7 ms·

I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Gre

by oofbey 7mo ago

I think climate change is a massive and real problem. And that we need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels quickly. But I would actually be very happy to see Greenpeace fold as a result of this. I think they’ve been on the wrong side of many important issues, including this one. I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wrong direction as far as reducing reliance on fossil fuels. Also for the ND pipeline, I think it does relatively little to change the economics of fossil fuels. And thus does relatively little to change our path to sustainable energy. But it does a lot geopolitically. Having more local oil means the trigger-happy US government is less likely to start wars to ensure access to oil. Heck even the Iran conflict this week stems back to the 1953 CIA-instituted coup which was half motivated by protecting access to oil. Hot take: decarbonization is a policy issue that should be pursued primarily through incentives to increase production and quality of clean alternatives. Not by throttling supply of oil. Look at the electrical grid. Solar and wind are just cheaper than fossil fuels now which means the decarbonization is economically inevitable.

DrBazza 7mo ago
> I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wrong direction as far as reducing reliance on fossil fuels. I don't have much time for Greenpeace. Much of their activism has never been science based, and usually involves criminal acts against property. History will not be kind to them. Their only highlight is 'saving' the whales. For a while.
- valec 7mo ago
  won't someone think of the property??!?
  - verdverm 7mo ago
    prosperity comes from property, just add sí /s
  - terminalshort 7mo ago
    Yes I will think of the property because private property rights are critical and I 100% support private property owners using violence to defend their property from vandals and thieves.
threethirtytwo 7mo ago
It's already too late. We passed the point of no return. There was a blip where every outlet was saying that the point of no return was like 6 months away than nothing.. We shot right past it.
- oofbey 7mo ago
  Strange take. What does that mean? Give up because we can’t do anything - “it’s already too late”? So burn all the oil because YOLO? Or maybe those people drawing hard lines in the sand were exaggerating to drive urgency and get attention? Sometimes people whose stated goals you agree with say and do things which are wrong.
  - threethirtytwo 7mo ago
    It’s too late. Look at the science. Also I never mentioned just give up. I just said it’s already too late. That’s reality. What you do next is your choice. But don’t put words in my mouth.
    - some_random 7mo ago
      It's never too late, that's not what "the science" says it's what the clickbait vulture news bullshit you're reading is saying. The real science on the matter is that every day things get just a little bit worse, and every improvement makes things just a little bit better. There's no magic cliff, no point of no return, just one day after another.
      - realreality 7mo ago
        There are tipping points, when warming accelerates and becomes irreversible. There’s some debate in “the science” about how quickly we’ll reach that point. Limiting warming to +2°C was not a scientific position; it was political, based on what people thought was achievable. Before the Paris Agreement, 2° was not considered “safe”. Anyway, it turns out we’re going to zoom past 2° in the next couple of decades.
      - 7mo ago
xoofoog 7mo ago
But restricting supply raises prices and naturally encourages sustainable energy. That kind of change is self reinforcing. Government incentives disappear at the change of every administration.
- oofbey 7mo ago
  Oil is a global commodity. Its price is set across all supply sources. Restricting its movement from Canada to the US doesn’t actually change the price much at all. It just makes the supply more vulnerable to disruption. That dirty shale oil only comes out of the ground when prices are really high. Otherwise it’s not worth it. If prices are high it will come out of the ground and get burned. The only question is where and who has access to it.
- bluGill 7mo ago
  No, restricting supply when it exists just turns people paying the higher prices against you. When the supply restrictions are in fundamentals it can work for you. When supply restrictions are on something few people care about it can work for you. However the majority of people (particularly in ND) drive and feel the cost of gas - often they feel these costs even more than they really affect the budget because they are visible every time you buy it in ways the things that have a larger effect on their budget are not. If you want to encourage sustainable energy you need to make that your focus. Make it cheaper. Ignore oil and fight laws that make it harder to build sustainable energy. ND has great wind potential (they get 40% of their electric from wind already), but it could be better (they have a small population - which means they can export wind energy to Minnesota or if we build transmission lines even farther). When you focus on raising oil prices you ensure that your side gets voted out in the next election and your gains are undone. When you focus on building renewable energy you get something that can stay. (Just don't build only on the white house as that can be quickly removed - build everywhere so removal is expensive)
staplers 7mo ago
Also for the ND pipeline, I think it does relatively little to change the economics of fossil fuels. This is ignoring the issue of tribal sovereignty and water rights which is where most of the issue lies imo. No one is trying to ruin the economy, they simply want untainted natural resources on their own property. If this pipeline was going through disneyland, i don't think you'd hear popular arguments about disney trying to ruin the oil economy.
- oofbey 7mo ago
  I think that’s half right. We are absolutely horrendous to natives around here. But that’s not why Greenpeace got involved, nor why most of the left cares about this issue. If the pipeline was going through Disneyland I think you’d still see the same people up in arms protesting. They’d just be searching for a different justification.
- terminalshort 7mo ago
  This is a complete load of shit. Oil is trucked back and forth over those roads all day and night, and that has a much higher leakage rate than a pipeline. NIMBYs never come out and say they just don't want something built. They always have some bullshit excuse like this.
  - alexgoodhart 7mo ago
    I mean what you just said is the huge load of shit. There are interesting differences in risk and pollution between trucking and piping, but they’re not nearly as black and white as you claim and they don’t require acrimony. Calm the hell down?
thecrash 7mo ago
This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation. This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of major corporate interests. Including the civil society organizations which you do agree with.
- oofbey 7mo ago
  I think our society would be better off if everybody did less incitement in their political dialogue. It's become all too common for political discourse to become unhinged. So in that sense, I think this precedent is also fine.
- stackedinserter 7mo ago
  What does setting things on fire have to do with freedom of speech?
  - oofbey 7mo ago
    I think this is how it goes: The people who set things on fire weren't directly associated with Greenpeace. But the argument is that Greenpeace's rhetoric incited them to do so. So it becomes a freedom of speech issue. If you tell people something is evil and must be burned, are you responsible for that thing getting torched?
    - stackedinserter 7mo ago
      The Hutus that committed genocide in Rwanda were not directly associated with that radio host that called for murders, yet he's a criminal.
- Ekaros 7mo ago
  Isn't this just the often repeated "free speech does not mean freedom from consequences". So this is exactly what left wants. They are not prevented from saying things. They just lose money over them. As free speech only applies to state preventing from things being said.
kilroy123 7mo ago
I have some inside knowledge here. When I was in college, I was very idealistic. I was in a special Greenpeace program where they took college students and trained them to become environmental activists. Picture a semester-long, hands-on training course. You actually fully go out into the field to run campaigns and meet everyone from the President of Greenpeace to the front-end activist hanging banners and whatnot. I actually liked the President and DC lobbyist folks more than the weridos out and about dropping banners and doing the extreme stuff. I walked away being kind of turned off from the Organization and realized a lot of these folks were not pragmatic and more dogmatic than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful and had a blast, but I dropped out of college and became a software engineer instead of an activist.
- flybrand 7mo ago
  I had a similar experience with the US EPA while in undergrad. It was a shorter experience, but it really changed my view of the organization.
triceratops 7mo ago
> I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power I think the nuclear industry didn't do itself any favors. And the oil companies didn't want it to succeed either and did its best to hobble it. The environmental groups are a convenient patsy to take the blame for the outcome. If Greenpeace is so powerful why hasn't it been able to end whaling or the oil industry?
nradov 7mo ago
I agree. In the long term we need to reduce fossil fuel usage but in the short term, restricting pipeline construction means that more petroleum products are transported by rail cars which is a lot dirtier and more dangerous. We have to take a pragmatic harm minimization approach rather than being idealistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Union_Pacific_oil_train_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Union_Pacific_oil_train_f...
- troyvit 7mo ago
  You're probably right, but when I look around the Front Range at the landscape blighted by drought, the mountains naked of snow, the skyline hazed by smog and the smoke from forest fires, I feel like this is where pragmatism has gotten us.

by oofbey 7mo ago

DrBazza 7mo ago

> I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power in the late 20th century. And this clearly set us in the wrong direction as far as reducing reliance on fossil fuels. I don't have much time for Greenpeace. Much of their activism has never been science based, and usually involves criminal acts against property. History will not be kind to them. Their only highlight is 'saving' the whales. For a while.

valec 7mo ago
won't someone think of the property??!?
- verdverm 7mo ago
  prosperity comes from property, just add sí /s
- terminalshort 7mo ago
  Yes I will think of the property because private property rights are critical and I 100% support private property owners using violence to defend their property from vandals and thieves.

threethirtytwo 7mo ago

It's already too late. We passed the point of no return. There was a blip where every outlet was saying that the point of no return was like 6 months away than nothing.. We shot right past it.

oofbey 7mo ago
Strange take. What does that mean? Give up because we can’t do anything - “it’s already too late”? So burn all the oil because YOLO? Or maybe those people drawing hard lines in the sand were exaggerating to drive urgency and get attention? Sometimes people whose stated goals you agree with say and do things which are wrong.
- threethirtytwo 7mo ago
  It’s too late. Look at the science. Also I never mentioned just give up. I just said it’s already too late. That’s reality. What you do next is your choice. But don’t put words in my mouth.
  - some_random 7mo ago
    It's never too late, that's not what "the science" says it's what the clickbait vulture news bullshit you're reading is saying. The real science on the matter is that every day things get just a little bit worse, and every improvement makes things just a little bit better. There's no magic cliff, no point of no return, just one day after another.
    - realreality 7mo ago
      There are tipping points, when warming accelerates and becomes irreversible. There’s some debate in “the science” about how quickly we’ll reach that point. Limiting warming to +2°C was not a scientific position; it was political, based on what people thought was achievable. Before the Paris Agreement, 2° was not considered “safe”. Anyway, it turns out we’re going to zoom past 2° in the next couple of decades.
    - 7mo ago

xoofoog 7mo ago

But restricting supply raises prices and naturally encourages sustainable energy. That kind of change is self reinforcing. Government incentives disappear at the change of every administration.

oofbey 7mo ago
Oil is a global commodity. Its price is set across all supply sources. Restricting its movement from Canada to the US doesn’t actually change the price much at all. It just makes the supply more vulnerable to disruption. That dirty shale oil only comes out of the ground when prices are really high. Otherwise it’s not worth it. If prices are high it will come out of the ground and get burned. The only question is where and who has access to it.
bluGill 7mo ago
No, restricting supply when it exists just turns people paying the higher prices against you. When the supply restrictions are in fundamentals it can work for you. When supply restrictions are on something few people care about it can work for you. However the majority of people (particularly in ND) drive and feel the cost of gas - often they feel these costs even more than they really affect the budget because they are visible every time you buy it in ways the things that have a larger effect on their budget are not. If you want to encourage sustainable energy you need to make that your focus. Make it cheaper. Ignore oil and fight laws that make it harder to build sustainable energy. ND has great wind potential (they get 40% of their electric from wind already), but it could be better (they have a small population - which means they can export wind energy to Minnesota or if we build transmission lines even farther). When you focus on raising oil prices you ensure that your side gets voted out in the next election and your gains are undone. When you focus on building renewable energy you get something that can stay. (Just don't build only on the white house as that can be quickly removed - build everywhere so removal is expensive)

staplers 7mo ago

Also for the ND pipeline, I think it does relatively little to change the economics of fossil fuels. This is ignoring the issue of tribal sovereignty and water rights which is where most of the issue lies imo. No one is trying to ruin the economy, they simply want untainted natural resources on their own property. If this pipeline was going through disneyland, i don't think you'd hear popular arguments about disney trying to ruin the oil economy.

oofbey 7mo ago
I think that’s half right. We are absolutely horrendous to natives around here. But that’s not why Greenpeace got involved, nor why most of the left cares about this issue. If the pipeline was going through Disneyland I think you’d still see the same people up in arms protesting. They’d just be searching for a different justification.
terminalshort 7mo ago
This is a complete load of shit. Oil is trucked back and forth over those roads all day and night, and that has a much higher leakage rate than a pipeline. NIMBYs never come out and say they just don't want something built. They always have some bullshit excuse like this.
- alexgoodhart 7mo ago
  I mean what you just said is the huge load of shit. There are interesting differences in risk and pollution between trucking and piping, but they’re not nearly as black and white as you claim and they don’t require acrimony. Calm the hell down?

thecrash 7mo ago

This case is not important because of Greenpeace, it's important because of the implications for free speech in the US. They are not being bankrupted because they took the wrong stance on nuclear, they're being bankrupted for supposed defamation and incitement against a major energy corporation. This is a precedent that will be used to attack all kinds of civil society organizations when they threaten the profits of major corporate interests. Including the civil society organizations which you do agree with.

oofbey 7mo ago
I think our society would be better off if everybody did less incitement in their political dialogue. It's become all too common for political discourse to become unhinged. So in that sense, I think this precedent is also fine.
stackedinserter 7mo ago
What does setting things on fire have to do with freedom of speech?
- oofbey 7mo ago
  I think this is how it goes: The people who set things on fire weren't directly associated with Greenpeace. But the argument is that Greenpeace's rhetoric incited them to do so. So it becomes a freedom of speech issue. If you tell people something is evil and must be burned, are you responsible for that thing getting torched?
  - stackedinserter 7mo ago
    The Hutus that committed genocide in Rwanda were not directly associated with that radio host that called for murders, yet he's a criminal.
Ekaros 7mo ago
Isn't this just the often repeated "free speech does not mean freedom from consequences". So this is exactly what left wants. They are not prevented from saying things. They just lose money over them. As free speech only applies to state preventing from things being said.

kilroy123 7mo ago

I have some inside knowledge here. When I was in college, I was very idealistic. I was in a special Greenpeace program where they took college students and trained them to become environmental activists. Picture a semester-long, hands-on training course. You actually fully go out into the field to run campaigns and meet everyone from the President of Greenpeace to the front-end activist hanging banners and whatnot. I actually liked the President and DC lobbyist folks more than the weridos out and about dropping banners and doing the extreme stuff. I walked away being kind of turned off from the Organization and realized a lot of these folks were not pragmatic and more dogmatic than anything else. Don't get me wrong, I am very grateful and had a blast, but I dropped out of college and became a software engineer instead of an activist.

flybrand 7mo ago
I had a similar experience with the US EPA while in undergrad. It was a shorter experience, but it really changed my view of the organization.

triceratops 7mo ago

> I think Greenpeace did as much as anybody to turn the world against nuclear power I think the nuclear industry didn't do itself any favors. And the oil companies didn't want it to succeed either and did its best to hobble it. The environmental groups are a convenient patsy to take the blame for the outcome. If Greenpeace is so powerful why hasn't it been able to end whaling or the oil industry?

nradov 7mo ago

I agree. In the long term we need to reduce fossil fuel usage but in the short term, restricting pipeline construction means that more petroleum products are transported by rail cars which is a lot dirtier and more dangerous. We have to take a pragmatic harm minimization approach rather than being idealistic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Union_Pacific_oil_train_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_Union_Pacific_oil_train_f...

troyvit 7mo ago
You're probably right, but when I look around the Front Range at the landscape blighted by drought, the mountains naked of snow, the skyline hazed by smog and the smoke from forest fires, I feel like this is where pragmatism has gotten us.