Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
If you want to talk facts I'd like to see numbers on the frequent, smaller spills that cause more damage than the "infrequent" pipeline leaks that like to completely inundate areas with many tens of thousands of gallons, rather than the emotional "It spills more often, that's WORSE"
edited 24th Feb '15 2:05:34 PM by Joesolo
I'm baaaaaaack![]()
Not my numbers; I'm referring to the actual report that came out of the EPA. I can dig it up somewhere if needed.
More fervently than ever, it seems.
edited 24th Feb '15 2:06:39 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Fighteer kind of beat me to it, but environmentalism gets dragged through the mud partly because the popular language associated with it is based on emotional rhetorical rather than science. I'm on the fence regarding the pipeline and I can sympathize with Gabrael's side, but as for environmentalism in general, it's really a matter of human sustainability.
Earth is is a big, hot rock that was here long before we were here, and it will be here long after we're gone. Something climatologists have been trying to get into people's heads regarding ACC is that the planet will survive the consequences of ACC - we won't. I'm not particularly fond of Gaia theory precisely because its adherents presume that the earth needs saving insofar as the planet itself will collapse without our intervention. Erratic ecological conditions are of little consequence to the planet's functionality, but if we keep insisting on using fossil fuels for transportation and infrastructure, the human race is going to be a lot less comfortable.
This comic does a good job of summing it up.
◊
Until we can start doing sci-fi stuff like terraforming planets into garden biospheres, we need to get our shit together right here right now.
Okay, I found a site that copies the State Department's executive summary of its 2012 report on Keystone XL. (link)
The study of spill risks (table ES-7 on page ES-36) shows that alternative transportation methods (rail and tanker) would release between three and nine times the annual volume of oil (measured in barrels per year) as the proposed pipeline route, assuming the same volume of oil to be delivered daily. This takes into account historical spill rates in each form of transport combined with the average volume spilled.
Those alternatives would also have higher overall costs of transport in terms of environmental CO2 released, largely because of the need to fuel trains/ships to carry the oil.
edited 24th Feb '15 2:27:07 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"To be honest though, unless we REALLY fuck up, humans aren't going to just die out from the globe getting a bit warmer. Even if the coasts flood and society collapses, Unless some asshole launches the nukes, we'll live. Won't be pretty but we've survived worse. Hell, many humans are currently surviving in worse.
I'm baaaaaaackTo add something to my post above, in case the edit didn't get noticed, the environmentalist argument against Keystone XL is essentially invalid. To be sure, transporting the oil is more costly to the environment than not transporting it at all, but assuming it's going to be transported anyway, a pipeline is both safer and more environmentally sound than alternative methods.
This encapsulates the problem with basing your arguments on emotion rather than facts. To use an analogy, it's like saying people shouldn't fly in airplanes because of the risk of major crashes, despite the fact that air travel is, mile for mile, far safer than automobile travel.
The simple fact is that, until alternatives become sufficiently cheap and widespread, petroleum is going to be used as a fuel source. That's just reality. It seems like some of the arguments against Keystone XL are paradoxically based on the idea that, because it makes oil potentially a bit cheaper, it contributes to consumption of our resources and thus global warming. I don't consider that argument cogent.
edited 24th Feb '15 2:33:18 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@ the Tar Sands: In Alberta, the production is going up since the Albertan government is panicking. They're hugely in debt, they can't raise local taxes because of the public reaction and the price of oil has gone down. They desperately need to do something and because they're basically Canadian Texas, they're kind of stuck with the Republican-style options.
Yeah, people can only use so much gas. Most people aren't going to go "Hey, gas is way cheaper now, time to drive around a lot more!" Instead they're probably going to either save more money, or spend it on other things.
edited 24th Feb '15 2:34:34 PM by Zendervai
To be clear, I'm not refuting the idea that a major pipeline will not axiomatically contribute to ACC, but on a macroscopic level between developing nations wanting to drive cars, eat and live in bigger houses, we absolutely need to address current energy consumption methodologies. This includes how we transport our energy.
Environmentalism is essentially damage control. It's about balancing comfort of living with facing the pragmatic reality of one's carbon footprint. Gabrael and I are real sticklers for recycling, not making unnecessary trips, avoiding idling in traffic, riding bicycles instead of cars, turning off lights and not leaving faucets on. However, I drive a sports car, we have two dogs, Gabrael likes her tablet, and I use my laptop throughout most days. You can't win 'em all, but you can still try. The latter half of that statement is far too often ignored.
I remember one day at the auto parts store, an oil worker was mumbling and grumbling about tree huggers not understanding fossil fuels. The way he put it, "they need to toss them damn liberals in California and turn the damn lights off, and we'll see how long they'll cry about oil. It'll be here long enough for your children and your children's children."
He bolted out before I could say anything, but I wanted to ask him what he thought living conditions would be like, assuming he's correct about future oil supplies. Because to me, the issue isn't even the availability of oil so much as it's a matter of how social inequality, agriculture and international trade will affect oil consumption and vice versa. Between anti-vaxxers, anti-GMO advocates and climate change deniers dictating public policy, this is not a trivial concern.
edited 24th Feb '15 3:11:02 PM by Aprilla
I would rather tax the gas to make it more expensive at the pump than force producers to use transportation methods that are riskier and have a higher carbon footprint. Actually, I'd rather tax producers' profits; that's less regressive.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Once Homer Simpson said "public transportation is for jerks and lesbians." Which highlights the suburban opinions on it quite well.
I am not making an argument, merely stating my opinion. I have seen a pipe burst in real life and what that does to people. I have also seen how short our national attention span is.
I rather us not use oil at all like we do. But that is an ideal we cannot achieve quite yet even if people were all on board.
I rather smaller numbers transported by trucks over a pipeline any day. Less oil is spilled should it be spilled. More areas are sharing the risk, not just poor people who cant fight it if eminent domain is pulled. And there is just more visability both literally and figuratively.
I am more than willing to change my opinion if better evidence is presented, but so far that hasn't happened.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurIt's not that inconvenient for people living in the city itself (or urban neighborhoods like my own). It's only inconvenient for proper suburbs trying to get in, certainly.
Also depends on the city. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia trains, lol. Buses, then you have something. In Washington its the other way around.
Well, whether or not they're discussing it, this particular eminent domain abuse is indeed being stopped by the veto.
And I'll say this: Republicans don't want it passed either. They want it vetoed so that they can say that they're fighting the war against Obammunism and can carry that veto back home to their voters.
If Republicans actually wanted the pipeline to go through, they'd have sat down, hashed out the c/b analysis, presented it to Democrats, and maybe slipped the Democrats a little pork under the table in exchange (That Came Out Wrong). Instead, they turned it into the usual political circus to mobilize their base.
edited 24th Feb '15 4:38:46 PM by Ramidel
I feel like it's wasted effort, like attacking a heroin addict's problem by taking away the clean needles that the government hands out.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Yes, the problem is that the oil, which is going to be dug up anyway, is going to get to the refineries somehow, whether we have a pipeline or not, and pipelines are safer than other forms of transportation in aggregate. Vetoing Keystone is a symbolic gesture, nothing more. It won't meaningfully affect greenhouse emissions and, if anything, will result in more spills.
To add something to my post above, in case the edit didn't get noticed, the environmentalist argument against Keystone XL is essentially invalid. To be sure, transporting the oil is more costly to the environment than not transporting it at all, but assuming it's going to be transported anyway, a pipeline is both safer and more environmentally sound than alternative methods.
This is such a cynical and defeatist argument. It's like saying that if you see an unlocked car in a bad neighborhood, that you should steal it because someone else is just going to steal it soon anyway and they're probably a worse driver than you.
Since you talk so much about facts, the fact is that the (majority of the) tar sands must stay in the ground if we're to have any hope of limiting global warming. So the real solution is for Canada to shut it down, but since that's not happening in the forseeable future, the least we can do is not contribute to the problem.
We can at least respect eminent domain and make sure there aren't unnecessary oil spills in America. If Canada wants to create even more oil spills instead, that's their problem.
I would rather tax the gas to make it more expensive at the pump than force producers to use transportation methods that are riskier and have a higher carbon footprint
Well obviously, that's the best but the Republicans have made clear that that's not happening in the forseeable future. You take what you can get.
edited 24th Feb '15 7:43:29 PM by storyyeller
Blind Final Fantasy 6 Let's PlayI don't think you grasped my point. By preventing Keystone XL from being built, we have done nothing to stop the mining of tar sands or the transport of tar sands oil to the refineries. At best we've made it slightly more expensive and less safe. This isn't a perfect solution fallacy error; it's a "not actually a solution at all" error.
At best, blocking the pipeline is a rhetorical victory. It sure as heck isn't a direct one. It's a statement: "Hai guys, we can block your construction projects, so you'd better take us seriously."
edited 24th Feb '15 7:56:41 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

@Gabrael: Large, discrete events feel worse (and make bigger media coverage) than frequent, minor events. That doesn't mean that the net environmental impact from one is necessarily greater than the other.
If we are going to have a rational environmental debate, we must deal in facts, not emotions. Emotional arguments are the weapon of your opponents; joining them is playing by their rules. Heck, there's enough bad press about environmentalism for taking a "save the trees, screw the humans" approach. Even if it's not true, perception is what matters.
edited 24th Feb '15 2:02:25 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"