I just read this:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31596580
I spent a lot of time down in the tail end of the pipe (or the end of the tail pipe, if you will) (sorry, terrible pun). The pipeline would extend directly to/through two communities where I lived/worked. And I got to know quite a bit about the petro-chemical industry.
And I disagree with the Obama Administration on this one. Respectfully.
The main reason is this: there are already pipelines in place. The oil is being extracted and burned already. It's done. If you want to regulate carbon emissions, please do so. I'd be all in favor of that. Do it in a meaningful way, though. Don't confuse potential environmental issues with a conveyance for getting goods to market. Look at this map:
See that? The red line is one (of many) pipelines ALREADY IN PLACE. It's just a more direct route. If you go to this website: https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/ you could see the extensive network of pipelines throughout the country. Extensive is the operative word.
Now look at this map:
See the red lines all over this one? They're largely used as methods of getting goods to market, including hazardous waste, petrochemicals, food stuffs, clothing, and Christmas trees. If what were being proposed was a new highway, no one would say boo.
While we're at it, here's another map:
These are rail lines, which have the same function as highways, except highways are built and maintained by the federal government. Again, the purpose is to get goods to market.
Here's what a pipeline easement might look like:
Sure, they mowed down forest to get it to look like that. But then one may use it as a path. They don't mind.
Here's another one:
Looks like they're growing veg. Not a bad use of what otherwise would be unused land.
Compare that with this:
Or this:
It's not so very different. In fact, in terms of actual environmental impact, the pipeline may be less invasive than other means of getting goods to market.
This thing has been subject to an EIS. It must (!) meet federal guidelines if it wants to get federal approval. The end. They have. It does. Let it go.
I disagree with the stupid argument about job creation. That's ridiculous. Pipeline jobs are only there while the pipeline is being constructed, then it's gone. Maybe a few jobs for inspectors, but relatively insignificant.
Should Congress have passed a bill on this? No. It was a HUGE waste of time.
But should Pres. Obama still be blocking this? No. Let it go, man.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-31596580
I spent a lot of time down in the tail end of the pipe (or the end of the tail pipe, if you will) (sorry, terrible pun). The pipeline would extend directly to/through two communities where I lived/worked. And I got to know quite a bit about the petro-chemical industry.
And I disagree with the Obama Administration on this one. Respectfully.
The main reason is this: there are already pipelines in place. The oil is being extracted and burned already. It's done. If you want to regulate carbon emissions, please do so. I'd be all in favor of that. Do it in a meaningful way, though. Don't confuse potential environmental issues with a conveyance for getting goods to market. Look at this map:
See that? The red line is one (of many) pipelines ALREADY IN PLACE. It's just a more direct route. If you go to this website: https://www.npms.phmsa.dot.gov/PublicViewer/ you could see the extensive network of pipelines throughout the country. Extensive is the operative word.
Now look at this map:
See the red lines all over this one? They're largely used as methods of getting goods to market, including hazardous waste, petrochemicals, food stuffs, clothing, and Christmas trees. If what were being proposed was a new highway, no one would say boo.
While we're at it, here's another map:
These are rail lines, which have the same function as highways, except highways are built and maintained by the federal government. Again, the purpose is to get goods to market.
Here's what a pipeline easement might look like:
Sure, they mowed down forest to get it to look like that. But then one may use it as a path. They don't mind.
Here's another one:
Looks like they're growing veg. Not a bad use of what otherwise would be unused land.
Compare that with this:
Or this:
It's not so very different. In fact, in terms of actual environmental impact, the pipeline may be less invasive than other means of getting goods to market.
This thing has been subject to an EIS. It must (!) meet federal guidelines if it wants to get federal approval. The end. They have. It does. Let it go.
I disagree with the stupid argument about job creation. That's ridiculous. Pipeline jobs are only there while the pipeline is being constructed, then it's gone. Maybe a few jobs for inspectors, but relatively insignificant.
Should Congress have passed a bill on this? No. It was a HUGE waste of time.
But should Pres. Obama still be blocking this? No. Let it go, man.
Comments