5 ms·

Rail is very, very safe. In some areas taking the train is safer than walking. Now to be fair, oil pipelines are usually safer still. But the solution here is

Rail is very, very safe. In some areas taking the train is safer than walking. Now to be fair, oil pipelines are usually safer still. But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil.

swader999 5y ago
Stop using oil, yeah sure. This will just transfer consumption from the most ethical and environmentally sound jurisdiction in the world to the worst. Ask the town in Quebec that had many people burned alive from a oil train derailment how safe it is. The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, in the Eastern Townships region of Quebec, Canada, at approximately 01:15 EDT,[1][2] on July 6, 2013, when an unattended 73-car freight train carrying Bakken Formation crude oil rolled down a 1.2% grade from Nantes and derailed downtown, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-seven people were killed.[3] More than 30 buildings in the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed,[2][4] and all but three of the thirty-nine remaining downtown buildings had to be demolished due to petroleum contamination of the townsite.[5] Initial newspaper reports described a 1-kilometre (0.6 mi) blast radius.[6] ~ Wikipedia
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  1. Consumption is not moveable like that; you’re describing a process more akin to how manufacturing moves. The world’s poorest people won’t suddenly be able to afford all this oil infrastructure if the richer nations stop consuming it. Especially if doing so reduces economies of scale. 2. From a global warming perspective, there is no such thing as an ethical jurisdiction to emit carbon from. Carbon is carbon, and it affects us all whether or not it comes with other forms of pollution.
  - swader999 5y ago
    I should have worded that better. I meant production, if you read it carefully I think it still implies that but I should have been more clear. By ethical I mean human rights abuse, treatment of women and minorities. Why would you reward Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on and punish a place like Western Canada?
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      The issue is that there is a fixed supply of oil, and every drop that we pull out brings our species closer to extinction. I’d rather not reward Saudi, but I’d much more prefer to halt production of oil ASAP.
      - swader999 5y ago
        What are you basing this off of? Climate models that can't pass back testing with historical data when they are started 5,10,20,30 years ago. Sea level rise the last 150 years has been between 1-3mm a year and rising since the end of the last ice age (24k years). Food production continues to rise, the planet is greener. Extreme weather events are not increasing. The winters in North America have slightly warmed the past 30 years. Less area burned every year. Humans will adapt just fine. I'll source all this later if you really want?
shawnz 5y ago
> But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil. Sure, but will we see rail transportation of oil blocked in a similar manner? Otherwise we might just be making our current uses of oil less safe and efficient for nothing. I think this needs to be achieved some other way, like through carbon taxes, not by blocking pipelines.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil > Sure, but will we see rail transportation of oil blocked in a similar manner? Otherwise we might just be making our current uses of oil less safe and efficient for nothing. No, we won’t see our rail transit of oil blocked because it should not exist. The oil should be left in the ground.
  - shawnz 5y ago
    I don't understand what you are proposing here. In terms of actions that we take to curb the use of oil, I am saying those actions should not unfairly discriminate against pipelines vs less safe transports like trains. If we take steps to block pipelines, we should take steps to block oil trains too. Obviously if we could just snap our fingers and eliminate all dependence on oil, that would be fine since it would eliminate pipelines and oil trains together. But in lieu of that, we need to make choices about how to maximize the efficiency and safety of the oil we do use. Pipelines in some cases might actually be a good way to do that.
    - ygjb 5y ago
      It's not possible to both maximize the safety and efficacy of using oil while externalizing the long term economic and environmental impact of using oil. The proposed efficiency and safety are entirety predicated on the externalized impact of pollution, climate change, and oil sand fracking.
      - namdnay 5y ago
        efficacy sure, but we can maximize safety while also negating environmental impact through heavy taxation directed to alternative energy projects
otabdeveloper4 5y ago
> stop using oil If you want to go back to a pre-industrial society, sure.

Rail is very, very safe. In some areas taking the train is safer than walking. Now to be fair, oil pipelines are usually safer still. But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil.

swader999 5y ago

Stop using oil, yeah sure. This will just transfer consumption from the most ethical and environmentally sound jurisdiction in the world to the worst. Ask the town in Quebec that had many people burned alive from a oil train derailment how safe it is. The Lac-Mégantic rail disaster occurred in the town of Lac-Mégantic, in the Eastern Townships region of Quebec, Canada, at approximately 01:15 EDT,[1][2] on July 6, 2013, when an unattended 73-car freight train carrying Bakken Formation crude oil rolled down a 1.2% grade from Nantes and derailed downtown, resulting in the fire and explosion of multiple tank cars. Forty-seven people were killed.[3] More than 30 buildings in the town's centre, roughly half of the downtown area, were destroyed,[2][4] and all but three of the thirty-nine remaining downtown buildings had to be demolished due to petroleum contamination of the townsite.[5] Initial newspaper reports described a 1-kilometre (0.6 mi) blast radius.[6] ~ Wikipedia

ashtonkem 5y ago
1. Consumption is not moveable like that; you’re describing a process more akin to how manufacturing moves. The world’s poorest people won’t suddenly be able to afford all this oil infrastructure if the richer nations stop consuming it. Especially if doing so reduces economies of scale. 2. From a global warming perspective, there is no such thing as an ethical jurisdiction to emit carbon from. Carbon is carbon, and it affects us all whether or not it comes with other forms of pollution.
- swader999 5y ago
  I should have worded that better. I meant production, if you read it carefully I think it still implies that but I should have been more clear. By ethical I mean human rights abuse, treatment of women and minorities. Why would you reward Saudi Arabia, Iran and so on and punish a place like Western Canada?
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    The issue is that there is a fixed supply of oil, and every drop that we pull out brings our species closer to extinction. I’d rather not reward Saudi, but I’d much more prefer to halt production of oil ASAP.
    - swader999 5y ago
      What are you basing this off of? Climate models that can't pass back testing with historical data when they are started 5,10,20,30 years ago. Sea level rise the last 150 years has been between 1-3mm a year and rising since the end of the last ice age (24k years). Food production continues to rise, the planet is greener. Extreme weather events are not increasing. The winters in North America have slightly warmed the past 30 years. Less area burned every year. Humans will adapt just fine. I'll source all this later if you really want?

shawnz 5y ago

> But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil. Sure, but will we see rail transportation of oil blocked in a similar manner? Otherwise we might just be making our current uses of oil less safe and efficient for nothing. I think this needs to be achieved some other way, like through carbon taxes, not by blocking pipelines.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> But the solution here is obvious; stop using oil > Sure, but will we see rail transportation of oil blocked in a similar manner? Otherwise we might just be making our current uses of oil less safe and efficient for nothing. No, we won’t see our rail transit of oil blocked because it should not exist. The oil should be left in the ground.
- shawnz 5y ago
  I don't understand what you are proposing here. In terms of actions that we take to curb the use of oil, I am saying those actions should not unfairly discriminate against pipelines vs less safe transports like trains. If we take steps to block pipelines, we should take steps to block oil trains too. Obviously if we could just snap our fingers and eliminate all dependence on oil, that would be fine since it would eliminate pipelines and oil trains together. But in lieu of that, we need to make choices about how to maximize the efficiency and safety of the oil we do use. Pipelines in some cases might actually be a good way to do that.
  - ygjb 5y ago
    It's not possible to both maximize the safety and efficacy of using oil while externalizing the long term economic and environmental impact of using oil. The proposed efficiency and safety are entirety predicated on the externalized impact of pollution, climate change, and oil sand fracking.
    - namdnay 5y ago
      efficacy sure, but we can maximize safety while also negating environmental impact through heavy taxation directed to alternative energy projects

otabdeveloper4 5y ago

> stop using oil If you want to go back to a pre-industrial society, sure.