4 ms·

This is key. It erodes trust in institutions, in this case the government itself. I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the pe

This is key. It erodes trust in institutions, in this case the government itself. I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome.

cryptoz 5y ago
A government that ignores climate change loses far more trust than one who pays attention and acts in response. Permitting the building of new pipelines is absolutely a sign of an untrustworthy government. A government needs to be able to change its mind and always act in the best interests of the people. Building a pipeline because some rich corporation has some sunk costs is insane. Edit: Also, I only addressed the environmental issues, but the article also cites "U.S. landowners, Native American tribes". Don't you think its also good that they get a say in what gets built? And that it is likely that the early construction was done without full understanding by those groups impacted directly?
happytoexplain 5y ago
>revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome It seems like many people feel that it's the second to worst possible outcome.
munk-a 5y ago
I think it's important to also realize that Canada domestically (outside of Alberta) has been strongly opposed to expanding natural resource exportation[1]. The Kinder Morgan pipeline through BC was ~shut down~[2] - as have been multiple propositions to get the oil out through the maritime provinces. If Alberta had a coast they would never consider the keystone pipeline as an option but this is sort of a effort of last resort - every direction except south wants nothing to do with this and the constantly shifting political winds in America mean it's extremely unlikely that this project would actually be complete while the tar sands remain profitable. I think it's a bit unfair to talk about this permit being withdrawn without warning when literally every other route open for export has been shut down - it's like asking your dad for candy after your mom said no, they might go along with you for a bit but the outcome is likely to be swayed by the same basic facts. 1. Existing transportation is also highly problematic, one of the really big questions for Canadians here is whether the additional safety of pipelines is worth the cost to the environment, we've specifically paid that lack of safety cost several times including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... and more generally https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-oil-train-canada-guernsey-saskatchewan-rail-1.5608769 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-... this is very much not a simple issue in Canada. 2. Oh hey - no it isn't - this is still actively ongoing as pointed out by the comment below
- mig39 5y ago
  Isn't the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion still going ahead? Didn't the Canadian federal government actually buy the pipeline company, and offer to indemnified any investor for any delays caused by other governments?
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Apparently yes, it's unshutdown for the moment - but the NDP provincial government is still impeding it. It's been up and down so many times now I'd lost track.
mschuster91 5y ago
> I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome. Why? It was obvious from the start of the planning that this project was at risk from political intervention given the continuous protests and the general political landscape (being blocked by Obama and then unblocked by Trump, with Democrats calling for the reversal of the decision). It was obvious that long-term political trends are leading towards ecological conservation, that international treaties limit CO2 emissions and that oil consumption will only go downwards given the rise of viable electric car models. The companies behind Keystone XL accepted this risk, and if they now go bankrupt or face massive losses as a result of not accounting for obvious risks, I don't shed any tears for them. They were aware, never forget that.
- fallingknife 5y ago
  You missed some details there. It was approved under the Obama administration before it was rejected by the state department on the vague grounds that it is "not in the national interest." The state department was only involved since it crossed the border with Canada, and for deals with close allies like Canada, this approval is typically a formality. It sets a bad precedent when the government capriciously steps in to block a deal that has been years in the making because of political pressure.
- zbrozek 5y ago
  The loss of trust in the finality of approvals is the key thing we should be shedding tears over. It would obviously have been far better not to permit it in the first place. Suppose a big offshore wind project gets underway now and an opposing government wins the next election - now there's precedent to just pull the plug. Or at a much smaller scale, suppose you've just won permission to build a house and a new city council is elected and revokes your permit. How much are you going to trust your government after that? It also widens the door for more forms of corruption. "Shame if that permit were to suddenly evaporate..." If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke permits of projects you've approved!
  - 5y ago
dragonwriter 5y ago
> It erodes trust in institutions So the sequence of events here was: Permit denied in normal administrative course. Permit approved, illegally reversing factual determinations without sufficient support by subsequent administration, resulting in the approved permit being struck down by the courts, which was maintained through extensive litigation after the initial decision. Permit reapproved by executive order bypassing the environmemtal and procedural law constraints that resulted in the previous approval being revoked. Permit rerevoked by executive order undoing the previous order. Its certainly not a history that inspires trust in institutions generally, but focussing on the last step for that criticism is...bizarre.
sixothree 5y ago
Taking people's property and giving it to a private company erodes trust as well.
- panny 5y ago
  It certainly does, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London
yongjik 5y ago
If this erodes trust in the government's commitment to allowing new fossil fuel projects, I'd consider that an absolute win.
- bpodgursky 5y ago
  Inducting this lesson only to the most convenient level for your argument is intellectually dishonest to the point that I really hope you understand, deep down, that you are playing semantic games and don't actually believe this argument.
  - useragent86 5y ago
    Don't you understand that there are many people who, deep down, feel that destroying the fossil fuel industry is an absolute imperative, consequences be damned? For example, here's one in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
I think there's unfortunately a pretty solid overlap between people cheering this decision and people who bemoan the erosion of trust in government institutions. But who can blame people for lack of trust. Mom said we could have candy if we cleaned our room and dad showed up and changed that. Room isn't gonna get cleaned the second time around.
apendleton 5y ago
From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project. If you're making a broader argument that, say, people won't trust plumbing permits in building construction because the federal government revoked a permit for a cross-border oil pipeline... I suppose there's no way to know, but personally I just don't really buy it.
- useragent86 5y ago
  > From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project. What is climate activists' perspective on the price of everything increasing, leading to everyone's standard of living declining and poor nations remaining poor?
  - AgentOrange1234 5y ago
    Can’t speak for everyone, but my perspective is: ‘We can afford high prices more easily than an apocalypse.’
  - apendleton 5y ago
    I don't think we/they would grant the underlying premise that it's impossible to achieve low prices or a high standard of living, either here or abroad, without fossil fuels.
- zbrozek 5y ago
  I agree that this is unlikely to start the slippery slope all the way down to plumbing permits. But it's pretty easy to imagine it putting a damper on other large-scale projects that will span administrations. Off the cuff I'd guess this is not what folks building reservoirs, power plants, transmission lines, rail, shipyards, etc want to see. What do you do? Get your permit and wait for a change of party and see if your permit poofs out of existence before breaking ground?

cryptoz 5y ago

A government that ignores climate change loses far more trust than one who pays attention and acts in response. Permitting the building of new pipelines is absolutely a sign of an untrustworthy government. A government needs to be able to change its mind and always act in the best interests of the people. Building a pipeline because some rich corporation has some sunk costs is insane. Edit: Also, I only addressed the environmental issues, but the article also cites "U.S. landowners, Native American tribes". Don't you think its also good that they get a say in what gets built? And that it is likely that the early construction was done without full understanding by those groups impacted directly?

happytoexplain 5y ago

>revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome It seems like many people feel that it's the second to worst possible outcome.

munk-a 5y ago

I think it's important to also realize that Canada domestically (outside of Alberta) has been strongly opposed to expanding natural resource exportation[1]. The Kinder Morgan pipeline through BC was ~shut down~[2] - as have been multiple propositions to get the oil out through the maritime provinces. If Alberta had a coast they would never consider the keystone pipeline as an option but this is sort of a effort of last resort - every direction except south wants nothing to do with this and the constantly shifting political winds in America mean it's extremely unlikely that this project would actually be complete while the tar sands remain profitable. I think it's a bit unfair to talk about this permit being withdrawn without warning when literally every other route open for export has been shut down - it's like asking your dad for candy after your mom said no, they might go along with you for a bit but the outcome is likely to be swayed by the same basic facts. 1. Existing transportation is also highly problematic, one of the really big questions for Canadians here is whether the additional safety of pipelines is worth the cost to the environment, we've specifically paid that lack of safety cost several times including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste... and more generally https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-oil-train-canada-guernsey-saskatchewan-rail-1.5608769 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatoon/lac-megantic-crude-... this is very much not a simple issue in Canada. 2. Oh hey - no it isn't - this is still actively ongoing as pointed out by the comment below

mig39 5y ago
Isn't the Trans Mountain Pipeline expansion still going ahead? Didn't the Canadian federal government actually buy the pipeline company, and offer to indemnified any investor for any delays caused by other governments?
- munk-a 5y ago
  Apparently yes, it's unshutdown for the moment - but the NDP provincial government is still impeding it. It's been up and down so many times now I'd lost track.

mschuster91 5y ago

> I personally wish it weren't permitted in the first place, but revoking the permit afterwards is the worst possible outcome. Why? It was obvious from the start of the planning that this project was at risk from political intervention given the continuous protests and the general political landscape (being blocked by Obama and then unblocked by Trump, with Democrats calling for the reversal of the decision). It was obvious that long-term political trends are leading towards ecological conservation, that international treaties limit CO2 emissions and that oil consumption will only go downwards given the rise of viable electric car models. The companies behind Keystone XL accepted this risk, and if they now go bankrupt or face massive losses as a result of not accounting for obvious risks, I don't shed any tears for them. They were aware, never forget that.

fallingknife 5y ago
You missed some details there. It was approved under the Obama administration before it was rejected by the state department on the vague grounds that it is "not in the national interest." The state department was only involved since it crossed the border with Canada, and for deals with close allies like Canada, this approval is typically a formality. It sets a bad precedent when the government capriciously steps in to block a deal that has been years in the making because of political pressure.
zbrozek 5y ago
The loss of trust in the finality of approvals is the key thing we should be shedding tears over. It would obviously have been far better not to permit it in the first place. Suppose a big offshore wind project gets underway now and an opposing government wins the next election - now there's precedent to just pull the plug. Or at a much smaller scale, suppose you've just won permission to build a house and a new city council is elected and revokes your permit. How much are you going to trust your government after that? It also widens the door for more forms of corruption. "Shame if that permit were to suddenly evaporate..." If you don't want carbon emissions, tax them to death. Or don't permit projects that produce them. But don't revoke permits of projects you've approved!
- 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> It erodes trust in institutions So the sequence of events here was: Permit denied in normal administrative course. Permit approved, illegally reversing factual determinations without sufficient support by subsequent administration, resulting in the approved permit being struck down by the courts, which was maintained through extensive litigation after the initial decision. Permit reapproved by executive order bypassing the environmemtal and procedural law constraints that resulted in the previous approval being revoked. Permit rerevoked by executive order undoing the previous order. Its certainly not a history that inspires trust in institutions generally, but focussing on the last step for that criticism is...bizarre.

sixothree 5y ago

Taking people's property and giving it to a private company erodes trust as well.

panny 5y ago
It certainly does, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London

yongjik 5y ago

If this erodes trust in the government's commitment to allowing new fossil fuel projects, I'd consider that an absolute win.

bpodgursky 5y ago
Inducting this lesson only to the most convenient level for your argument is intellectually dishonest to the point that I really hope you understand, deep down, that you are playing semantic games and don't actually believe this argument.
- useragent86 5y ago
  Don't you understand that there are many people who, deep down, feel that destroying the fossil fuel industry is an absolute imperative, consequences be damned? For example, here's one in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27454580
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

I think there's unfortunately a pretty solid overlap between people cheering this decision and people who bemoan the erosion of trust in government institutions. But who can blame people for lack of trust. Mom said we could have candy if we cleaned our room and dad showed up and changed that. Room isn't gonna get cleaned the second time around.

apendleton 5y ago

From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project. If you're making a broader argument that, say, people won't trust plumbing permits in building construction because the federal government revoked a permit for a cross-border oil pipeline... I suppose there's no way to know, but personally I just don't really buy it.

useragent86 5y ago
> From climate activists' perspectives, if oil companies are less trustful that any permits they're issued will be valid long enough to complete their projects, and it makes them more hesitant to start new infrastructure projects even during cooperative administrations, that's an even bigger win that the defeat of this single project. What is climate activists' perspective on the price of everything increasing, leading to everyone's standard of living declining and poor nations remaining poor?
- AgentOrange1234 5y ago
  Can’t speak for everyone, but my perspective is: ‘We can afford high prices more easily than an apocalypse.’
- apendleton 5y ago
  I don't think we/they would grant the underlying premise that it's impossible to achieve low prices or a high standard of living, either here or abroad, without fossil fuels.
zbrozek 5y ago
I agree that this is unlikely to start the slippery slope all the way down to plumbing permits. But it's pretty easy to imagine it putting a damper on other large-scale projects that will span administrations. Off the cuff I'd guess this is not what folks building reservoirs, power plants, transmission lines, rail, shipyards, etc want to see. What do you do? Get your permit and wait for a change of party and see if your permit poofs out of existence before breaking ground?