4 ms·

The use of railways for transporting petroleum products is booming thanks to the backlash against pipelines such as keystone and gateway. Oil companies who are

by beloch 13y ago

The use of railways for transporting petroleum products is booming thanks to the backlash against pipelines such as keystone and gateway. Oil companies who are fearful of incurring public outrage due to pipeline spills are only too happy to hand tanker cars over to the care of railway workers. When statistically inevitable accidents happen the oil producers can escape the blame! The Lac-Mégantic disaster shows why we should be building more pipelines. Pipelines spill less per unit of volume shipped and usually avoid populated centers to a much greater degree than railways. They're better for the environment and safer for humans. Fossil fuels can be nasty stuff, but we currently still need them and we require the ability to move them around safely. The next time you see environmentalists protesting pipeline construction, ask them why they're not chaining themselves to their local railway tracks instead. We should do our best to avoid rolling bomb's through beautiful towns like Lac-Mégantic on a daily basis.

jschrf 13y ago
Thank you for altering my viewpoint on this topic. I just remembered why I read this site.
revelation 13y ago
That might be penny-wise and pound foolish. Pipelines cost billions to build and they manifest our reliance on oil, which in turn costs much more lifes simply through pollution than any number of railway accidents.
- trekky1700 13y ago
  Our reliance on oil is already there, whether you're building pipelines or additional oil carrying railroad cars and running extra trains.
  - revelation 13y ago
    The point here is not absolute, it's a relative one. Of course we already rely on oil. But if a 7 billion pipeline makes us rely on oil for an extra year (simple economics since its cheaper to transport through a pipeline than on rail), the negative externalities caused by that extra year of fossil fuel would dwarf the fatalities of railway accidents any time.
    - rilindo 13y ago
      The cost inflicted by oil is measured in centuries. A year or two saved may not make a difference in terms of total lives lost: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/10471304/Carbon-in-atmosphere-could-warm-planet-for-centuries.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/1... Moving oil through the pipeline is bad, but it is less bad than moving by rail in light of the probabilities of human loss (though the spillage is likely to be bigger when there is an accident). At least there is an potential up of rail being freed up to move something else safer - like people.
PuerkitoBio 13y ago
It's not quite that simple. The truth is that we just don't know how to move oil safely. The sane thing to do would be to phase it out. "The IEA (International Energy Agency) found the risk of a rail spill is six times as high as the risk of a pipeline spill, but pipelines simply spill more when they rupture." http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/14/pipeline-oil-spills-rail-spills_n_3273725.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/14/pipeline-oil-spills-...
- ta38383 13y ago
  The sane thing to do would be to phase it out. And replace it with what? You can't phase something out until you have a replacement. (Or you could send everyone back to a 19th century standard of living.)
  - waffles4all 13y ago
    >>And replace it with what? You can't phase something out until you have a replacement. (Or you could send everyone back to a 19th century standard of living.) This is what came to mind while reading OP's and your comment: One of the worst possible consequences arising from global warming is destabilization of agriculture. As you surely know, large-scale agriculture relies on the known climate for a particular region. This includes water supplies, knowing what to plant, and what pests to watch out for. The problem with climate change is exactly that: the climate for regions could change, adding many more unknowns/uncertainties to an already complex system. Some change is expected, but what I don't know is what tolerance we can handle. My (perhaps unfounded) fear is that these disruptions could push us back to pre-18th century standard of living.
    - Frozenlock 13y ago
      So many assumptions... * 1st assumption: It is within human reach to change the climate. * 2nd: Current climate variations are created by human activities. * 3rd: A human induced climate change will make the planet warmer. * 4th: A warmer planet is bad. (If you look at a world map, you'll see huge surface of land in the temperate and frigid zones.)

by beloch 13y ago

jschrf 13y ago

Thank you for altering my viewpoint on this topic. I just remembered why I read this site.

revelation 13y ago

That might be penny-wise and pound foolish. Pipelines cost billions to build and they manifest our reliance on oil, which in turn costs much more lifes simply through pollution than any number of railway accidents.

trekky1700 13y ago
Our reliance on oil is already there, whether you're building pipelines or additional oil carrying railroad cars and running extra trains.
- revelation 13y ago
  The point here is not absolute, it's a relative one. Of course we already rely on oil. But if a 7 billion pipeline makes us rely on oil for an extra year (simple economics since its cheaper to transport through a pipeline than on rail), the negative externalities caused by that extra year of fossil fuel would dwarf the fatalities of railway accidents any time.
  - rilindo 13y ago
    The cost inflicted by oil is measured in centuries. A year or two saved may not make a difference in terms of total lives lost: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/10471304/Carbon-in-atmosphere-could-warm-planet-for-centuries.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/1... Moving oil through the pipeline is bad, but it is less bad than moving by rail in light of the probabilities of human loss (though the spillage is likely to be bigger when there is an accident). At least there is an potential up of rail being freed up to move something else safer - like people.

PuerkitoBio 13y ago

It's not quite that simple. The truth is that we just don't know how to move oil safely. The sane thing to do would be to phase it out. "The IEA (International Energy Agency) found the risk of a rail spill is six times as high as the risk of a pipeline spill, but pipelines simply spill more when they rupture." http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/14/pipeline-oil-spills-rail-spills_n_3273725.html http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/05/14/pipeline-oil-spills-...

ta38383 13y ago
The sane thing to do would be to phase it out. And replace it with what? You can't phase something out until you have a replacement. (Or you could send everyone back to a 19th century standard of living.)
- waffles4all 13y ago
  >>And replace it with what? You can't phase something out until you have a replacement. (Or you could send everyone back to a 19th century standard of living.) This is what came to mind while reading OP's and your comment: One of the worst possible consequences arising from global warming is destabilization of agriculture. As you surely know, large-scale agriculture relies on the known climate for a particular region. This includes water supplies, knowing what to plant, and what pests to watch out for. The problem with climate change is exactly that: the climate for regions could change, adding many more unknowns/uncertainties to an already complex system. Some change is expected, but what I don't know is what tolerance we can handle. My (perhaps unfounded) fear is that these disruptions could push us back to pre-18th century standard of living.
  - Frozenlock 13y ago
    So many assumptions... * 1st assumption: It is within human reach to change the climate. * 2nd: Current climate variations are created by human activities. * 3rd: A human induced climate change will make the planet warmer. * 4th: A warmer planet is bad. (If you look at a world map, you'll see huge surface of land in the temperate and frigid zones.)