Things are never as simple as politicians make them out to be.

[uscitizen]

Palin's Pipeline: Clean Energy for the Lower 48 or Power for the Tar Sands?
By Abby Schultz, InsideClimate News Jun 29, 2009
Alaska-Pipeline.jpg Where the natural gas from the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline will end up is a murky question tied up in a 30-year-old treaty, expansion of Canadian tar sands operations, and trends in natural gas supplies both in the United States and in Canada.

Environmentalists fear at least half of the relatively clean-burning Alaskan North Slope gas will end up fueling tar sands operations in Alberta, where the pipeline will end, instead of coming to the lower 48 states to replace carbon-intensive coal in power plants. The tar sands operations already consume about 20 percent of Canada’s natural gas, and they are expected to need as much as twice that by 2035.

Palin's Pipeline: Clean Energy for the Lower 48 or Power for the Tar Sands? | InsideClimate News

 

[uscitizen]

Tar sands oil seems to be a bit like ethanol production.

 

[RGR]

Tar sands oil seems to be a bit like ethanol production.

In what way?

 

[danigold]

Pipelines and things like that are or can be very harmful to our environment and to our native animals. I dont really agree with them.

 

[RGR]

Pipelines and things like that are or can be very harmful to our environment and to our native animals. I dont really agree with them.

Do you protest by not using any products, or derivatives of any products, that are at any time in their lifecycle transported through one?

A common issue among modern eco-leaning folks in rich countries is utilizing all the advantages that modern industry provides while claiming they shouldn't be done, or they aren't necessary, or that they don't like them for various eco reasons. An example would be counting the SUVs driven to a greenpeace meetings. Or the people who flew there, versus taking a more eco-friendly means of transport.