[2Cdo]

peck420 peck420:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I agree. You're just not one of them.

If you don't drink the "global warming" kool-aid you obviously don't care about the environment.

[peck420]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

peck420 peck420:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I agree. You're just not one of them.

If you don't drink the "global warming" kool-aid you obviously don't care about the environment.

I have never denied climate change.

I have questioned the findings of studies...on both sides.

I have questioned the relevance of CO2 vs the plethora of toxic chemicals nobody seems to give two shits about.

I have even postulated that global warming may be beneficial to humanity over the long haul.

Why would I ever deny that we (humanity) have some form of effect on our environment? We have to, we are part of the 'system'.

[PluggyRug]

I would postulate that oil transport by rail carries a greater threat of environmental damage than a pipeline.

[martin14]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

I would postulate that oil transport by rail carries a greater threat of environmental damage than a pipeline.

I am sure the people of Lac Megantic would agree with you.

[Zipperfish]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

peck420 peck420:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I agree. You're just not one of them.

If you don't drink the "global warming" kool-aid you obviously don't care about the environment.

No if you assume that anyone expressing concern for the environment is just in it for the money--as Peck did with reference to the Keystone pipeline--then any claims to being an environmentalist should be viewed with skepticism.

[commanderkai]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No if you assume that anyone expressing concern for the environment is just in it for the money--as Peck did with reference to the Keystone pipeline--then any claims to being an environmentalist should be viewed with skepticism.

Who do you think is spearheading the anti-Keystone Pipeline campaign? Shouldn't more rational environmentalists, knowing that the United States will still need oil for the immediate future, realize a pipeline is safer for the environment than current transportation methods of oil from the Prairies to the southern US?

[peck420]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

No if you assume that anyone expressing concern for the environment is just in it for the money--as Peck did with reference to the Keystone pipeline--then any claims to being an environmentalist should be viewed with skepticism.

Well, if that is what got your knickers in a bunch, maybe you can highlight were I claimed that 'anyone expressing concern for the environment is just in it for the money'?

I claimed that those spearheading the campaign are...which is true.

So far the vast, vast, vast (did I mention vast?) majority of money being poured into the anti XL campaign is coming from people that stand to loose billions if that pipeline is finished.

Until that changes, I stand by my claim that those spearheading the campaign are in it for the money.

[Zipperfish]

commanderkai commanderkai:

Who do you think is spearheading the anti-Keystone Pipeline campaign? Shouldn't more rational environmentalists, knowing that the United States will still need oil for the immediate future, realize a pipeline is safer for the environment than current transportation methods of oil from the Prairies to the southern US?

I don't buy that moving oil by pipeline is more environmentally safe than moving it by rail. Certainly if you look at the volume of oil spilled over the last couple of decades, the volume spilled by pipeline is orders of magnitudes greater than the volume spilled by trains.

But the argument goes deeper than that. It's about the bigger issues of climate change, the traversing of the pipeline over the Ogalla reservoir, environmental impacts of the oil sands, the gutting of federal environmental legislation in Canada adn other issues.

What many people don't seem to realize is that just belitting those raising their voices as "libtards" or money grubbers is not going to make the problem go away. BC found this out the hard way with their clearcutting practices in the late 80s. Eventually, they had to change the way they did business, because they were losing business.

[Zipperfish]

peck420 peck420:

Well, if that is what got your knickers in a bunch, maybe you can highlight were I claimed that 'anyone expressing concern for the environment is just in it for the money'?

I claimed that those spearheading the campaign are...which is true.

So what about the vast majority of the people who are iffy on this Keystone thing? Ihn it for the money? Duped? Or legitimate issues?

[peck420]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

peck420 peck420:

So what about the vast majority of the people who are iffy on this Keystone thing? Ihn it for the money? Duped? Or legitimate issues?

Legitimate issue. Massive legitimate issue.

All the sadder that it is being co-opted by big oil business on one side and big oil transportation business on the other.

The part that is getting squeezed out by these 2 baboons is the legitimate environmental issue.

Long story short, one set of people should be giving the yea, or nay, to this project, and it isn't the President. This is, at it's heart, a science issue...leave it to scientists.

Having it decided by political entities, easily swayed by money is folly.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

I would postulate that oil transport by rail carries a greater threat of environmental damage than a pipeline.

No postulation required The Association of American Railroads has openly stated that rail is a far riskier transport method than pipelines.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

I would postulate that oil transport by rail carries a greater threat of environmental damage than a pipeline.

No postulation required The Association of American Railroads has openly stated that rail is a far riskier transport method than pipelines.

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spills-by-mode-of-transport-2013-7



Total oil spills from pipelines: 110 million gallons.
Rail: 2 million.

Rail has more accidents, but pipeline spills are typically much more severe.

[PublicAnimalNo9]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

PluggyRug PluggyRug:

I would postulate that oil transport by rail carries a greater threat of environmental damage than a pipeline.

No postulation required The Association of American Railroads has openly stated that rail is a far riskier transport method than pipelines.

http://www.businessinsider.com/oil-spills-by-mode-of-transport-2013-7



Total oil spills from pipelines: 110 million gallons.
Rail: 2 million.

Rail has more accidents, but pipeline spills are typically much more severe.

True, but pipeline spills tend not to go BOOM, causing death and destruction.
Plus you have the added emissions from diesel exhaust.

From a purely global warming perspective, rail can't compete with pipelines.
Oil spill from pipeline: damage to the environment.
Oil spill from a rail accident: high potential for burning fossil fuels, damage to the environment plus the emissions from the train before any accident that might occur.
And Obummer stated quite clearly that his decision on XL was based on the potential effects on global warming. I think it's a no-brainer.

[DrCaleb]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Rail has more accidents, but pipeline spills are typically much more severe.

True, but pipeline spills tend not to go BOOM, causing death and destruction.
Plus you have the added emissions from diesel exhaust.

From a purely global warming perspective, rail can't compete with pipelines.
Oil spill from pipeline: damage to the environment.
Oil spill from a rail accident: high potential for burning fossil fuels, damage to the environment plus the emissions from the train before any accident that might occur.

What he said. ^^

Cities and towns were built along rail lines as the lines headed West and North. So transporting oil by rail means it will inevitably intersect population centers. Pipelines are built away from populations, but on the shortest path that is cost efficient. If the pipelines are properly monitored, environmental damage can be limited.

[Zipperfish]

PublicAnimalNo9 PublicAnimalNo9:

True, but pipeline spills tend not to go BOOM, causing death and destruction.
Plus you have the added emissions from diesel exhaust.

From a purely global warming perspective, rail can't compete with pipelines.
Oil spill from pipeline: damage to the environment.
Oil spill from a rail accident: high potential for burning fossil fuels, damage to the environment plus the emissions from the train before any accident that might occur.
And Obummer stated quite clearly that his decision on XL was based on the potential effects on global warming. I think it's a no-brainer.

OK, your original point about rails spilling more than pipelines is conclusively wrong. Absolutely. Maybe you should stop a second and internalize that before just continuing on as if your whole argument wasn't just blown out of the water.

Emissions from diesel exhaust? So, you think that diluted bitument just moves through a pipeline magically then? That's right up there with your claim that glbal warming is p[ile of crap because the laws of thermodynamics are all wrong.