[analog31]

In my view, each method needs to be justified on its own merits, since there is no a priori entitlement to extract and ship the oil in the first place. There's also no good justification for burdening the public with the risk of the pipeline, just because it replaces a greater risk somewhere else.

If the pipeline is safe, prove it. If the trains and trucks are safe, prove it. If neither, then leave the oil in the ground.

[ars]

> If neither, then leave the oil in the ground.

Nothing is ever perfectly safe. Nothing you do ever has no impact. Everything in life is about tradeoffs, and the right thing to do is pick the best one. NOT wait for the perfect one!

[jcoffland]

Waiting generally has a very low environmental impact. Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad. Unbridled growth is not the only option.

[ars]

> Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad.

Said no poor person ever. You can't just bury your head in the sand and pretend your policies/idea don't impact anyone.

If you understand that and choose to do so anyway because you feel it's better, fine, at least you understand that you are making a tradeoff. But just pretending there is no harm is disingenuous.

[jessaustin]

Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad

...said no politician, ever. This proposition may even be true, but it's a terrible argument.

[cmdrfred]

>Higher energy costs and a slower economy are not necessarily bad

Are you going to be the person who tells families around the country that their grandmother had to freeze to death this winter for the greater good?

How about the young couple that just had a kid and is suffering from stagnant wages. Are you going to come around and tell them to "tough it out" to prevent a catastrophic event a century or two from now?

All the while the smokestacks in the 3rd world just keep growing, and thanks to the lack of demand in the US they can consume even more petroleum products (and in a far less efficient manner) due to the lower cost globally.

[masonic]

Delays in, and cancellations of, nuclear projects for political reasons have had a huge environmental impact, resulting in billions of tons of CO2 release that would not have happened (counting just one pollutant).

(Also, premature decommissioning for political reasons, (e.g. Rancho Seco)

[disantlor]

their point is that it's a false choice. perhaps those resources are better spent developing energy technology that does not require that we accept a certain amount of "unavoidable" environmental damage. it is avoidable, but perhaps a completely free market does not encode that effectively

[jeffdavis]

Roads/rails already exist, as do standards about safe transport of oil by train/truck.

What are you suggesting, exactly? That each locality can block whatever transport goes through it? Maybe put up a tollbooth?

[barney54]

Pipelines and trains and trucks have already been proven to be safe. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of pipelines in the U.S. today. The EIS showed this new pipeline would be safe.

[cmdrfred]

> If neither, then leave the oil in the ground.

Coal isn't safe either, nor nuclear, hell even with solar someone might fall off a roof during maintenance or installation and the panels can be toxic. What perfectly safe energy source do you propose?