While I would typically advocate for First Nations people, In this specific case I am just going to have to say “too bad.” The only reason why the pipeline was approved in the first place was...
While I would typically advocate for First Nations people, In this specific case I am just going to have to say “too bad.”
The only reason why the pipeline was approved in the first place was because President Trump signed an execution order giving himself sole power to approve cross-border construction projects, which he did for the express purpose of approving this specific project. And even with that, there were still plenty of attempts to block it because it would only make our climate crisis even worse. Not to mention all the land that would be taken away by eminent domain and the wildlife that would be harmed by construction in their habitats.
Frankly, this story is so long and drought that you can basically spin it to mean whatever you want. There was an obvious partisan divide and you could argue both sides chose arbitrarily at any...
Frankly, this story is so long and drought that you can basically spin it to mean whatever you want. There was an obvious partisan divide and you could argue both sides chose arbitrarily at any given point of the process. I can certainly understand why reasonable people would be upset about it, but I can’t be certain that any given person actually understands the scope and scale of this project, let alone the politics behind it.
You talk about demand but the problem is actually in the supply. The more effort you make to provide cheap fuel, the more people will invest in things powered by it. The more oil we import the longer we remain dependent on it as a fuel.
And keep in mind that it’s not oil coming through those pipes - oil is practically extinct at this point. It’s bringing along bitumen. This whole process is more damaging to the environment than if it were just oil.
I had to edit this to address this specifically:
Limiting pipelines has no ability to stop the climate crisis. The only way we can mitigate the issue is through lowering our consumption.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are putting it on individual actions. And that just plain doesn’t make any sense. You can’t rely on people to voluntarily give up on something they need while simultaneously providing them financial incentive to purchase it. The economy simply doesn’t work that way. Even if we had a way to convince every individual, there’s still the much larger issue of convincing every corporation to do the same as well. And it’s clear that we cannot wait for some magical future technology to deliver us from our petroleum-drenched fate.
I feel you are missing the point. The core of your argument is that the US needs a source of cheap oil. What both I and @bloup (I think) are trying to say is that continuing to provide cheap oil...
I feel you are missing the point. The core of your argument is that the US needs a source of cheap oil. What both I and @bloup (I think) are trying to say is that continuing to provide cheap oil is going to be significantly worse for the environment in the long term because it encourages it’s consumption. The pipeline is bad not only because the production itself is worse for the environment, but because it will encourage even more consumption of the fuels which we already know are bad for the environment. It just encourages everyone to keep up the status quo which was already a large part of why we are dealing with the climate crisis today.
One question here: what is the cost of the oil transported by a pipeline, versus rail, truck, boat. I would hazard a guess that it’s more expensive (fracking being the odd duck out), though I have...
The oil will still move south, just by rail and truck, which studies have shown will have a worse environmental impact than moving it by pipeline. And when we reach the limits of that logistical capacity the oil will come in by boat from other, mostly Middle Eastern, or otherwise from heavy fracking and methane flaring shale sources in the U.S..
One question here: what is the cost of the oil transported by a pipeline, versus rail, truck, boat. I would hazard a guess that it’s more expensive (fracking being the odd duck out), though I have no clue how much more expensive. There is something to be said for increasing the price of fossil fuels not only to price in the carbon cost, but also to make things like renewables more advantageous. Would be interesting to model the effect on higher costs of petrochemicals to see if some level of reduced demand offsets the more immediate carbon costs of transport by rail, truck, boat, etc.
I was under the impression that this pipeline would make expanding mining of the tar sands more viable, as it lowers the cost of transport for sale. Regardless, I think that denying the KeystoneXL...
Limiting pipelines has no ability to stop the climate crisis. The only way we can mitigate the issue is through lowering our consumption.
I was under the impression that this pipeline would make expanding mining of the tar sands more viable, as it lowers the cost of transport for sale.
Regardless, I think that denying the KeystoneXL is mostly symbolic, but it symbolizes a transition away from expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and production.
Policy is something available that used to be used more often in America. Demand is not the king of ever decision and could bring a tragedy of the commons. Wish people should stop look at the...
Policy is something available that used to be used more often in America. Demand is not the king of ever decision and could bring a tragedy of the commons. Wish people should stop look at the demand and start looking at the effect.
There's are strong arguments against pipeline construction but they're not "train routes will be bothered because, demand". Perhaps America should build more rail and dedicate some as passenger rail than build a pipeline.
This idea that induced demand cannot be managed is silly though.
Interestingly, relating to hedging bets, at one point Exxon manufactured nuclear fuel. Other oil companies contracted to operate reprocessing facilities for the AEC (today the DOE).
Interestingly, relating to hedging bets, at one point Exxon manufactured nuclear fuel. Other oil companies contracted to operate reprocessing facilities for the AEC (today the DOE).
The title of this piece should say "A Canada First Nation." There are many indigenous people to Canada and the United States who oppose the pipeline. At the end of the day though this isn't just...
The title of this piece should say "A Canada First Nation." There are many indigenous people to Canada and the United States who oppose the pipeline. At the end of the day though this isn't just about indigenous people, it's about all of us because it affects all of us.
I always enjoy learning of First Nation bands that I've not heard of. Wasn't familiar with Nekaneet, but that's because they're down in Cypress Hills. I've never been down there before. I'm from...
I always enjoy learning of First Nation bands that I've not heard of. Wasn't familiar with Nekaneet, but that's because they're down in Cypress Hills. I've never been down there before. I'm from Central-East SK (at least using the COVID tracker definitions) originally.
Interesting, I had no idea! It makes sense once I see it written out as "First Nation" compared to "First Nations." I do understand that there are indigenous people on both sides of the issue,...
Interesting, I had no idea! It makes sense once I see it written out as "First Nation" compared to "First Nations."
I do understand that there are indigenous people on both sides of the issue, just like there are non indigenous Canadians and Americans on both sides of the issue. I hope I did not imply that only one First Nation had a stake. I was talking about the article only speaking about one First Nation.
While I would typically advocate for First Nations people, In this specific case I am just going to have to say “too bad.”
The only reason why the pipeline was approved in the first place was because President Trump signed an execution order giving himself sole power to approve cross-border construction projects, which he did for the express purpose of approving this specific project. And even with that, there were still plenty of attempts to block it because it would only make our climate crisis even worse. Not to mention all the land that would be taken away by eminent domain and the wildlife that would be harmed by construction in their habitats.
Frankly, this story is so long and drought that you can basically spin it to mean whatever you want. There was an obvious partisan divide and you could argue both sides chose arbitrarily at any given point of the process. I can certainly understand why reasonable people would be upset about it, but I can’t be certain that any given person actually understands the scope and scale of this project, let alone the politics behind it.
You talk about demand but the problem is actually in the supply. The more effort you make to provide cheap fuel, the more people will invest in things powered by it. The more oil we import the longer we remain dependent on it as a fuel.
And keep in mind that it’s not oil coming through those pipes - oil is practically extinct at this point. It’s bringing along bitumen. This whole process is more damaging to the environment than if it were just oil.
I had to edit this to address this specifically:
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it sounds like you are putting it on individual actions. And that just plain doesn’t make any sense. You can’t rely on people to voluntarily give up on something they need while simultaneously providing them financial incentive to purchase it. The economy simply doesn’t work that way. Even if we had a way to convince every individual, there’s still the much larger issue of convincing every corporation to do the same as well. And it’s clear that we cannot wait for some magical future technology to deliver us from our petroleum-drenched fate.
I feel you are missing the point. The core of your argument is that the US needs a source of cheap oil. What both I and @bloup (I think) are trying to say is that continuing to provide cheap oil is going to be significantly worse for the environment in the long term because it encourages it’s consumption. The pipeline is bad not only because the production itself is worse for the environment, but because it will encourage even more consumption of the fuels which we already know are bad for the environment. It just encourages everyone to keep up the status quo which was already a large part of why we are dealing with the climate crisis today.
One question here: what is the cost of the oil transported by a pipeline, versus rail, truck, boat. I would hazard a guess that it’s more expensive (fracking being the odd duck out), though I have no clue how much more expensive. There is something to be said for increasing the price of fossil fuels not only to price in the carbon cost, but also to make things like renewables more advantageous. Would be interesting to model the effect on higher costs of petrochemicals to see if some level of reduced demand offsets the more immediate carbon costs of transport by rail, truck, boat, etc.
I was under the impression that this pipeline would make expanding mining of the tar sands more viable, as it lowers the cost of transport for sale.
Regardless, I think that denying the KeystoneXL is mostly symbolic, but it symbolizes a transition away from expanding fossil fuel infrastructure and production.
Policy is something available that used to be used more often in America. Demand is not the king of ever decision and could bring a tragedy of the commons. Wish people should stop look at the demand and start looking at the effect.
There's are strong arguments against pipeline construction but they're not "train routes will be bothered because, demand". Perhaps America should build more rail and dedicate some as passenger rail than build a pipeline.
This idea that induced demand cannot be managed is silly though.
Interestingly, relating to hedging bets, at one point Exxon manufactured nuclear fuel. Other oil companies contracted to operate reprocessing facilities for the AEC (today the DOE).
The title of this piece should say "A Canada First Nation." There are many indigenous people to Canada and the United States who oppose the pipeline. At the end of the day though this isn't just about indigenous people, it's about all of us because it affects all of us.
I always enjoy learning of First Nation bands that I've not heard of. Wasn't familiar with Nekaneet, but that's because they're down in Cypress Hills. I've never been down there before. I'm from Central-East SK (at least using the COVID tracker definitions) originally.
Interesting, I had no idea! It makes sense once I see it written out as "First Nation" compared to "First Nations."
I do understand that there are indigenous people on both sides of the issue, just like there are non indigenous Canadians and Americans on both sides of the issue. I hope I did not imply that only one First Nation had a stake. I was talking about the article only speaking about one First Nation.