3 ms·

Oil companies have proven time and time again when their pipelines leak or their ships sink or their fracking liquid gets into the groundwater, they’re not liab

Oil companies have proven time and time again when their pipelines leak or their ships sink or their fracking liquid gets into the groundwater, they’re not liable for it. Payouts have historically been a tiny, minuscule fraction of damage done. And that’s when there was an EPA attempting to regulate them; that’s not going to happen moving forward. So why should I trust one to build in my backyard?

dylan604 1y ago
Before being neutered, was the EPA so powerful that it could regulate what happened in the great white north? While I get your sentiments about bigOil getting way with poisoning the land/seas, we can at least keep the government agencies from one country straight.
- unsnap_biceps 1y ago
  The topic was "The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason", so it makes sense that they were talking about a US agency to me
slashdev 1y ago
That’s not the reason. The oil goes by train which is more polluting and has the same consequences when trains derail.
- pfannkuchen 1y ago
  Can’t a pipe spill a lot more oil than a train though?
  - smegger001 1y ago
    If the shutoffs dont close maybe but that is not likely But if the train derails and every tanker can on the train is going over and trains are reaching over a mile in length, it will probably be bigger
    - pfannkuchen 1y ago
      There are active shutoffs in the pipe more frequently than the length of a train? If so, I don’t think that is common knowledge. I wonder why pro pipeline people don’t highlight it more.
      - b112 1y ago
        There is a lot of global warming money fighting pipelines. An example, tangent logic of this is the common trend to prevent roads from being built. There is a belief that this will result in fewer cars. Instead, it results in cars sitting and idling, and cars accelerating then stopping. Another example is a carpool lane. In many (not all!) cases, carpool lane are almost empty. Meanwhile, traffic stops and starts, or idles beside it. The most polluting a car does, is during acceleration. The most efficiency is driving a constant speed. So by trying to reduce car usage the wrong way, the result is as if 2x the number of cars are on the road. Better to focus on excellent public transit with hyper efficient ride times, than stop new roads. The same is with pipelines. Prevent anything that has to do with delivery, especially if it is safer and cheaper. After all, if it is safer there will be fewer oil spills, and the public won't mind this aspect of oil extraction. If it is cheaper, oil prices will fall, also bad for global warming. I feel, sadly, tunnel vision will destroy us all.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago
        You’ve recast my argument, which was about a specific lack of legal culpability, as one about climate change and conspiracies: “global warming money,” if it does exist, has not paid me any. Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail their operators refuse to make the ones whose lives they’ve ruined, whole. East Palestine, Ohio is as good an example as the North Dakota border as far as I’m concerned.
        b112 1y ago
        There's far more climate change fight than local pollute fight, regardless of your comment. And just because your comment is upstream the tree, doesn't make it the only one upstream. People were discussing "why" more generically. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-american-funding-protest-conspiracy-theory-1.4987202 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-america... But your response is a bit weird to me. You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Ok, so there are 4 equal spills vs 2. Regardless of being made whole, if there's 1/2 the spills, and therefore 1/2 the people not harmed, you think that's not better?? Or worth pursuing? This is sort of what I'm talking about. Any improvement is good. But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way". That's folly.
  - slashdev 1y ago
    Usually it’s less severe because the pipeline has valves that shut off the flow.
    - dsq 1y ago
      Also, a train has a lot pf moving parts which makes it naturally more fragile.

dylan604 1y ago

Before being neutered, was the EPA so powerful that it could regulate what happened in the great white north? While I get your sentiments about bigOil getting way with poisoning the land/seas, we can at least keep the government agencies from one country straight.

unsnap_biceps 1y ago
The topic was "The democrats in the U.S. are the blocker for god knows what actual reason", so it makes sense that they were talking about a US agency to me

slashdev 1y ago

That’s not the reason. The oil goes by train which is more polluting and has the same consequences when trains derail.

pfannkuchen 1y ago
Can’t a pipe spill a lot more oil than a train though?
- smegger001 1y ago
  If the shutoffs dont close maybe but that is not likely But if the train derails and every tanker can on the train is going over and trains are reaching over a mile in length, it will probably be bigger
  - pfannkuchen 1y ago
    There are active shutoffs in the pipe more frequently than the length of a train? If so, I don’t think that is common knowledge. I wonder why pro pipeline people don’t highlight it more.
    - b112 1y ago
      There is a lot of global warming money fighting pipelines. An example, tangent logic of this is the common trend to prevent roads from being built. There is a belief that this will result in fewer cars. Instead, it results in cars sitting and idling, and cars accelerating then stopping. Another example is a carpool lane. In many (not all!) cases, carpool lane are almost empty. Meanwhile, traffic stops and starts, or idles beside it. The most polluting a car does, is during acceleration. The most efficiency is driving a constant speed. So by trying to reduce car usage the wrong way, the result is as if 2x the number of cars are on the road. Better to focus on excellent public transit with hyper efficient ride times, than stop new roads. The same is with pipelines. Prevent anything that has to do with delivery, especially if it is safer and cheaper. After all, if it is safer there will be fewer oil spills, and the public won't mind this aspect of oil extraction. If it is cheaper, oil prices will fall, also bad for global warming. I feel, sadly, tunnel vision will destroy us all.
      - TimorousBestie 1y ago
        You’ve recast my argument, which was about a specific lack of legal culpability, as one about climate change and conspiracies: “global warming money,” if it does exist, has not paid me any. Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail their operators refuse to make the ones whose lives they’ve ruined, whole. East Palestine, Ohio is as good an example as the North Dakota border as far as I’m concerned.
        b112 1y ago
        There's far more climate change fight than local pollute fight, regardless of your comment. And just because your comment is upstream the tree, doesn't make it the only one upstream. People were discussing "why" more generically. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-american-funding-protest-conspiracy-theory-1.4987202 https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-america... But your response is a bit weird to me. You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Ok, so there are 4 equal spills vs 2. Regardless of being made whole, if there's 1/2 the spills, and therefore 1/2 the people not harmed, you think that's not better?? Or worth pursuing? This is sort of what I'm talking about. Any improvement is good. But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way". That's folly.
- slashdev 1y ago
  Usually it’s less severe because the pipeline has valves that shut off the flow.
  - dsq 1y ago
    Also, a train has a lot pf moving parts which makes it naturally more fragile.