4 ms·

Wait, is the objection about the safety of the pipeline (Why is it less safe than any of a dozen other pipelines?) or the facilitation of carbon emissions from

Wait, is the objection about the safety of the pipeline (Why is it less safe than any of a dozen other pipelines?) or the facilitation of carbon emissions from burning the contents of the pipeline? Forgive me for being blunt, but most pipeline opponents seem to emphasize the former when what they really object to is the latter.

blinkingled 14y ago
Given how much damage the pipeline leaks can and have caused to the environment, I think the objections ought to be for both.
- twoodfin 14y ago
  So are you just as interested in shutting down (all?) existing pipelines? If not, what's the distinction?
  - eightyone 14y ago
    They never suggested that. A simple cost-benefit analysis shows us that this pipeline simply isn't worth it.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      So simple it can't be linked to?
  - blinkingled 14y ago
    Not really, just saying that if there are so many leaks causing damages - questioning it is the least that can be done. May be the current capacity is enough and they could do more towards guaranteeing / eliminating leaks before building new ones. I don't know - just think that blindly accepting the leaks seems wrong.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
jacoblyles 14y ago
It sounds like FUD. I haven't seen convincing evidence that this pipeline will be any more dangerous than other pipelines.
prostoalex 14y ago
The first time the pipeline was vetoed, the objections were over safety and environmental damage: http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=463557&CategoryId=13280 http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=463557&Categor... "Opponents of the Keystone XL have stressed the environmental damage they say the pipeline would cause in the Sand Hills area, especially due to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the destabilization of sensitive ecosystems."
twistedpair 14y ago
Well, if we didn't burn hydrocarbons... we'd need to buy Elon's electric cars! How convenient!

blinkingled 14y ago

Given how much damage the pipeline leaks can and have caused to the environment, I think the objections ought to be for both.

twoodfin 14y ago
So are you just as interested in shutting down (all?) existing pipelines? If not, what's the distinction?
- eightyone 14y ago
  They never suggested that. A simple cost-benefit analysis shows us that this pipeline simply isn't worth it.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    So simple it can't be linked to?
- blinkingled 14y ago
  Not really, just saying that if there are so many leaks causing damages - questioning it is the least that can be done. May be the current capacity is enough and they could do more towards guaranteeing / eliminating leaks before building new ones. I don't know - just think that blindly accepting the leaks seems wrong.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

jacoblyles 14y ago

It sounds like FUD. I haven't seen convincing evidence that this pipeline will be any more dangerous than other pipelines.

prostoalex 14y ago

The first time the pipeline was vetoed, the objections were over safety and environmental damage: http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=463557&CategoryId=13280 http://www.laht.com/article.asp?ArticleId=463557&Categor... "Opponents of the Keystone XL have stressed the environmental damage they say the pipeline would cause in the Sand Hills area, especially due to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the destabilization of sensitive ecosystems."

twistedpair 14y ago

Well, if we didn't burn hydrocarbons... we'd need to buy Elon's electric cars! How convenient!