5 ms·

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

by slashdev 1y ago

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.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > But your response is a bit weird to me. Probably because you want to discuss politics and climate change conspiracies instead of corporate capture. > You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Not what I said at all. I said that, pipeline, ship, or truck, no matter which transport method fails, the operator bears in practice very little legal liability. > But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way". Not a direct quote.
        b112 1y ago
        Not what I said at all. But.. but it is?!: "Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail" You said safety was irrelevant. I get you didn't mean that, but that's how the words are written. It's an if... then... logical statement. And if pipelines are safer, you should immediately support them regardless of legal liability shortcomings. Why? Well you say these shortcomings exist regardless of the method. So if you shift transport to a safer method, you now improve safety and there are fewer accidents. How is this not a positive? Do you believe it is better that more people are hurt? Is there some payoff or benefit to having more accidents? You can likely tell I'm baffled. You must view it as a plus, but I dont grok why.
- 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.

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.
        TimorousBestie 1y ago
        > But your response is a bit weird to me. Probably because you want to discuss politics and climate change conspiracies instead of corporate capture. > You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Not what I said at all. I said that, pipeline, ship, or truck, no matter which transport method fails, the operator bears in practice very little legal liability. > But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way". Not a direct quote.
        b112 1y ago
        Not what I said at all. But.. but it is?!: "Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail" You said safety was irrelevant. I get you didn't mean that, but that's how the words are written. It's an if... then... logical statement. And if pipelines are safer, you should immediately support them regardless of legal liability shortcomings. Why? Well you say these shortcomings exist regardless of the method. So if you shift transport to a safer method, you now improve safety and there are fewer accidents. How is this not a positive? Do you believe it is better that more people are hurt? Is there some payoff or benefit to having more accidents? You can likely tell I'm baffled. You must view it as a plus, but I dont grok why.
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.