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.