The Machiavellian battle against climate change using Energy East









This entry was posted in Climate Change, Energy East, Pipelines. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to The Machiavellian battle against climate change using Energy East

  1. Doug Cotton says:








  3. Fritz says:




  4. Pingback: On Pragmatic Environmentalism: Being the Responsible Adult in the Room | A Chemist in Langley

  5. Pingback: A Chemist in Langley’s take on Energy East | A Chemist in Langley


  7. CriticalThought says:

    Alberta is about to set a 100Mt cap on oil sands emissions (just as you suggest the do) with current emissions at ~70Mt:

    Kinder Morgan Expansion adds ~20Mt so you’re left with 10Mt to spare. If KM goes ahead, Energy East would overshoot emissions cap by ~20Mt. If EE goes ahead KM cannot. So which pipeline would you choose to approve?

    Also, trains are safer. See the Royal Society of Canada you linked elsewhere on your blog, table 1.4: “The rate of incidents per volume transported was lowest for rail transportation. This disparity remained consistent in 2014, when only one crude-by-rail spill occurred while transporting a total volume of 9,339,576 m^3 of oil”

    And don’t cite the Fraser Institute as a counter, they are anything but credible:


    • Blair says:

      So your argument against the data which is presented in the Fraser Institute report is a Wikipedia article? The Fraser Institute report data has been parsed and evaluated by people on both sides of the debate and all agree with its findings. Like it or not, the data is sound. But don’t worry because a single anonymous Wikipedia editor says otherwise so we will go with that instead.


      • CriticalThought says:

        FFS Blair use your head. Are you telling me you see nothing wrong with libertarian think tanks that have supported the tobacco industries claims that smoking and cancer aren’t related, and that are known climate science deniers? Heck, they even get funded by ExxonMobil. All I asked for was a credible scientific study, and you still haven’t provided that. Instead you dodged the question and deflected the argument. Your true colors are beginning to show.

        a) Given that you agree with the need for a reduction in ABs emissions – out of the current proposals, which pipeline do you support given that only 1 can theoretically be approved and have AB meet its emissions targets?

        b) Provide a credible scientific study / report that shows oil-by-pipeline is overwhelmingly the safest mode of transportation. I provided you with one, and you simply ignored the statement all together and deflected the argument.

        >”Like it or not, the data is sound.”

        Then prove it by giving me a credible source and not this hogwash bullshit from a libertarian think tank. Saying “data is sound” isn’t saying much when it’s the interpretation of data that really matters. Are you denying the statement in the report by Royal Society of Canada? Are you cherry picking? If you want to convince me, and others that oil-by-pipeline is overwhelmingly safer than oil-by-rail then do so with credible sources… is that too difficult to ask for?


      • Blair says:

        The research conducted by the Fraser Institute is transparent. They describe their methodology and how they generated their data and their results have been scrutinized heavily by people on both sides of the debate and deemed to be legitimate by both pro- and anti-pipeline people. Ad hominem arguments have no place in this discussion. The RSC report, meanwhile, limits the dataset they use and the time-frame involved so has its own faults. Saying you don’t like the data because of its source is simply a non-starter in this discussion. If you have legitimate beefs about the data they used or how they manipulated the data that is one thing, but simply claiming you want a study produced by someone else is not how science works.


  8. CriticalThought says:

    So you have at least two studies – One study says oil-by-rail is safer but the data is limited – however trends are similar in both US and Canada. The other study, produced by a known libertarian think tank (ie. known for misleading the public) says oil-by-pipeline is overwhelmingly safer. Out of those two studies, rather than saying more data is needed you opt to outright negate the findings of the RSC study and fully support the findings produced by the known controversial Fraser Institute… and you want to talk about how science works? Start by saying that no definitive answer yet exists, more data and studies are needed, and if you really must choose sides state that the FI study ‘suggests’ that oil-by-pipeline is safer. That’s not at all what you have done though. Rather you have cherry picked your argument and propped it upon a golden pedestal. That’s not science, that’s a clear and personal bias being lauded under the banner of science.

    I’m still waiting to hear which single pipeline you suggest be given the go-ahead and which one be rejected based on ABs 100Mt cap. Why have you refused to address this question?


    • Blair says:

      No I have looked at the data used in the two studies and established that the RSC study used a smaller subset of the larger dataset used by the Fraser Institute report. Anyone who knows data analysis knows that when offered two data sources one of which uses only a subset of the other, you rely on the analysis that includes the entire dataset. More data allows for more effective analysis and an increased ability to pull out trends. Remember, I am not the only one who has agreed to this. So have every activist group that analyzed the data. They do not challenge this analysis even though they have challenged virtually everything else that comes from this group. That should tell you something.


      • CriticalThought says:

        That’s not necessarily true by any means: you rely on quality, now quantity. If the subset represents robust data while the larger data set does not then you use the subset. Including ambiguous data or outliers will only serve to skew the trends. Anyone who knows data analysis knows this… this begs the question then: why did the RSC report opt to omit the larger data set, while the FI did not? Understanding that no study is perfect, as you point to with the RSC findings, what criticisms do you have towards the FI study?

        Again, I would add that it is certainly beyond scientific to take a single study and draw conclusions based on it alone. Scientific conclusions that are well established, robust, are the result of consensus within scientific literature.

        And lastly, (I truly believe you’re trolling me now and got a good chuckle out of your non-response, yet again) “I’m still waiting to hear which single pipeline you suggest be given the go-ahead and which one be rejected based on ABs 100Mt cap.”


      • Blair says:

        The RSC used the same StatsCan data but restricted their work to a couple years while acknowledging that the amount of material shipped was ramping up. The Fraser Institute included the entire dataset provided by StatsCan. The Fraser report also did additional analyses including steps to exclude “spills” that while reportable did not consist of releases to the environment (i.e. releases into containment facilities designed to contain a spill).

        As I point out the best brains on both side of the debate agree that the Fraser Report is reputable so the fact that you choose not to is certainly your choice but does not represent the consensus of both sides of the debate. The whole point of evidence-based decision-making is identifying the best data that is accepted by both sides and using that as the basis of discussions and deliberations.

        As for the 100 MT question, I have ignored that because we both know that the 100 MT target is aspirational and not a regulatory number. Were it so then our regulators would place it in the rules.

        To explain, the 100 MT was based on a sensitivity number that has since changed. The environmental activists have not been keeping up with the science of climate change and if the climate sensitivity changes so will the target. I will believe a target when it is placed in a regulation by a regulator. Until then I will operate using the current state of the science in climate change and not rely on targets that are bound to change (move).


  9. CriticalThought says:

    Acknowledging that the amount of material shipped was ramping up doesn’t all of a sudden remove their findings that oil-by-rail is safer than oil-by-pipeline given their methodology. Two different methods came to different conclusions using the same, or at least part of the same, data. Something I already said previously. From the sounds of it, both analysis are legitimate. You mention that the FI excluded ‘spills’ occurring outside of the ‘environment’… can you expand on this? My initial impression is that pipelines, no matter their location, are not supposed to release their product unintentionally. Correct me if I’m wrong.

    You mention the ‘best brains on both side of the debate’ agree. Can you provide any links to articles written by both sides? I’m unaware of who these experts are so I could use some guidance in my ‘googling.’

    The 100Mt is a work in progress, and while not in the rule books yet, it is currently being discussed. As this is the current goal I’m not sure why you refuse to speculate on which pipeline you think would best fit this current cap set by AB’s climate leadership plan (I’m more in favor of Energy East if that makes you feel any better). And yes, I’m well aware of equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS and TCS for that matter). While you claim a wide, moving range of values this is far from the truth of current state of the science in climate change. It should also be noted that ECS is right-skewed (ie. the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases). Something tells me the regulators will base their targets on IPCC estimates which have been broadly consistent over the last three IPCC assessments, and not those proposed by the likes of Curry, Spencer, and other ‘contrarians.’



Leave a Reply to Blair Cancel reply


You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s
