81–90 of 195 posts
I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?
As far as I understand it, the pipeline being fought over symbolically rather than for reasons that make analytic sense. If there's an environmental argument, it's that the pipeline will make using shale sands oil from Canada cheaper which is a Bad Thing because we use more stuff when it's cheaper. The correct approach would be to make fees and penalties for environmental impact higher (carbon tax, EPA able to levy b…
I think you are totally correct, except that the `correct approach` only works if you have a functioning and independent (of the regulated) regulatory system able to assess the impact, and levy taxes, fees, and fines to price in all the externalities.
Defunding / freezing these agencies certainly doesn't help their ability to function, and funding the campaigns of (or challengers in the primaries of if need be) the regulators as well as having sympathetic people placed at the top of the regulatory enforcement agencies destroys independence.
The Radio War Nerd podcast people interviewed him about his stay in the DAPL protest camp.
https://player.fm/series/war-nerd-radio-subscriber-feed-1318...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the concern is that the environmental impact of the prior pipeline is non-zero on the local water table. A scale up of this operation is unlikely to improve this situation.
Fracking isn't exactly zero impact on the water table. Either way tell that to the communities which are having trains explode within city limits killing people. Or massive truck spills.
I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?
It used to be that oil would just seep to the surface. That generally stopped once we figured out we could usefully burn it and began draining the easily access sources. I wonder which is "worse" what there was prior to petroleum becoming a commodity or the pipeline leaks that happen now. There are well known ocean seeps that have been ongoing for tens or hundreds of thousands of years[1]: >Researchers have found tha…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If neither, then leave the oil in the ground. Nothing is ever perfectly safe. Nothing you do ever has no impact. Everything in life is about tradeoffs, and the right thing to do is pick the best one. NOT wait for the perfect one!
Waiting generally has a very low environmental impact. Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Unbridled growth is not the only option.
...said no politician, ever. This proposition may even be true, but it's a terrible argument.
I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?
It's certainly safer for the environment in general in terms of oil spills but the communities that would suffer from truck or trail spills are different from the communities that would suffer from pipeline spills. And since the former don't get to sue but the later do there's a certain pressure against pipelines in general. But on the other hand pipelines are more cost effective than other means of transport. That m…
Also higher prices mean more oil is exctracted - and sometimes more is used to do the extraction (IE, more marginal EROEI projects are undertaken)
I always wonder what's the best way to assess environmental impact of the oil pipeline. Sure, it's going to leak at some point, and create a mess that may never get cleaned up. However, is it safer (or energy efficient) than carrying the oil on trains/trucks?
Pipelines are much safer than trains or trucks at delivering oil or LNG. That subject is not up for debate. The problem is that when you build this infrastructure, it comes along with long-term financial contracts. Which is to say, if you build it, you're gonna use it. As a result, it discourages investments in other energy infrastructure projects. Once the pipeline is in, we are stuck with it until it ages out of us…
What does it mean to be safer in this context? Pipelines have fewer spills than trucks, but a truck spill is generally limited to one truck's worth of oil whereas a pipe can spill a huge amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"unanimously passed" - the only false flag is the outside pundits and paid protestors who are going to get in trouble for working in North Dakota and not filing their taxes. The state is rather unhappy, particularly given who the likely donors are and this is causing a budget problem for the state.
An easy way to demonstrate the truth of the "paid protesters" claim is to show any way one can sign up to be a paid protestor. I have been doing some unpaid protesting and wouldn't mind a check, to be honest. Until then: FAKE NEWS!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Friends of mine have been up there on their own, or donating money and goods. Blaming "paid protesters" is self-deception. What does it benefit you to believe that people aren't doing this because they believe in it?
Oh, I believe some of them believe in it, as I said I have relatives there. On the other hand, there are paid organizers from various groups here. One doesn't change the other. Plus, I'm just sick of articles like this that just lie and don't check facts. I expect better of the BBC.