Quote:
Originally Posted by oil pan 4
One of our major political parties believes that not building the pipeline will some how save the earth.
They tend to be often wrong but never in doubt when it comes to matters involving energy, money or anything thing else that involves numbers.
|
Not building the pipeline has nothing to do with 'saving the earth'. There are major environmental impacts with a cross country pipeline. Major migration patterns can be severed by a pipeline, leading to a less diverse animal population. This is evidenced in Alaska where deer are afraid of the pipe and won't go anywhere near it, let alone cross it if they could. That doesn't matter? It will to hunters. Try hunting a deer whose population is dwindling. Even if the government gives licensing permissions to hunt that breed, it won't mean you'll find healthy prey. Want a 12 point buck? Good luck. Want a deer with decent meat for food, not containing diseases? Good luck.
We have to look at things holistically. It doesn't make sense financially to not do it? Does it makes sense financially when a pipe bursts, spewing crude into the soil, watershed and whatever else? How about an on-land Deep Horizon type spill? I'm not saying it's guaranteed to happen, I'm saying it must be accounted for. Don't think it would happen? How many spills have we had, major and minor? Google 'PG&E San Bruno' and see what comes up. What happens when somebody who is supposed to maintain this pipe doesn't and the pipe erupts in a major city, rather than a small neighborhood? Who pays for that? I worked a few miles from San Bruno at the time. It could have easily burst closer to my work. Did it effect me? No. Could it have? Yes.
All I'm saying is there are many aspects to any project that must be considered and financially making sense does not always mean it makes complete sense. And political parties has nothing to do with it, lets keep that out before this gets locked.