U.S. to re-route Keystone XL due to environmental concerns

[EagleSmack]

With what exactly?

With all the potential environmental disasters in their own homes and neighborhoods. These tanks might leak you know.

But no... houses need to be heated, appliances need to run, cars need to be driven, COMFORT needs to be had. Only the Greenies can scream about the dangers of oil while using it like everyone else and not see their hypocrisy.

 

[mentalfloss]

With all the potential environmental disasters in their own homes and neighborhoods. These tanks might leak you know.

rofl

I'm sure scale and risk potential play a factor as well.

Wow.

 

[EagleSmack]

rofl

I'm sure scale and risk potential play a factor as well.

Wow.

Yes, the current Keystone pipeline and Alaskan Pipeline (etc etc) as been an environmental disaster hasn't it?

rofl on that.

 

[mentalfloss]

Yes, the current Keystone pipeline and Alaskan Pipeline (etc etc) as been an environmental disaster hasn't it?

rofl on that.

I have no problem with safe pipelines.

 

[EagleSmack]

I have no problem with safe pipelines.

So they plan to make this one unsafe?

Now I'm rofl

 

[mentalfloss]

So they plan to make this one unsafe?

Now I'm rofl

The new route needed a proper environmental assessment, so whether or not it is safe is in dispute. The other issue is that increased oilsands production will have detrimental impact on climate. And of course, it also increases dependency on a limited resource.

So, yes, there are certain concerns that need to be looked after.

 

[captain morgan]

With all the potential environmental disasters in their own homes and neighborhoods. These tanks might leak you know.

But no... houses need to be heated, appliances need to run, cars need to be driven, COMFORT needs to be had. Only the Greenies can scream about the dangers of oil while using it like everyone else and not see their hypocrisy.

Enviro activism stops right where the the eco-issues collide with the comfortable living of of the run-of-the-mill greeenie.

MF is a good example thereof - he demands that entire nations enact legislation that prevents the use of oil, but he as an individual, has fallen over himself in providing innumerable excuses as to why he won't install meaningful green tech options into his lifestyle.

So they plan to make this one unsafe?

Now I'm rofl

Too funny!

 

[mentalfloss]

MF is a good example thereof - he demands that entire nations enact legislation that prevents the use of oil, but he as an individual, has fallen over himself in providing innumerable excuses as to why he won't install meaningful green tech options into his lifestyle.

That's a non-sequitur as one is perfectly legitimate in having an opinion of macroscopic policy, without having to be some shining example of that principle.

By that logic, you should also be attacking environmentalists who actually support the pipeline.

 

[EagleSmack]

The new route needed a proper environmental assessment, so whether or not it is safe is in dispute. The other issue is that increased oilsands production will have detrimental impact on climate. And of course, it also increases dependency on a limited resource.

So, yes, there are certain concerns that need to be looked after.

Oh please. This assessment is a delaying tactic and nothing more. It was being tabled like a proposed bill in Congress. Sent for further review until it simply dies.

 

[mentalfloss]

Oh please. This assessment is a delaying tactic and nothing more. It was being tabled like a proposed bill in Congress. Sent for further review until it simply dies.

The pipeline wasn't going through Nebraska's aquifer?

 

[EagleSmack]

That's a non-sequitur as one is perfectly legitimate in having an opinion of macroscopic policy, without having to be some shining example of that principle.

If you aren't going to be an example and act locally then you are simply being hypocritical.

By that logic, you should also be attacking environmentalists who actually support the pipeline.

I can't see how. Unless you feel that all environmentalist MUST think a certain way.

 

[captain morgan]

That's a non-sequitur as one is perfectly legitimate in having an opinion of macroscopic policy, without having to be some shining example of that principle.

The macro policy is fully dependent on the micro-components... It's impossible to take your comment seriously or believe that you are passionate about this issue if you refuse to engage any personal actions on your part.

By that logic, you should also be attacking environmentalists who actually support the pipeline.

Not if those environmentalists aren't hypocrites

 

[mentalfloss]

If you aren't going to be an example and act locally then you are simply being hypocritical.

It would appear that way, but it isn't because you're making a judgement about large scale decisions rather than individual accomplishment.

I can't see how. Unless you feel that all environmentalist MUST think a certain way.

Which is precisely what the captain and you are doing. There are many different degrees of environmental care and how other forces (like the economy), should be balanced with that degree of care.

The more these issues prop up, the greater the public awareness of sustainable development. In fact, the U.N. is already beginning to push the idea of resource management over climate change in the short term, because many developed countries don't take the issue seriously enough.

The macro policy is fully dependent on the micro-components.

Wrong.

Reducing industrial emissions has a greater effect than individual output, for instance.

 

[captain morgan]

Wrong.

Reducing industrial emissions has a greater effect than individual output for instance.

What baloney.

Using that argument, if the major companies that own large oilsands projects simply incorporate a few subsidiaries and spread-out their oilsands assets between 10 or so shell companies, the individual shells will qualify as 'micro' producers and there won't be any fear of AGW because they are not 'macro' anymore.

 

[mentalfloss]

Using that argument, if the major companies that own large oilsands projects simply incorporate a few subsidiaries and spread-out their oilsands assets between 10 or so shell companies, the individual shells will qualify as 'micro' producers and there won't be any fear of AGW because they are not 'macro' anymore.

As a matter of scale, anything one organization does to reduce emissions will always be considered much greater (macro) than what you could accomplish in your own home (micro). When you consider the consequence of those actions - the first affects large sectors of the economy and society, while the latter makes a negligible if inconsequential effect.

 

[captain morgan]

As a matter of scale, anything one organization does to reduce emissions will always be considered much greater (macro) than what you could accomplish in your own home (micro).

So, the oil companies simply need to have their assets in a minimum number of shell companies to solve the problem of AGW?

Great, that should solve the pipeline debate too!

 

[mentalfloss]

So, the oil companies simply need to have their assets in a minimum number of shell companies to solve the problem of AGW?

Great, that should solve the pipeline debate too!

I have no idea what you're talking about, but, I'm sure it has nothing to do with me planting a tree.

 

[captain morgan]

Sure you know bud... Like you said, the contribution of a small entity doesn't count (micro), it's the macro stuff that matters.

All I'm sayin' is that if Suncor or CNRL structures their properties, operations and assets into a bunch of little companies (all owned by the parent company - Suncor or CNRL), the little (micro) companies don't count towards the oilsands adding to AGW.

Problem solved, right?

 

[mentalfloss]

Sure you know bud... Like you said, the contribution of a small entity doesn't count (micro), it's the macro stuff that matters.

All I'm sayin' is that if Suncor or CNRL structures their properties, operations and assets into a bunch of little companies (all owned by the parent company - Suncor or CNRL), the little (micro) companies don't count towards the oilsands adding to AGW.

Problem solved, right?

No, collectively they'll constitute a large scale operation that is not only harmful to the environment, but bad for business.

 

[captain morgan]

... But, but, they exist as a bunch of small entities, just like you are only one among an army of AGW enthusiasts whose individual contributions will amount to nothing.