6 ms·

The "ecoterrorist" option is just ridiculous, the methane leak is disaster for the climate.

411111111111111 4y ago
ecoterrorism doesnt mean that its beneficial for the environment. It means that they want to terrorize polluters, regardless of the consequences.
- henearkr 4y ago
  They have no incentive to do actions that damage the environment: Ecology activist organizations are funded by donations, which would dry up completely at the instant they are proven to be involved in such a disastrous leak.
  - Anderkent 4y ago
    hasn't stopped 'green' parties from shutting down nuclear power, so it's all a question of PR
    - henearkr 4y ago
      They did that so that it gets replaced by renewables (but it did not go according to the plan...). And in all honesty, between renewables and nuclear (fission), renewables are clearly a better investment.
  - gruez 4y ago
    What makes you think that ecoterrorist organizations would be the sort of organizations that are registered 501(c)(3) charities and run TV commercials of cute pandas?
    - henearkr 4y ago
      Because funds.
      - gruez 4y ago
        My point is that "organizations that conduct ecoterrorism" and "organizations that get funding through public donations" don't overlap. Al-Qaeda isn't running financed through charitable donations from the public, they're financed by shady benefactors. The same is true for ecoterrorist groups.
        henearkr 4y ago
        No. Because there (currently) is no such thing as an "eco-terrorist organisation" that is not just an eco-activist organisation (funded by donations and governmental subsidies) being disparaged by an opponent. Or do you have examples of what you call "eco-terrorist" organisations?
        gruez 4y ago
        > No. Because there (currently) is no such thing as an "eco-terrorist organisation" that is not just an eco-activist organisation (funded by donations and governmental subsidies) being disparaged by an opponent. A quick skim of the wikipedia article on eco-terrorism shows this is false. "Arson is a tactic most associated with recent activity in the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The ELF has been attributed with arsons of sites such as housing developments, SUV dealerships, and chain stores." Looking at the the wikipedia page for ELF, it doesn't look like they're the type of organization that's a registered charity and runs donation drives Further down the article also mentions "Organizations accused of eco-terrorism are generally grassroots organizations, do not have a hierarchal structure, and typically favor direct action approaches to their goals" which seems consistent with the characterization that they're not the types of organizations that are registered charities and rely on their national reputation to get funding.
        henearkr 4y ago
        Yeah car dealer arson, allrighty. Did you notice that two deep sea major pipelines have been blown up recently? Do you think that compares? A car dealer can be set on fire by a single individual, and even one in a situation of extreme poverty. > A quick skim of the wikipedia article on eco-terrorism shows this is false. False yourself. Have you skipped the word CURRENTLY? Moreover, about > grassroots organisations Do you intend to mean that such grassroots orgs would not need PR nor donations? Then no because grassroots organisations that would not raise donations do not have enough funds to blow a deepsea pipeline. > The ELF has been attributed with arsons of sites such as housing developments, SUV dealerships, and chain stores. Yeah right, you see the difference between chain store arson and blowing a deep-sea pipeline now that I'm pointing it to you?
tpmx 4y ago
It's also somewhat outside of their capabilities, I think. While they're quite good at supergluing themselves to roads, blocking ambulances etc - locating a pipeline ~70-90 meters below the surface and then successfully detonating explosives down there, twice in a day, is quite a few levels up from that.
Mizza 4y ago
It's going to be burned into CO2 anyway. If anything, methane is a bit better than CO2 in the long run.
- henearkr 4y ago
  > It's going to be burned into CO2 anyway. No, because if the pipeline is not used, there is an incentive to slow down methane extraction and transport on the Russian side. But if they can send it in the pipe and make it leak to piss the EU countries off, on the other hand... > If anything, methane is a bit better than CO2 in the long run. Hmm... I wonder where you read that because actually it's the contrary: https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane After degradation, the methane is transformed in the exact same CO2 it would have become if someone had burnt it, thus it still the same long term pita in addition to the short term headache it creates.
  - Mizza 4y ago
    Dang, you're right. Methane is much more potent as GHG than CO2, lasts longer than I thought, and does degrade into CO2 anyway.
electrondood 4y ago
Who benefits from polar ice caps melting? Russia. They get access to a ton of previously unavailable, strategically important land.
- henearkr 4y ago
  Yep. Sadly this is the mindset of Putin, and why he cares so little about GHG... I'm sure the Russian population does not think like that, but it's not as if they had their say...
- LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
  Land or swamp? edit: That wasn't meant to be derogatory. AFAIK large parts of that land will be swamp and mud if the permafrost thaws up. Even now there are large parts with no streets or railways, reachable only by treks over frozen rivers during winter, by sea if coastal, or air. And the infrastructures built on permafrost will suffer too, if it thaws up. The same way as large parts of Alaska and Canada are.

ecoterrorism doesnt mean that its beneficial for the environment. It means that they want to terrorize polluters, regardless of the consequences.

henearkr 4y ago
They have no incentive to do actions that damage the environment: Ecology activist organizations are funded by donations, which would dry up completely at the instant they are proven to be involved in such a disastrous leak.
- Anderkent 4y ago
  hasn't stopped 'green' parties from shutting down nuclear power, so it's all a question of PR
  - henearkr 4y ago
    They did that so that it gets replaced by renewables (but it did not go according to the plan...). And in all honesty, between renewables and nuclear (fission), renewables are clearly a better investment.
- gruez 4y ago
  What makes you think that ecoterrorist organizations would be the sort of organizations that are registered 501(c)(3) charities and run TV commercials of cute pandas?
  - henearkr 4y ago
    Because funds.
    - gruez 4y ago
      My point is that "organizations that conduct ecoterrorism" and "organizations that get funding through public donations" don't overlap. Al-Qaeda isn't running financed through charitable donations from the public, they're financed by shady benefactors. The same is true for ecoterrorist groups.
      - henearkr 4y ago
        No. Because there (currently) is no such thing as an "eco-terrorist organisation" that is not just an eco-activist organisation (funded by donations and governmental subsidies) being disparaged by an opponent. Or do you have examples of what you call "eco-terrorist" organisations?
        gruez 4y ago
        > No. Because there (currently) is no such thing as an "eco-terrorist organisation" that is not just an eco-activist organisation (funded by donations and governmental subsidies) being disparaged by an opponent. A quick skim of the wikipedia article on eco-terrorism shows this is false. "Arson is a tactic most associated with recent activity in the Earth Liberation Front (ELF). The ELF has been attributed with arsons of sites such as housing developments, SUV dealerships, and chain stores." Looking at the the wikipedia page for ELF, it doesn't look like they're the type of organization that's a registered charity and runs donation drives Further down the article also mentions "Organizations accused of eco-terrorism are generally grassroots organizations, do not have a hierarchal structure, and typically favor direct action approaches to their goals" which seems consistent with the characterization that they're not the types of organizations that are registered charities and rely on their national reputation to get funding.
        henearkr 4y ago
        Yeah car dealer arson, allrighty. Did you notice that two deep sea major pipelines have been blown up recently? Do you think that compares? A car dealer can be set on fire by a single individual, and even one in a situation of extreme poverty. > A quick skim of the wikipedia article on eco-terrorism shows this is false. False yourself. Have you skipped the word CURRENTLY? Moreover, about > grassroots organisations Do you intend to mean that such grassroots orgs would not need PR nor donations? Then no because grassroots organisations that would not raise donations do not have enough funds to blow a deepsea pipeline. > The ELF has been attributed with arsons of sites such as housing developments, SUV dealerships, and chain stores. Yeah right, you see the difference between chain store arson and blowing a deep-sea pipeline now that I'm pointing it to you?

tpmx 4y ago

It's also somewhat outside of their capabilities, I think. While they're quite good at supergluing themselves to roads, blocking ambulances etc - locating a pipeline ~70-90 meters below the surface and then successfully detonating explosives down there, twice in a day, is quite a few levels up from that.

Mizza 4y ago

It's going to be burned into CO2 anyway. If anything, methane is a bit better than CO2 in the long run.

henearkr 4y ago
> It's going to be burned into CO2 anyway. No, because if the pipeline is not used, there is an incentive to slow down methane extraction and transport on the Russian side. But if they can send it in the pipe and make it leak to piss the EU countries off, on the other hand... > If anything, methane is a bit better than CO2 in the long run. Hmm... I wonder where you read that because actually it's the contrary: https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane https://www.epa.gov/gmi/importance-methane After degradation, the methane is transformed in the exact same CO2 it would have become if someone had burnt it, thus it still the same long term pita in addition to the short term headache it creates.
- Mizza 4y ago
  Dang, you're right. Methane is much more potent as GHG than CO2, lasts longer than I thought, and does degrade into CO2 anyway.

electrondood 4y ago

Who benefits from polar ice caps melting? Russia. They get access to a ton of previously unavailable, strategically important land.

henearkr 4y ago
Yep. Sadly this is the mindset of Putin, and why he cares so little about GHG... I'm sure the Russian population does not think like that, but it's not as if they had their say...
LargoLasskhyfv 4y ago
Land or swamp? edit: That wasn't meant to be derogatory. AFAIK large parts of that land will be swamp and mud if the permafrost thaws up. Even now there are large parts with no streets or railways, reachable only by treks over frozen rivers during winter, by sea if coastal, or air. And the infrastructures built on permafrost will suffer too, if it thaws up. The same way as large parts of Alaska and Canada are.