View Single Post
Old 06-26-2013, 09:21 AM   #32
BroncoBeavis
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by houghtam View Post
Some of us thought the CO2 emissions angle for the pipeline argument was a stupid one to begin with. Some of us are more concerned with localized threats to the environment which have regional and global influence than a general concern about emissions.

Read my posts. CO2 has never been a concern of mine when talking about pipelines. It's that this is a poorly regulated industry full of do-what-it-takes-to-cut-all-costs-no-matter-what companies who rarely have to take responsibility for their actions after the fact, and almost never have to worry about them before the fact.
Point taken.

Quote:
Example, as I pointed out to cut, is Enbridge. A company with a history not only of negligence, but of pure refusal to cooperate on cleanup efforts. And who gets the contract?

And we're not just talking about wilderness here...these people had their homes built over a pipeline they didn't even know was there.
Not saying that's not terrible. But they could've just as easily been killed in a derailment, as two people were in that Baltimore derailment below. I'm not trying to equate one method with the other. It's just important to note that when as a policy, we oppose new infrastructure development, the alternative is almost never zero-cost. Just harder to quantify (or affect)
  Reply With Quote