So why should I trust one to build in my backyard?
If so, I don’t think that is common knowledge. I wonder why pro pipeline people don’t highlight it more.
An example, tangent logic of this is the common trend to prevent roads from being built. There is a belief that this will result in fewer cars.
Instead, it results in cars sitting and idling, and cars accelerating then stopping.
Another example is a carpool lane. In many (not all!) cases, carpool lane are almost empty. Meanwhile, traffic stops and starts, or idles beside it.
The most polluting a car does, is during acceleration. The most efficiency is driving a constant speed.
So by trying to reduce car usage the wrong way, the result is as if 2x the number of cars are on the road.
Better to focus on excellent public transit with hyper efficient ride times, than stop new roads.
The same is with pipelines. Prevent anything that has to do with delivery, especially if it is safer and cheaper. After all, if it is safer there will be fewer oil spills, and the public won't mind this aspect of oil extraction. If it is cheaper, oil prices will fall, also bad for global warming.
I feel, sadly, tunnel vision will destroy us all.
Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail their operators refuse to make the ones whose lives they’ve ruined, whole. East Palestine, Ohio is as good an example as the North Dakota border as far as I’m concerned.
And just because your comment is upstream the tree, doesn't make it the only one upstream. People were discussing "why" more generically.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/anti-pipeline-america...
But your response is a bit weird to me. You say it is irrelevant if it is safer? Ok, so there are 4 equal spills vs 2.
Regardless of being made whole, if there's 1/2 the spills, and therefore 1/2 the people not harmed, you think that's not better?? Or worth pursuing?
This is sort of what I'm talking about. Any improvement is good. But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way".
That's folly.
Probably because you want to discuss politics and climate change conspiracies instead of corporate capture.
> You say it is irrelevant if it is safer?
Not what I said at all. I said that, pipeline, ship, or truck, no matter which transport method fails, the operator bears in practice very little legal liability.
> But you're saying "screw all those extra people being hurt, and that damage, because it's not perfect in this way".
Not a direct quote.
But.. but it is?!:
"Pipelines could very well be safer, I don’t have the data in front of me. But that’s irrelevant if when they fail"
You said safety was irrelevant.
I get you didn't mean that, but that's how the words are written. It's an if... then... logical statement.
And if pipelines are safer, you should immediately support them regardless of legal liability shortcomings. Why?
Well you say these shortcomings exist regardless of the method. So if you shift transport to a safer method, you now improve safety and there are fewer accidents.
How is this not a positive?
Do you believe it is better that more people are hurt?
Is there some payoff or benefit to having more accidents?
You can likely tell I'm baffled. You must view it as a plus, but I dont grok why.
It's not just God. I also know!
The Democrats believe climate change is real, the externalities of fossil fuel extraction, processing, and consumption are real, the injured parties in pipeline construction are their constituents, and the fossil fuel companies fund Republicans and Republican-aligned organizations.
It's a really deep mystery, but I've sussed it out. Me and God.
I’m guessing climate change is the reason, but it’s hard to see how the current state of affairs is better for the environment. Diesel trains are a lot less carbon friendly than pipelines.
Are you saying that the trains have the same throughput and cost as the pipeline would have?
The pipeline unquestionably means more production, more co2.
It would necessarily pass through Native land and the native tribes dont want it on their land. Forcing it through is a tribal sovereignty issue.
The Fort Belknap Indian Community of Montana and the Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota contend there was no effort to study how the 1,200-mile pipeline project through their respective territories would affect their water systems and sacred lands."
---https://www.npr.org/2018/09/10/646523140/native-american-tri...
Do you mean to propose this was the real reason behind the scenes? I find it hard to believe.
https://mydakotan.com/2025/04/keystone-pipeline-resumes-oper...
Trade deals are not made with generosity towards oil producers in mind.
There are other landlocked countries throughout the world so it's not like it's impossible, but Alberta would be creating an uphill to climb.
Bottom line is that none of Alberta's longstanding limited market oil pipeline grievances are solved by becoming a landlocked independent state.
And a natural foreign ally.
Writes someone in English. I don't think everyone would agree.
Alberta has oil majority of it foreign owed and wants free pipelines paid by the rest of Canada as subsidy and they got one for free and they believe they get more for free...