4 ms·

Shocker. No really ally, a shocker that an oil pipeline would fal and cause horrific pollution. No one could have foreseen this as a result. All hail he magn

by Jemm 7y ago

Shocker. No really ally, a shocker that an oil pipeline would fal and cause horrific pollution. No one could have foreseen this as a result. All hail he magnanimous and great corporation.

hervature 7y ago
I don't understand this statement. You think the corporation wanted to lose 1.4M L of oil? The alternative is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster#The_route https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... which was 7M L and dozens of deaths.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  You mean where people KNEW that kind of a car was a risk and tried to get it removed from use but oil and rail companies valued their profits for than safety? From your link: > Even before the Lac-Mégantic accident, attempts were made to require redesign or replacement of existing cars in the U.S.; these were delayed amidst fierce lobbying from rail and petroleum industry groups concerned about the cost. I don't see why we should be forced to accept this risk when the companies that profit off this risk won't pay to do it responsibly?
  - hervature 7y ago
    Should car companies stop making cars because they profit off of the death of 35,000 people per year in the US? As a cyclist, I don't see why I should be forced to accept the risk of cars when the companies that profit off this risk won't pay for separate bike lanes. Everything in life has risk/reward. What is the alternative that is a more palatable risk/reward?
    - shkkmo 7y ago
      I think there is something to the idea that car manufactures should bear some of the cost of the risks associated with the vehicles they sell. When they bear less of the risks to pedestrians, cyclists and the environment, they don't do anything to minimize those risks and even do things to accentuate those risks when doing so will increase their profits.
esarbe 7y ago
If only somebody could have thought of that in advance and had warned us!

by Jemm 7y ago

Shocker. No really ally, a shocker that an oil pipeline would fal and cause horrific pollution. No one could have foreseen this as a result. All hail he magnanimous and great corporation.

hervature 7y ago

I don't understand this statement. You think the corporation wanted to lose 1.4M L of oil? The alternative is this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster#The_route https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... which was 7M L and dozens of deaths.

shkkmo 7y ago
You mean where people KNEW that kind of a car was a risk and tried to get it removed from use but oil and rail companies valued their profits for than safety? From your link: > Even before the Lac-Mégantic accident, attempts were made to require redesign or replacement of existing cars in the U.S.; these were delayed amidst fierce lobbying from rail and petroleum industry groups concerned about the cost. I don't see why we should be forced to accept this risk when the companies that profit off this risk won't pay to do it responsibly?
- hervature 7y ago
  Should car companies stop making cars because they profit off of the death of 35,000 people per year in the US? As a cyclist, I don't see why I should be forced to accept the risk of cars when the companies that profit off this risk won't pay for separate bike lanes. Everything in life has risk/reward. What is the alternative that is a more palatable risk/reward?
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    I think there is something to the idea that car manufactures should bear some of the cost of the risks associated with the vehicles they sell. When they bear less of the risks to pedestrians, cyclists and the environment, they don't do anything to minimize those risks and even do things to accentuate those risks when doing so will increase their profits.

esarbe 7y ago

If only somebody could have thought of that in advance and had warned us!