It doesn’t make any real difference. It makes more pollution to develop shale than traditional wells. This was corporate interests shoving a pipeline down the throats of people who didn’t want it.
There is no positive benefit to having the pipeline.
Trump approves Keystone pipeline and...
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
It doesn’t make any real difference. It makes more pollution to develop shale than traditional wells. This was corporate interests shoving a pipeline down the throats of people who didn’t want it.
There is no positive benefit to having the pipeline.
The shale is going to be developed regardless of whether or not the pipeline exists, how is blocking the pipeline helping the environment when the oil is now going to be transported by truck and train as opposed to a pipeline? We actually burn more energy transporting it by truck and train, so tell me how blocking a pipeline is good for the environment, do people suddenly start using less oil because the pipeline isnt there?
So how much demand for oil is going to disappear as a result of the pipeline not being built? You think that suddenly less people are going to drive cars because of this? There is an almost inelastic amount of demand for oil that exists in the real world, stopping a pipeline does not change that, infact it only adds to the demand for oil because now the trucks and trains that transport it need oil too.
Last edited:
That’s not true. The only other option for the oil was to build a pipeline across Canada and ship it to China but the Canadian people weren’t stupid and rejected building a pipeline.
You keep arguing that pipelines are more efficient environmentally and that is true, generally speaking. In this case that argument was not a factor. You just grabbed on to a positive argument and applied it to an issue it isn’t really relevant to.
As much as it makes me have a smug smirk in my face, I am in favor of the pipeline. If we're going to be buying oil, might as well be from a friendly ally. The tar sand operations are far from environmentally friendly, yet I'm not sure it's any worse than contaminated water supplies or localized earthquakes from fracking.
That is the entire argument, if you want to pat yourself on the back and pretend you are on the right side of history when the pipeline breaks and spills a bunch of oil, then you have to believe that stopping the pipeline is environmentally beneficial, and in order to think that stopping a pipeline is actually environmentally friendly, in the face of overwhelming evidence, then you have to be deluding yourself.
Not going to hear much argument from me about whether the tar sands are environmentally friendly, clearly its a disaster, those sites look like hell on earth when they are doing that, but my only point was about the pipeline, the oil is going to get moved around the world regardless, you can trasnport it by pipeline, or you can trasnport it by truck and train. Only an idiot would choose transport by truck and train, and still claim they are trying to save the environment. Obama's own administration conceded the fact that the keystone pipeline would not hav a negative effect on greenhouse gas emissions, but he chose not to do it anyways.
Here is time magazine, talking about obama blocking the keystone pipeline, his own administration came to the conclusion it would have no negative effect but they blocked it anyways at the cost of thousands of jobs. I think we can all agree time magazine is not a right wing source.
State Dept: Build the Keystone Pipeline or Not, the Oil Sands Crude Will Flow
A report from the State Department concludes that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will have little impact on carbon emissions. That will make environmentalists battle to fight the pipeline that much tougher.
http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/...ipeline-or-not-the-oil-sands-crude-will-flow/
State Dept: Build the Keystone Pipeline or Not, the Oil Sands Crude Will Flow
A report from the State Department concludes that the proposed Keystone XL pipeline will have little impact on carbon emissions. That will make environmentalists battle to fight the pipeline that much tougher.
http://science.time.com/2013/03/01/...ipeline-or-not-the-oil-sands-crude-will-flow/
In your mind that is the entire argument. In the real world the pipeline was built so tar sands oil could be developed in Canada. There is a really good chance without that pipeline those tar sands would have been at the very least less developed. Tar sands is very dirty oil. It creates more pollution to develop and more to refine.
I’m not a killjoy on oil but I’m not dumb either. The keystone pipeline serves as a way to develop some of the dirtiest oil on the planet. To say the environmental impact of those oils is less than what we currently produce and import is disingenuous.