http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/24/us-usa-keystone-idUSKBN0LS2FH20150224

"Through this bill, the United States Congress attempts to circumvent longstanding and proven processes for determining whether or not building and operating a cross-border pipeline serves the national interest," he wrote in his veto message.

Obama has played down Keystone XL's ability to create jobs and raised questions about its effects on climate change. Environmentalists, who made up part of the coalition that elected the president in 2008 and 2012, oppose the project because of carbon emissions involved in getting the oil it would carry out of Canadian tar sands.

“The president’s veto of the Keystone jobs bill is a national embarrassment," said Republican House Speaker John Boehner. "The president is just too close to environmental extremists to stand up for America’s workers. He’s too invested in left-fringe politics to do what presidents are called on to do, and that’s put the national interest first."

Poll question: You agree with Obama's veto of the Keystone Pipeline?

Poll result (23 votes) Yes we need to investigate further (1 votes) Vote Yes because this does not serve national interest (18 votes) Vote No because domestic oil serves national interests (4 votes) Vote

considering there are already so many pipelines of a similar nature criss-crossing the country already?

http://data-informed.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/National-Pipeline-Map-650x440.jpg

http://www.sensysmag.com/spatialsustain/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/all_pipe.jpg

and if this one isn't built then the oil that the pipeline would carry would be shipped via trains or trucks? which are generally less safe and more environmentally hazardous than the pipeline?

i don't get it.

Therefore all logic, economics, etc goes out the window.


______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

it seems like Obama and the Dems are against the XL pipeline b/c the Repubs favor it.

i've not heard or read anything particularly persuasive from the pipeline opponents.

If you check some of the international news wires, there are a lot of eyes on Obama's actions versus his rhetoric. The China accord was received very well abroad. But it would all be for naught if he then turns around and approves Keystone.

And yes, it is true that Keystone by itself isn't going to add much to the world's total carbon output. But it's also true that adding 830k barrels a day would increase the U.S.'s output by almost 10%. And it is also true that tar sands oil burns 17% dirtier. The point is that the rate of extraction is just as important (if not moreso) than the total output when it comes to the issue of global warming.

Ultimately, Keystone is largely a symbolic gesture. But when the end goal is whether we burn ourselves to death in 50 years or 500 years, then it's a massively important one.

For me, there's a lot to be disappointment when it comes to Obama, but vetoing Keystone isn't one of them.

>Ultimately, Keystone is largely a symbolic gesture.

...is why i'm not impressed by the veto.

but i'm not mad about it either.

But then my follow up question to you is... do you care about the issue of global warming at all?

I will say that I'm keenly aware of the various ways it's affecting the planet (acidification, "black" water, permafrost melt, algae blooms, ice melts, etc.), and because of that I care deeply about this issue. I'm actually glad the State Department said that it's a bigger issue than terrorism, because it is. Global warming is not something that can be fixed overnight, and fact is it will take decades (if not longer) to undo the effects and get on a path where we're not screwing ourselves.

People can talk about today's economics and whatever all they want, but fact is if we want a planet for our grandkids (or kids) to live on, then we need to start now.


Edit: And I'm speculating here, but I have a feeling Obama does not want his legacy to ever be tainted by the notion that he had a chance to do *something*, but didn't do enough.

>But then my follow up question to you is... do you care about
>the issue of global warming at all?

no? yes?

>People can talk about today's economics and whatever all they
>want, but fact is if we want a planet for our grandkids (or
>kids) to live on, then we need to start now.

^ i have no kids and don't want to. so i'm not worried about leaving a planet for kids or grandkids.

fuck kids.

>Edit: And I'm speculating here, but I have a feeling Obama
>does not want his legacy to ever be tainted by the notion that
>he had a chance to do *something*, but didn't do enough.

sure. and stopping one pipeline is not going to do much for his legacy on environmental issues. but maybe i don't see it.

But I didn't realize that whether or not you want kids has any bearing on national policy with global ramifications.

Your original position was about the veto as "politics as usual". And I provided several arguments showing that it's not, which notably you have not acknowledged in the slightest.

Instead you want to cherry pick about some throwaway statements about kids.

It's fine, I get it. Your mind is already made up. Instead of debating the actual merits of my position like what global leaders are saying or the actual science behind global warming, you'd rather talk about how you hate kids.

It's cool, not everyone is openminded.

"People can talk about today's economics and whatever all they want, but fact is if we want a planet for our grandkids (or kids) to live on, then we need to start now."

...i said i don't have kids so i don't care about creating a planet for my kids/grandkids.

sorry that the 'WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN' trump card didn't work in this discussion the way you thought it would.

>But I didn't realize that whether or not you want kids has
>any bearing on national policy with global ramifications.

it doesn't. but YOU brought up the kids, homie. LOL

>Your original position was about the veto as "politics as
>usual". And I provided several arguments showing that it's
>not, which notably you have not acknowledged in the slightest.

oh well let me acknowledge it here.

Obama vetoed to save face in international politics. as usual.

did i acknowledge it?

>Instead you want to cherry pick about some throwaway
>statements about kids.

that YOU made, homie.

>It's fine, I get it. Your mind is already made up. Instead
>of debating the actual merits of my position like what global
>leaders are saying or the actual science behind global
>warming, you'd rather talk about how you hate kids.

you brought up the kids, pal.

and it's been said that this Keystone veto won't have much impact on global warming, right? i thought i read that. maybe i didn't.

if you can tell me that this veto means the weather won't get freakier for me here in Chicago then i'm all for it. if you can show me that this veto means the polar ice will re-freeze then i'm about to print some 'FUCK THAT KEYSTONE BULLSHIT' t-shirts. if you can show me that the veto means an end to the drought conditions in Cali so i don't have to take 5 minute showers when i visit my folks out there then i'll make some 'KEYSTONE IS CRAPSTONE' signs and we get it on and popping.

>It's cool, not everyone is openminded.

some ppl are so closed minded they think the only open minds are the ones that agree with them.

that's a shame.

even the kids can see that.

I don't know if you have kids or not, so why would I be talking about *your* kids? It's fine if you don't have, or like, kids. The point of that statement was to provide a timeframe of the effects of global warming. Yes, kids tugs on the heartstrings, but no, it's not the crux of the argument. I alluded to this with the "50 years or 500 years" statement.

> it doesn't. but YOU brought up the kids, homie. LOL

And you're still talking about kids without talking about my actual points.

> oh well let me acknowledge it here.
> Obama vetoed to save face in international politics. as usual.
> did i acknowledge it?

Thanks, you did. Note that it directly refutes your original point.

> that YOU made, homie.

Still focused on the kids?

> you brought up the kids, pal.

And still focused on the kids. Point wasn't about the kids, point was about the timeframe.

> and it's been said that this Keystone veto won't have much impact on global warming, right?
> i thought i read that. maybe didn't.

Wrong. You don't understand the issue. The Keystone pipeline *itself* has a disputable impact on global warming (depending on who you ask). The Keystone *VETO* has major impact regarding global policy. There is a massive difference here.

> if you can tell me that this veto means the weather won't get freakier for me here in Chicago
> then i'm all for it. if you can show me that this veto means the polar ice will re-freeze then
> i'm about to print some 'FUCK THAT KEYSTONE BULLSHIT' t-shirts. if you can show me that the veto
> means an end to the drought conditions in Cali so i don't have to take 5 minute showers when i
> visit my folks out there then i'll make some 'KEYSTONE IS CRAPSTONE' signs and we get it on and
> popping.

Didn't I already address this before you typed all that anecdotal stuff? Like I said in my first post, the China accord was well received across the world, but it means squat if Obama turns around and approves Keystone. And in my second post, I talked about how it will take decades to fix global warming. So no, I'm sorry, the veto itself doesn't directly fix YOUR Chicago weather, but it's an impactful decision for decades to come.

> some ppl are so closed minded they think the only open minds are the ones that agree with them.

You don't have to agree with me. But you're not exactly providing actual evidence that is changing my mind. I'm sorry, like I said, your personal experiences have no bearing on national policy.

Here's some evidence right here:

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/12/09/us-china-global-warming-deal-could-signal-shift-on-climate-change

You want to provide some reputable links to support your position now?

>I don't know if you have kids or not, so why would I be
>talking about *your* kids? It's fine if you don't have, or
>like, kids. The point of that statement was to provide a
>timeframe of the effects of global warming. Yes, kids tugs on
>the heartstrings, but no, it's not the crux of the argument.
>I alluded to this with the "50 years or 500 years" statement.

oh okay. so you brought up kids for nothing. right on.

>> it doesn't. but YOU brought up the kids, homie. LOL
>
>And you're still talking about kids without talking about my
>actual points.

yeah b/c you brought a strawman into the discussion. i foolishly addressed it. my bad.

>> oh well let me acknowledge it here.
>> Obama vetoed to save face in international politics. as
>usual.
>> did i acknowledge it?
>
>Thanks, you did. Note that it directly refutes your original
>point.

that's fine w/me. b/c my mind is open. i'm willing to change my original position.

my current position is that this Keystone veto is more about politics - int'l and domestic - than about anything else. like global warming.

>> that YOU made, homie.
>
>Still focused on the kids?
>
>> you brought up the kids, pal.
>
>And still focused on the kids. Point wasn't about the kids,
>point was about the timeframe.

right. and when i made those replies you hadn't explained why you brought up the kids, buddy.

is this your first day on the Internet?

>> and it's been said that this Keystone veto won't have much
>impact on global warming, right?
>> i thought i read that. maybe didn't.
>
>Wrong. You don't understand the issue. The Keystone pipeline
>*itself* has a disputable impact on global warming (depending
>on who you ask).

which...is....what i said? LOL. but okay.

The Keystone *VETO* has major impact
>regarding global policy. There is a massive difference here.

yeah. okay. so: international politics this is about. not global warming. got it.

>> if you can tell me that this veto means the weather won't
>get freakier for me here in Chicago
>> then i'm all for it. if you can show me that this veto means
>the polar ice will re-freeze then
>> i'm about to print some 'FUCK THAT KEYSTONE BULLSHIT'
>t-shirts. if you can show me that the veto
>> means an end to the drought conditions in Cali so i don't
>have to take 5 minute showers when i
>> visit my folks out there then i'll make some 'KEYSTONE IS
>CRAPSTONE' signs and we get it on and
>> popping.
>
>Didn't I already address this before you typed all that
>anecdotal stuff?

i dum so i probably missed it.

Like I said in my first post, the China
>accord was well received across the world, but it means squat
>if Obama turns around and approves Keystone. And in my second
>post, I talked about how it will take decades to fix global
>warming. So no, I'm sorry, the veto itself doesn't directly
>fix YOUR Chicago weather, but it's an impactful decision for
>decades to come.

so it won't fix my weather.

so why should i care about it?

oh, b/c int'l politics?

or b/c it'll have impact in 50 or 500 yrs? when i'll be long dead?

right on.

>You don't have to agree with me.

thanks for the permission.

But you're not exactly
>providing actual evidence that is changing my mind.

i'm not trying to.

I'm
>sorry, like I said, your personal experiences have no bearing
>on national policy.

clearly.

>Here's some evidence right here:
>
>http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/world-report/2014/12/09/us-china-global-warming-deal-could-signal-shift-on-climate-change
>
>You want to provide some reputable links to support your
>position now?

i'm not trying to persuade anyone here.

but i understand the point that approving Keystone would fly in the face of the agreement Obama made w/China as related to climate change efforts. so i get the veto in that regard.

it's like...they agreed to limit fossil fuel consumption or som'n and so to agree to build a pipeline that'll make it easier to consume a fossil fuel is kinda backassward.

but i still wonder if not building this one pipeline will do much to limit fossil fuel consumption. it won't help increase it but i expect there will be other efforts geared at easing our consumption of fossil fuel. which is why i'm not that jazzed about this veto, though i do understand it a bit better now.

http://qz.com/348053/why-native-americans-are-fighting-keystone-xl/

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

http://i.imgur.com/fXZlBDG.jpg

Aka shove the talk
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

My comment was directed to the article, not to you. Sorry for the implication.
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

the reservation is primarily in Todd County, the big red square on this map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Rosebudreservationmap.png

the XL pipeline won't touch Todd County. all of the SD counties that will have the pipeline run through them are highlighted on this map. Todd isn't one of them from what i can see:

https://dakotarural.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/keystone-xl-pipeline-southdakota-663.jpg

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/03/keystone-xl-emissions-state-department_n_4892806.html

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

crude whatever from Canada to where ever it goes in the USA.

increased oil production = bad.

i think i get it.

i'm not persuaded.

making oil more difficult to get won't help ween us off oil use. it'll just drive up the cost, i think.

we get weened off oil when there are alternative energy sources that're convenient and cheap. give us som'n as convenient and cheap as oil and we'll use it.

It's a shit entree for the environment. That industry is corrupt as fuck and regulations mean nothing to these people. Any government regulations put in place will get ignored and an accident will happen that destroys the livelihoods of many people.

what makes this one so different and more dangerous than those?

______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

from what i understand, it won't create nearly the jobs its supporters try to claim, especially long-term ones, and it's environmentally very dangerous and destructive. we also need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. this veto alone won't accomplish that, but at least it's on message.

http://america.aljazeera.com/content/dam/ajam/images/articles/20131108-train-derail-alabama.jpg

the very real and important risks transporting fuel is a different kind of danger. that needs to be better regulated and conducted, but it will continue happening regardless of whether the pipeline is built.

i'll add that canada destroying its environment is not really in the u.s.' best interests either because they are allies and the destruction spreads, literally and psychologically.

>i'll add that canada destroying its environment is not really
>in the u.s.' best interests either because they are allies and
>the destruction spreads, literally and psychologically.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVUSzutT9Gg

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

then i'm still not persuaded.

meaning not being persuaded are you implicitly siding with the devil you know (aka the oil industry)? their evils born out of our basic needs, where it's more comfortable moving forward with them than going with a side that doesn't really have a plan except to stop them?

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

it seems silly - like it's primarily about politics.

stopping this pipeline won't hurt the oil industry. it won't put us on the road away from oil dependence. it won't save the environment. but it will make the GOP mad.

this veto is about making the GOP mad. and it's juvenile.

... amurica

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

we know it's not perfect. studies around it are inconclusive mostly because so many interests are involved, but the broader question on enabling our dependance seems relatively clear. engaging in multi-year multi-state projects to continue down a path which should be obsolete in 50 years...

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

then i do get it and i just disagree.

which makes plans like this ask the national question are we or are we not trying to get out of fossil fuel dependance? maybe i missed that in a state of the union address.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

don't be fooled.

we are not.

someone talks about the politics below. can we get politicians to admit this simple fact? on both sides everyone wants to tak around what should be black and white, so that they can appear to be paying attention to environmental concerns while primarily being motivated by financial ones.

we need to be working toward planned obsolescence but we are not. that is the root of the problem, imho. keystone is just a symptom.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

We're definitely not trying to get away from fossil fuel. Especially not since the "peak production" lie was debunked years ago.

Do you really want us to abandon fossil fuels? Imagine the economic implications. Prices on everything would skyrocket. The American dollar would plummet. Seriously, it would be bad.

The environment is very important...I'll never say it's not. But economics have to be #1. How many people cared about the environment in 2008? Nobody...we wanted jobs. And the job market is still crap despite the government's lies about it (both Dems and Repubs lie about it so don't go there).

______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

.

fuck the environment

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Especially emphasized by the part where I said the environment is very important. Have fun
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

we both know they're full of shit.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

For sure
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

It's a thing to behold.

You're right that it's unrealistic to expect the country, or the world, to drop fossil fuels immediately (not that any serious person is expecting that).

Basically everything else you just said is shit.

http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/simgad/5001584589336596101

a Keystone add just popped up


***
I'm tryna be better off, not better than...

From non renewable energy sources is the way to go.
It's not just an economic issue, but one of global well being.
I support the veto and I hope further actions are taken to enhance our energy options and reduce our damage to the planet.
These are ultimately "pipe dreams" though. But I'll continue to do my part.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2013/02/14/5-myths-about-keystone-xl-debunked/192668#energysecurity

I don't always post from third-party, alt.news sites because they're often the brainchild of poor journalism. This one echoes most of my concerns, and is reasonably well-researched, with citations that actually fit the context.

My general understanding is the Keystone will not improve our energy independence, creates relatively few jobs in relation to the overall costs of construction, and by the time the oil reaches refineries in the Gulf will actually use more power to refine than it supplies -- it's a net loss venture.

What it does promise is to make a handful of people very rich at the cost of taxpayers and the environment.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

THEY'RE 'ALT' OKAY??????

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

environmental concerns might be legit but the repubs were correct about it simulating the economy

rather than pipeline.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Dream Act. ACA. The list is long and nobody is above criticism on that


______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

There is more to life than "the economy."

The government routinely exempts large projects from environmental restrictions. So why is this one being scrutinized to oblivion? Because Democrats don't want it to, and they have the veto power. In the last year alone, the state of CA has exempted the high speed rail and the new Sacramento Kings arena from environmental impact studies just to ram them through. The government can do whatever the hell it wants regardless of environmental impacts. Let's not lie to ourselves, here.

______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

congrats you get to work toward raising a family in a place that won't be fit for them to live in.

pardon my hyperbole but matching tones nah meen?

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and lies. No consistency. I thought Neel Kashkari made a great point when he said that if Jerry is going to exempt things like the stadium and high speed rail, why not relax the rules for everyone and make business easier to do in CA? Whether or not you agree with relaxing the laws, you have to give him his point on that

______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

http://davidbrin.blogspot.com/2015/02/moving-goalposts-refusal-to-negotiate.html

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

Im worked up and misread your comment. Sorry
______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

elsewhere i've admitted the biggest problem is the 'other' side doesn't have a feasible plan. but its the dividing of the issue that's the biggest culprit. we should all be on the same playing field when offering up solutions.

█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
Big PEMFin H & z's
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1 thing, a musician." � Miles

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

I get you there. To me, the problem starts with politics itself. A lot of politicians are neutered by their ties to special interests, so all they can do is window-dress their actions while all they are really doing is trying to maintain funding aka votes. If Obama actively tried to nix the pipeline, he knows he'd hurt the economy and lose votes for the dems because of those consequences. So he's kicking the can.

>elsewhere i've admitted the biggest problem is the 'other'
>side doesn't have a feasible plan. but its the dividing of the
>issue that's the biggest culprit. we should all be on the
>same playing field when offering up solutions.
>
>█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
>Big PEMFin H & z's
>"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am 1
>thing, a musician." � Miles
>
>"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."


______________________________
http://i.imgur.com/81XSukd.jpg

Oil is a very messy business and I for one do not believe that it will be 99.9% safe for the environment or handled responsibly. Corporate media pundits and a lobbied Congress are exaggerating figures. It will benefit few at the expense of millions. They will say anything to get it passed through and then after that......whatever happens happens.

How the huge corporation BP handled things in the gulf was an eye opener. They were so unprepared and full of it that I was greatly disappointed. I've heard of destroyed environments in Africa (i.e. Nigeria) due to oil spills/etc. but the BP one was right in our own backyards....in the Gulf of Mexico and they couldn't do a damn thing about it. Who knows what true lasting effects that spill caused. The tumorous shrimp that was harvested, the many jobs lost.......and those were things that we know about.

After that whole fiasco, why would anyone have any faith in a responsible oil industry? A fuck up is inevitable and it will hurt many. After that they will probably pull a 'Monsanto' and make it so you can't sue them and point the blame elsewhere.

I knew plenty of people that had no qualified opinion, including myself, but everyone I knew/know with an opinion was vehemently opposed.


~~~~~~~~~
"This is the streets, and I am the trap." � Jay Bilas
http://www.popmatters.com/pm/archive/contributor/517
Hip Hop Handbook: http://tinyurl.com/ll4kzz

but it's also not obvious to me what the environmental effects might be. It's actually a tricky problem. What is the environmental damage if such a pipeline works properly? What is the likelihood of a significant failure? What is the environmental damage if such a failure occurs? Maybe most important, how do those environmental risks compare to those of shipping similar quantities of oil by train or truck?

A lot of people seem to think that if there's no pipeline then it just puts the Canadian tar sands out of business, but that is obviously not the case. Given that this oil will be drilled (or more to the point: given that our need to cut back on fossil fuels, however legitimate it indeed is, is a separate issue), what is the environmentally-optimal course of action? I'm really not sure. And I hope we aren't just taking numbers from advocacy groups. It's not just that people have axes to grind, it's that these calculations really are complex.

For the most part, I assume it's a minor issue either way. It just gives us all a reason to despise one another, which I'm all for.