on the day before the hockey semi final? surely not trying hope this get missed.

Released on the day before the hockey semi final? surely not trying hope this get missed.

"The Alberta government says the research is of interest, but doesn't confirm anything."

:eyeroll: Of course not.

A big part of this is available alternatives. Riding bikes in traffic in the rain is a huge problem for a lot of people. In denser cities (or cities that put a higher priority on transit than we do) it's simply more convenient to take the subway. The fancy people who drive solo in SUVs tend to prefer trains and streetcars to buses.

For greater Van area, we just plain need better/faster mass transit. There are so many places where the transit options from A to B just plain suck ass.

From my home in LV to office in north Burnaby, an 18 km trip:

By car, in rush hour morning traffic: 15-20 minutes.
By bike, about an hour.
By transit, one hour, 20 minutes (with two transfers).

I wouldn't hesitate to get a monthly pass and take transit 3-4 days/week if the trip were 1/2 hour or less, which is still longer than by my own car.

Ah hell, I'm budgeting for an all-electric car in a year's time so screw gas anyway.

For greater Van area, we just plain need better/faster mass transit.

Mass Transit everywhere works best for people who commute between low-density suburbs (ie the sprawl) and a central urban core. Unfortunately, it is ineffective for people going the reverse direction of commuter traffic or those going from one low-density suburb to another low-density suburb. It is doubtful that transit can ever be made cost effective as long as our cities have this topology. The only real solution, IMHO, is greater densification of outlying areas (I know - "Yikes! I likes my sprawl!") where the economies of moving large numbers of people scale better, or those outlying areas acquire enough of a "critical mass" of a population base to support more "local" employers.

Mass Transit everywhere works best for people who commute between low-density suburbs (ie the sprawl) and a central urban core. Unfortunately, it is ineffective for people going the reverse direction of commuter traffic or those going from one low-density suburb to another low-density suburb. It is doubtful that transit can ever be made cost effective as long as our cities have this topology. The only real solution, IMHO, is greater densification of outlying areas (I know - "Yikes! I likes my sprawl!") where the economies of moving large numbers of people scale better, or those outlying areas acquire enough of a "critical mass" of a population base to support more "local" employers.

That sums up the problem of Sydney as a whole. Given the hilly areas, lots of rivers, creeks, valleys etc, it makes it hard to improve traffic without spending huge, huge amounts of money. The state government is trying to move through these ideas of high density residential "satellite" cities on already established rail lines but the whole apartment living ideal has to fight against the old idea of a single family house on a quarter acre block.

It also doesn't help that given the actual size of our city. Around half our population live 40-50kms to the west of the actual city.

Don't worry with the LNG boom we'll be in the black with a trillion dollar windfall and can invest in all sorts of green technologies!

Don't worry with the LNG boom we'll be in the black with a trillion dollar windfall and can invest in all sorts of green technologies!

overestimating resource extraction revenues, so hot right now

I know these are both meant to be tongue-in-cheek (slightly, anyways). But this is the part of the debate where I do get a bit irritated. There's a bit too much of the "if you use any oil/petroleum product then you don't care" argument. It forces people to feel helpless and then just say "f*ck it". If you read the literature, to decrease our oil dependence doesnt require every person in the world to ditch their cars and never use any more petroleum products ever again. Its a lot smaller than that, the problem is that it takes a bit of change by EVERYONE. Similar to selling a product to make a profit, if the margin is small, then the volume has to be high. Its similar to decrease oil dependence.

i'm not saying that all use of oil related products are evil, just unnecessary consumption when other alternatives exist, whether they be carpooling, transit, cycling or walking or gasp - living closer to where you work. and that lines up exactly with what you're saying; everyone pitching in to make a difference.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/18/3217921/tar-sands-refugees/

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/21/3316881/exxon-ceo-protests-fracking/

As ExxonMobil’s CEO, it’s Rex Tillerson’s job to promote the hydraulic fracturing enabling the recent oil and gas boom, and fight regulatory oversight. The oil company is the biggest natural gas producer in the U.S., relying on the controversial drilling technology to extract it.
The exception is when Tillerson’s $5 million property value might be harmed. Tillerson has joined a lawsuit that cites fracking’s consequences in order to block the construction of a 160-foot water tower next to his and his wife’s Texas home.
The Wall Street Journal reports the tower would supply water to a nearby fracking site, and the plaintiffs argue the project would cause too much noise and traffic from hauling the water from the tower to the drilling site. The water tower, owned by Cross Timbers Water Supply Corporation, “will sell water to oil and gas explorers for fracing [sic] shale formations leading to traffic with heavy trucks on FM 407, creating a noise nuisance and traffic hazards,” the suit says.
Though Tillerson’s name is on the lawsuit, a lawyer representing him said his concern is about the devaluation of his property, not fracking specifically.
When he is acting as Exxon CEO, not a homeowner, Tillerson has lashed out at fracking critics and proponents of regulation. “This type of dysfunctional regulation is holding back the American economic recovery, growth, and global competitiveness,” he said in 2012. Natural gas production “is an old technology just being applied, integrated with some new technologies,” he said in another interview. “So the risks are very manageable.”
In shale regions, less wealthy residents have protested fracking development for impacts more consequential than noise, including water contamination and cancer risk. Exxon’s oil and gas operations and the resulting spills not only sinks property values, but the spills have leveled homes and destroyed regions.
Exxon, which pays Tillerson a total $40.3 million, is staying out of the legal tangle. A spokesperson told the WSJ it “has no involvement in the legal matter.”