4 ms·

This is why we participated in the protest against the pipeline that went over the Missouri and through tribal lands a few years ago. A crack over the river wou

This is why we participated in the protest against the pipeline that went over the Missouri and through tribal lands a few years ago. A crack over the river would be devastating to the surrounding communities. The claims that it is unlikely we're bogus as it's been shown time after time. Worse yet, we can't trust the officials to do the right thing. It's more likely they'd hide or downplay it than make sure it's properly taken care of.

whatshisface 7y ago
A true pro-pipeline official would crack down on maintenance and inspections and demand that the pipeline never spill. These officials might think that they are pro-pipeline, but in reality they're pushing us towards a future where pipelines are banned entirely. It's ironic that in addition to polluting the environment in a way that sacrifices long-term health for short-term gain, they are also ruining the political environment in a way that helps them now but will make them pay in the future.
- vkou 7y ago
  Their reward structures, and the reward structures of the people who bought them prioritize short-term planning over long-term planning. Twenty years from now, oil extraction may well be banned, regardless of whether pipelines spill under their watch. But the profits from slap-dash operation can be made today.
kortilla 7y ago
>The claims that it is unlikely we're bogus as it's been shown time after time. What are the stats on gallons spilled from pipelines vs trucks vs trains?
- SeyelentEco 7y ago
  The fact that there are more evil evils doesn't counter act the argument. What a weird argument to make... It's like the"why are we funding research into X when heart disease kills more people". "Why are we focusing on guns when cars kill more people". Maybe the answer is we don't ship dangerous materials across vast distances using methods that are dangerous to the local communities. Why does the answer have to be whatever the cheapest most convenient solution for the company? It should be the solution is least likely to cause serious harm and meets the needs of the communities it impacts.
  - soperj 7y ago
    Do you drive? Do you use plastic? Then you're part of the reason these pipelines exist in first place. Without demand, they're unnecessary. When there's demand there, they're gonna get the product to market, whether it's by pipeline or truck or rail. So not really a weird argument.
    - SeyelentEco 7y ago
      Did I say that I didn't want oil to exist or for it to not be made available? I said that we shouldn't just take whatever cheapest solution the company proposes. These companies are not hurting for profits. Making them try a little harder to come up with solutions for transportation that doesn't endanger countless people with far reaching effects. This is about minimizing the risk when something happens. Something ALWAYS happens... maybe not in 1 year or 5 years but in 10, 20, 30 years, something will happen... we need to minimize the damage when that happens.
    - munk-a 7y ago
      I don't drive and I don't use any plastic outside of annoying packaging that's forced on me. Since I'm living in Vancouver does this mean we can cancel the trans-mountain pipeline? In truth I find your comment quite disingenuous since it is trying to force the burden of responsibility on end consumers - currently the market is strongly indicating a desire for renewables including the high demand for electric and hybrid cars and the fact that in a lot of areas consumers have actually put up with reusable grocery bag laws. Those are nothing but cost and inconvenience to the end consumers and yet it's become much more normalized, don't forget that charging for plastic bags twenty years ago would have driven a grocery store out of business.
      - newguy1234 7y ago
        I live in california. Every weekday here we have millions of people that make their commute to work. I would say 95% of this transport is using fossil fuels. Most of these same people are probably against pipelines as well but the reality is if you get rid of pipelines and create fossil fuel shortages or prices to skyrocket then you will see an uprising. Thats the reality.
- moate 7y ago
  They're all greater than the amount of gallons spilled by not extracting and transporting it in the first place and instead finding alternative sources of energy supply. FOH with that strawman.
  - whenchamenia 7y ago
    Okay, you first. All plastics, most transportation, packaging, and medical devices are petro derived.
    - moate 7y ago
      I'll be honest, I'm not a material scientist. Do we make plastics and packaging and medical devices out of natural gas? Are we talking about petroleum at all in this discussion? Does this whattaboutist thing actually address the point I'm making at all?
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    Those alternative sources currently cannot replace fossil fuels entirely.
    - adrianN 7y ago
      Yeah, that's just not true. With appropriate investment alternative energy technology today can replace all fossil energy sources. You just have to build the wind turbines and the solar panels, and the batteries, and the power-to-gas facilities. It's expensive to change the entire energy supply, but its doable.

whatshisface 7y ago

A true pro-pipeline official would crack down on maintenance and inspections and demand that the pipeline never spill. These officials might think that they are pro-pipeline, but in reality they're pushing us towards a future where pipelines are banned entirely. It's ironic that in addition to polluting the environment in a way that sacrifices long-term health for short-term gain, they are also ruining the political environment in a way that helps them now but will make them pay in the future.

vkou 7y ago
Their reward structures, and the reward structures of the people who bought them prioritize short-term planning over long-term planning. Twenty years from now, oil extraction may well be banned, regardless of whether pipelines spill under their watch. But the profits from slap-dash operation can be made today.

kortilla 7y ago

>The claims that it is unlikely we're bogus as it's been shown time after time. What are the stats on gallons spilled from pipelines vs trucks vs trains?

SeyelentEco 7y ago
The fact that there are more evil evils doesn't counter act the argument. What a weird argument to make... It's like the"why are we funding research into X when heart disease kills more people". "Why are we focusing on guns when cars kill more people". Maybe the answer is we don't ship dangerous materials across vast distances using methods that are dangerous to the local communities. Why does the answer have to be whatever the cheapest most convenient solution for the company? It should be the solution is least likely to cause serious harm and meets the needs of the communities it impacts.
- soperj 7y ago
  Do you drive? Do you use plastic? Then you're part of the reason these pipelines exist in first place. Without demand, they're unnecessary. When there's demand there, they're gonna get the product to market, whether it's by pipeline or truck or rail. So not really a weird argument.
  - SeyelentEco 7y ago
    Did I say that I didn't want oil to exist or for it to not be made available? I said that we shouldn't just take whatever cheapest solution the company proposes. These companies are not hurting for profits. Making them try a little harder to come up with solutions for transportation that doesn't endanger countless people with far reaching effects. This is about minimizing the risk when something happens. Something ALWAYS happens... maybe not in 1 year or 5 years but in 10, 20, 30 years, something will happen... we need to minimize the damage when that happens.
  - munk-a 7y ago
    I don't drive and I don't use any plastic outside of annoying packaging that's forced on me. Since I'm living in Vancouver does this mean we can cancel the trans-mountain pipeline? In truth I find your comment quite disingenuous since it is trying to force the burden of responsibility on end consumers - currently the market is strongly indicating a desire for renewables including the high demand for electric and hybrid cars and the fact that in a lot of areas consumers have actually put up with reusable grocery bag laws. Those are nothing but cost and inconvenience to the end consumers and yet it's become much more normalized, don't forget that charging for plastic bags twenty years ago would have driven a grocery store out of business.
    - newguy1234 7y ago
      I live in california. Every weekday here we have millions of people that make their commute to work. I would say 95% of this transport is using fossil fuels. Most of these same people are probably against pipelines as well but the reality is if you get rid of pipelines and create fossil fuel shortages or prices to skyrocket then you will see an uprising. Thats the reality.
moate 7y ago
They're all greater than the amount of gallons spilled by not extracting and transporting it in the first place and instead finding alternative sources of energy supply. FOH with that strawman.
- whenchamenia 7y ago
  Okay, you first. All plastics, most transportation, packaging, and medical devices are petro derived.
  - moate 7y ago
    I'll be honest, I'm not a material scientist. Do we make plastics and packaging and medical devices out of natural gas? Are we talking about petroleum at all in this discussion? Does this whattaboutist thing actually address the point I'm making at all?
- s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
  Those alternative sources currently cannot replace fossil fuels entirely.
  - adrianN 7y ago
    Yeah, that's just not true. With appropriate investment alternative energy technology today can replace all fossil energy sources. You just have to build the wind turbines and the solar panels, and the batteries, and the power-to-gas facilities. It's expensive to change the entire energy supply, but its doable.