Keystone pipeline: the environmental solution

[Yoder777]

The Keystone pipeline is another instance of environmental activists failing to see the forest through the trees. What is more dangerous and potentially worse to our environment, the Keystone pipeline being built or transporting all the oil by rail or truck?

BOOM - North America's Explosive Oil-by-Rail Problem

Delaying Keystone just means more oil by rail, Canada?s ambassador to U.S. says - MarketWatch

Whether you agree with extracting oil from the tar sands or not, the fact of the matter is that it will be extracted no matter what, in Canada of all places, which is supposed to be a more progressive country than our own.

Why allow ideology to blind you to the more environmentally friendly option?

After all, labor unions are supporting the Keystone pipeline, who happen to be another important voting block for Democrats, perhaps even more so than environmentalists:
White House And Unions Divided On Keystone | The Daily Caller

This reminds me of when environmentalists oppose building hydroelectric dams, despite it creating jobs and providing a clean, cheap form of energy, because some fish might die in the process, even though alternatives like coal are far worse for the environment.

 

[Vylo]

Hydroelectric dams aren't a good environmentally sound source of energy, and can absolutely devastate ecology far worse than coal. Check out some of the rivers out west that don't even reach the ocean anymore. We've actually started removing many of our dams now that we understand the impact they have.

As for the pipeline people get spooked by spills, and those spills happen. But people might be shocked at how many natural spills there are, particularly if you aren't extracting oil.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Hydroelectric dams aren't a good environmentally sound source of energy, and can absolutely devastate ecology far worse than coal. Check out some of the rivers out west that don't even reach the ocean anymore. We've actually started removing many of our dams now that we understand the impact they have.

That's only if the reservoirs are used for water consumption.

If a hydroelectric dam is only used for electricity generation, the river will flow just the same on both sides of the dam.


The topic of water scarcity in the southwestern US is a different and very difficult topic in its own right. The water scarcity is what is causing environmental degradation downstream. Hydroelectric dams are a very clean and beneficial form of energy generation. They flood a certain portion of land but the landscape readjusts very quickly.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

The Keystone pipeline is another instance of environmental activists failing to see the forest through the trees. What is more dangerous and potentially worse to our environment, the Keystone pipeline being built or transporting all the oil by rail or truck?

BOOM - North America's Explosive Oil-by-Rail Problem

Delaying Keystone just means more oil by rail, Canada?s ambassador to U.S. says - MarketWatch

Whether you agree with extracting oil from the tar sands or not, the fact of the matter is that it will be extracted no matter what, in Canada of all places, which is supposed to be a more progressive country than our own.

Why allow ideology to blind you to the more environmentally friendly option?

After all, labor unions are supporting the Keystone pipeline, who happen to be another important voting block for Democrats, perhaps even more so than environmentalists:
White House And Unions Divided On Keystone | The Daily Caller

This reminds me of when environmentalists oppose building hydroelectric dams, despite it creating jobs and providing a clean, cheap form of energy, because some fish might die in the process, even though alternatives like coal are far worse for the environment.

I'm an environmentalist who thinks we should be working towards lowering our pollution and carbon output. But I still think Keystone should go ahead for precisely the reasons you listed. We've had several nasty rail accidents in Alberta just in the last year or so that resulted in some serious spills. And the Lac Megantic spill in Quebec was devastating as well.

Shipping oil by rail is dangerous and pipelines have a far better track record.


The solution to weaning ourselves off oil is not to shut off the pipelines and stop using it tomorrow, but rather to invest money in alternatives and encourage use of alternatives to ICE cars, oil-based plastic, etc.

 

[Yoder777]

Hydroelectric dams aren't a good environmentally sound source of energy, and can absolutely devastate ecology far worse than coal.

Is hydroelectric a cleaner and more sustainable form of energy than coal?

 

[Vylo]

Is hydroelectric a cleaner and more sustainable form of energy than coal?

Cleaner? Yes. Sustainable? Kind of. It can be sustainable, but the diversion of water can have dramatic effects of the environment and can be impacted by both weather and the presence of other dams.

 

[Yoder777]

Cleaner? Yes. Sustainable? Kind of. It can be sustainable, but the diversion of water can have dramatic effects of the environment and can be impacted by both weather and the presence of other dams.

I live in Washington State, and dams are just an everyday part of life. Back when FDR was president, pro-labor people like Woody Guthrie supported the building of dams because they knew it would create jobs.

Roll On, Columbia, Roll On - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Yoder777]

Recently, when Obama was asked about Keystone pipeline, he said we need to keep in mind the effect of carbon emissions on the environment. Does he acknowledge that the oil is going to be produced and shipped whether we like it or not?

 

[JohnLocke]

Yeah, count me in too. It does seem that the Keystone Pipeline is a far more environmentally responsible alternative to transshipping the oil by rail, highway etc.

Why haven't we gotten that one done?

 

[KitKatMatt]

I live exactly where the end of the Keystone will be.

I'm a bit annoyed and wish we could move away from oil. Why? Because I live where the oil refineries are, and the air is total crap. Everyone who lives here has respiratory issues and sometimes the air is legitimately hard to breathe.

Drive an hour away and suddenly I can breathe again. I don't get nosebleeds, even when I drove to San Antonio where it's very dry. Then I come back and have to resort to popping Sudafed daily and having nosebleeds every few weeks.

But if you don't live where this stuff is being refined, I guess it's easy to forget about that.

 

[Yoder777]

I'm a bit annoyed and wish we could move away from oil. Why? Because I live where the oil refineries are, and the air is total crap. Everyone who lives here has respiratory issues and sometimes the air is legitimately hard to breathe.

Why are they put in places where it's so close to people's homes?

 

[Yoder777]

My main objection to building the Keystone pipeline as planned is that it infringes on native American lands, in violation of federal treaties:

Keystone pipeline's path cuts across Native American land, history - Valdosta Daily Times: Home

 

[KitKatMatt]

Why are they put in places where it's so close to people's homes?

Because if they were far from people's homes, workers would have to drive a long way to get there.

The plant where it's set to end can be seen from my house. At night there's a great burning light in the sky- a combination of the hundreds of lights along the plants, the towers that have fire on top, and the huge pit where they burn waste throughout the night (the main road drives by the pit and it's quite a spectacle. The flames are TOWERING).

I am working on moving away from this lump eventually, but that'll only help me and not the thousands of other locals being impacted by the pollution.

 

[Yoder777]

Because if they were far from people's homes, workers would have to drive a long way to get there.

What about the local public officials?

 

[JohnLocke]

KitkatMatt

I'm sorry you live in an area with poor air quality. Though it's not the same, I remember having quite a bit of difficulty adjusting to the air quality of New York City. But the root of that problem seems to lie with refineries and other industrial activities not a pipeline.

Once put in place, it was my understanding that pipelines were essentially emission free. I know that the Alaskan pipeline is constantly monitored and has what amounts to a remote or automatically operating valve in each section, which limits the amount of oil that can be spilled to the volume of each section compromised + a bit more depending on reaction time.

 

[KitKatMatt]

KitkatMatt

I'm sorry you live in an area with poor air quality. Though it's not the same, I remember having quite a bit of difficulty adjusting to the air quality of New York City. But the root of that problem seems to lie with refineries and other industrial activities not a pipeline.

Once put in place, it was my understanding that pipelines were essentially emission free. I know that the Alaskan pipeline is constantly monitored and has what amounts to a remote or automatically operating valve in each section, which limits the amount of oil that can be spilled to the volume of each section compromised + a bit more depending on reaction time.

The pipeline itself may be just fine, but they're going to be doing stuff with what's going to be pumped through.

They refine oil here, and that's what makes the air crap. Now they're going to be getting a bigger supply of oil to refine, which will make the air worse.

We really need to focus on renewable and clean energy rather than continuing to build on fossil fuels. It's not good for any of us.

 

[Yoder777]

I live exactly where the end of the Keystone will be.

I'm a bit annoyed and wish we could move away from oil. Why? Because I live where the oil refineries are, and the air is total crap. Everyone who lives here has respiratory issues and sometimes the air is legitimately hard to breathe.

Drive an hour away and suddenly I can breathe again. I don't get nosebleeds, even when I drove to San Antonio where it's very dry. Then I come back and have to resort to popping Sudafed daily and having nosebleeds every few weeks.

But if you don't live where this stuff is being refined, I guess it's easy to forget about that.

Do you live in Texas? Why does the oil need to travel such a long distance to be refined?

 

[KitKatMatt]

Do you live in Texas? Why does the oil need to travel such a long distance to be refined?

I live in Texas, on the coast where there is quite a large chain of oil and chemical refineries.

I really don't know, to be honest.

 

[Jeffwhosoever]

Refineries cost a lot of money to build, so they use existing ones to capacity first. I'm not sure that the pipeline will increase the demand output from those existing refineries or not.

 

[GarfieldJL]

My main objection to building the Keystone pipeline as planned is that it infringes on native American lands, in violation of federal treaties:

Keystone pipeline's path cuts across Native American land, history - Valdosta Daily Times: Home

Couldn't they just negotiate a treaty so that a monthly or yearly fee is paid to the Native American Tribes that this pipeline would go through?

If the Native American Tribes still don't agree to the pipeline going through their territory, fine, but it wouldn't hurt to at least ask and see if they would be willing to come to an agreement...