[sjg1729]

From How To Save a Planet, a podcast I like:

Alex Blumberg: ...and, [pipeline company] Enbridge says, stopping the pipeline won't stop the development of tar-sands oil. The oil will just travel in less safe ways, like by rail.

Ayana Elizabeth Johnson: But Tara says that argument is missing the entire point.

[Attorney and activist] Tara Houska: The idea is always like, you know, we're replacing old ones that are leaking. How about instead of replacing them and expanding them—which is what you're actually doing—you decommission the old one and pull it out of the ground and clean up the earth that you've contaminated?

Ayana: I like that option better.

Tara: And there's always, like, this premise of, well, it's gonna get shipped anyway. No, it's not. Like, that's the whole point. No, it's not. Your industry is on its way out. And that's the point. And we all know that. You can't sit there and say, "Oh, well, it's gonna go by rail or it's gonna go by ship anyway. No, it's not. The tar sands are on their way out. And that's the reality.

https://gimletmedia.com/shows/howtosaveaplanet/76h4r25

[willis936]

If it would be just as cheap to ship via train or boat then why make the pipeline? If it costs more to ship then it costs more to sell and less of it will be sold. That, in itself, devoid of any bigger picture market predictions, is a huge win for humanity.

Fuck underpaying for carbon emissions. There need to be some current winners made into losers if we pretend to be humans that care about the future of humanity.

[shawnz]

You could get the safety and efficiency advantages of pipelines while still creating the same cost increase through taxes.

Blocking pipelines is not a logical way to achieve that cost increase. That would simply make oil more expensive because it's now less safe/efficient. That does not actually cause the externalities to be priced in like a tax could achieve.

[willis936]

Conservatives don't like change. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. A carbon tax is the right solution, but it isn't the one we will see in this congress. Meanwhile actually doing something actually makes a difference. Pontificating hypothetical policy is not an alternative solution.

[ehvatum]

I’m fairly annoyed that the left is shutting down nuclear plants. They obviously don’t care one whit about climate change.

[willis936]

Not bleeding money into nuclear plants has bipartisan support. The way to make nuclear competitive is with a carbon tax. Guess which side opposes a carbon tax.

[nameisname]

Do you have anything that supports this? This is not supported by anything I have read thus far and I think we are all aware that Nuclear was actually cheap back in the 60's. USA nuclear costs did increase drastically, especially after three Mile Island and political pressures. Many countries managed to keep costs consistent (Japan, Canada) though. Money doesn't need to bleed into Nuclear, and you should expect to see more investment there in the near future with fusion. The issues in USA with nuclear are over half a century old so I think your comment is disingenuous. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[shawnz]

Sure, but if they can sell conservatives on blocking the pipeline, why can't they sell conservatives on a carbon tax? If anything, I think it's more likely that the carbon tax could be seen as a bipartisan win between those options.

[willis936]

Because you don't need legislative approval to stop a pipeline from being built. If you're looking to make money but the executive pendulum swing will consistently block you, eventually you'll stop being able to push your behavior that people don't approve of because it isn't worth it. People lost money on Keystone XL. That's a good thing. That's the system working.

[mavhc]

Also once you build the pipeline it's now got to be used for years to pay back the cost of building it.

Would be funnier to let them build the pipeline, and then not let them use it.

[shawnz]

> And there's always, like, this premise of, well, it's gonna get shipped anyway. No, it's not. Like, that's the whole point. No, it's not. Your industry is on its way out. And that's the point. And we all know that. You can't sit there and say, "Oh, well, it's gonna go by rail or it's gonna go by ship anyway. No, it's not. The tar sands are on their way out. And that's the reality.

I think this is purposely confusing two different arguments.

Nobody can deny that oil use is becoming less and less attractive and that is a good thing for everyone.

But if it is "on the way out", what's the need for blocking the pipeline? The need is that actually there are still significant usages of oil remaining even though it's "on the way out".

So those significant remaining usages actually DO add validity to the argument that blocking the pipeline will cause additional demand for oil trains/tankers. Otherwise there wouldn't be a need to take any action at all.

[evgen]

The demand for shipping the oil via train or truck will also diminish over time as these horrible and expensive oil reserves are eventually made too expensive to extract. If you build a pipeline and put in the investment then you have standing infrastructure and sunk cost that will compel people to keep pulling out the tar sands oil, even at a loss. If they are forced to use tankers then the (higher) cost per barrel for transport is paid immediately and by the supplier instead of foisted off on some bond holders somewhere.

Pushing the transportation demand to trains/tankers is a GOOD thing, it makes everything visible and obvious and it prevents the oil company from hiding the factors that make this reserve the pile of flaming dogshit we all know it to be.

[shawnz]

Perhaps the government should actually subsidize the pipeline to eliminate those extra sunk costs compared to tankers/trains. It would basically be like paying for carbon capture (except you're actually paying for it to just be transported more safely in the first place).

[evgen]

Why subsidize? Let the producer pay the freight. We want to eliminate this oil source anyway, so if there is anything we should be doing right now it is to more heavily tax oil sources like these which have such significant negative externalities.

[WorldMaker]

> But if it is "on the way out", what's the need for blocking the pipeline?

It's economics. Shipping by pipeline is cheaper per gallon than shipping by rail/truck/ships. Even accounting for the huge capital costs to build the pipeline in the first place, once a pipeline is secured the marginal costs of shipping additional gallons is so much lower there would be more prices at which it would be profitable to extract tar sands oil versus if the tar sands extractors have to also account for the increased marginal costs of rail/truck/ships.

Tar sands extraction has already seen mass stoppages when the Saudis flooded the supply chain with oil and dropped the oil costs below what was profitable. (Tar sands extraction is worse for the environment than classic oil drilling and thankfully at least some [though never enough] of those externalities are at play in its costs versus oil drilling.)

Right now the price is up again and tar sands work probably is going back into place and it probably will still be shipped by rail/truck/ship. So the short term problem is the same.

But stopping a pipeline today keeps the pipeline from being a fully depreciated asset for oil sands five/ten/fifteen years from now when the supply/demand curve potentially invert and oil is super cheap again (because demand is way down). The higher marginal costs on shipping especially matter then, because potentially it stops tar sands extraction from again being profitable in far more frightening high supply/low demand periods. In that case it should mean less supply gets put onto the market, especially from high cost extraction techniques such as tar sands.

[epistasis]

The claim about carbon cost of shipping has no numbers attached to it and is most likely completely deceptive. It doesn't account for the energy return on energy invested of tar sands being 3x-10x less than conventional oil, an EROEI of 5 versus 18-50:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_return_on_investment

We do not need this oil in particular, there's more than enough other oil, so there's no foregone conclusion that we are going to extract these tar sands.

Further, the need for stopping this particular pipeline is that we are not transitioning quickly enough, and it's a bad capital allocation that hurts our ability to make the investments we do need.

The pipeline isn't being installed to lower the carbon load of bringing the oil to market, it's only there to reduce costs, which means that there will be greater amounts of that oil brought to market, versus cheaper oil from other sources that don't require as much energy intensity. The pipeline only exists for these particular oil investors to profit, instead of other ones in other parts of the world.

[fitzie]

of course we need it, that's why the market was creating the pipeline. pretending that a group of experts can determine what the market needs or is essential, is de facto tyranny. what I can say for sure is that we need cheaper more reliable energy, and it is clear that this pipeline would do that for our country. instead the money and jobs go elsewhere.

what is amazing about this decision is that there was no rush to the courts for an injunction, no reliant interests. the company doesn't even put up a fight. I wonder why that is?

[epistasis]

Does 1) the market need the oil, or do 2) these particular oil producers need the pipeline in order to bring their product to market and compete with others, or do 3) these particular oil producers just want the pipeline to lower costs and increase profits?

The existence of a pipeline only proves 2 or 3, it doesn't necessitate 1.

[ignoramceisblis]

The "logic" employed here is:

"We were told or otherwise made to believe your industry should stop doing what it's doing. Therefore, you should stop doing what you're doing." ("I know the future. You don't exist. So you might as well stop existing now.")

The irony is this person has no idea of "the reality." If the reality was that the pipeline served no purpose, had no value, it would not have gone through the lengthy process it's already been through. And if tar sands oil had no value, it wouldn't be retrieved.

But it will be. It will be retrieved and it will be transported, somehow, for the simple fact that people and industries use it. And if you choose a costlier method of transport, then people will feel those costs. Simply saying "No, it's not gonna go by rail or go by ship. Because I said so." is blind arrogance.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/06/10/tar-sands-compa...

The oil will still be extracted. It will still be transported to the entities who use it.

[Tiktaalik]

People do more of things that are cheap, do less of things that are expensive.

The point of the pipeline was to lower the cost of moving oil, which would have accordingly increased oil production.

The goal of environmentalists is to make oil production as expensive as possible. Increasing the costs of transportation is part of that.

[bawolff]

And yet y'all keep using oil.

If you don't like oil, there's an easy solution, stop buying it.

[dmos62]

Most oil you buy indirectly. By buying groceries for example. Most non-local groceries could not be sold without oil-based transportation. In fact, if we stopped having oil-based transportation, we'd face starvation. Alternative fuel trucking and shipping is just not there yet in terms of scale.

[elihu]

> Alternative fuel trucking and shipping is just not there yet in terms of scale.

It would be there if we wanted to make the necessary infrastructure investment. Currently everyone's looking at amazing new battery technology to enable electric transportation, but that isn't the only way to get there. We could be electrifying the interstate highway system so that cars can get power directly from the roads, and only need batteries for short local trips.

If we had wanted to enable electric transportation, say, forty years ago that would have been the only option. It would have been expensive but we could have done it. Now, batteries are good enough that we have a choice, but I still think electrifying the highways ought to be something we're seriously thinking about doing.

[state_less]

I like the idea of a big spend on electric vehicles. The government essentially buys your petro clunker and gives you a $20k tax credit toward an electric vehicle. Maybe shoot for 5 million vehicles a year for only $100 billion per year. Some of the money could come from a gas/CO2 tax.

Electric roadways aren’t mutually exclusive to a credit either. I think putting solar roofs over roadways might be interesting for energy use and keeping the roadway safer. On sensitive areas you might keep the roads from getting snow and ice buildup in the winter.

[elihu]

Another way to get more EVs faster is for EV tax credits to apply to conversions as well as new vehicles. Let's say you have a Honda Civic. Ideally, you'd be able to buy a kit from Honda or a 3rd party that has all the parts including battery boxes and hire your local mechanic to install it.

Right now, hardly anyone does conversions except well-motivated hobbyists because many of the parts have to be made from scratch and you have to do a lot of custom engineering per vehicle. Also the parts that are available tend to be expensive and produced in low volume.

[bawolff]

I suppose that's my point. I was being a bit sarcasitic, but if we're going to use oil, we should transport it in the safest and most environmentally friendly way possible. If we don't want to use oil, pass lass preventing or limiting its use. Making oil transport be worse helps nobody.

[namdnay]

Well, that's the strategy right? We can't cut our addiction to oil in one go, it would kill us. So we make oil more and more expensive, and in parallel we take that money and help get alternative energies to where they need to be.

So I agree that it would have made more ecological sense to say "sure, build your pipeline, but we'll take a steadily increasing cut for every gallon that goes through it, and we're going to spend it on developing solar/hydro/nuclear"

If the pipeline is still profitable, great! The net environmental impact will be positive. If not... tant pis

[bawolff]

Which is how it was going to work, since canada has a carbon tax (i mean, it wouldnt be as it flows down the pipeline, but at the point where its used, if in canada, but its kind of the same in the end)

[kajecounterhack]

Just a reminder that net environmental impact is not just "how efficient the transportation is" and how much CO2 is emitted, etc etc. It's also about tail risk and what the effects may be if leaks affect local watersheds. And due to the physics of oil pipelines, leaks are basically inevitable. These need to be taken into account when assessing what oil transport is "worse."

These have very tangible effects not only on wildlife but humans who say are getting their water from a contaminated water table.

[FredPret]

Trains leak more

[kajecounterhack]

Trains leak more often. Pipelines leak much larger volume, and the leaks are harder to find.

[pjc50]

"I would like to change society"

"And yet you live in society and participate in its processes! Clearly this invalidates everything you have to say"

[bawolff]

Well you do live in a democracy (i am assuming usa here). Participating in society's processes is the answer! There's much more effective ways to disincentivize oil than to force it to be transported in a manner that takes additional fossil fuels. (New/More) Carbon taxes would be a good start.

My criticism is not that people criticize things well failing to be paragons of virtues. My criticism is that i dont think removing pipelines will improve the situation (if anything it makes it worse). Reducing dependence on oil is the answer. That doesn't mean going cold turkey overnight, but it is the thing that should be concentrated on.

I feel like attacking the pipeline to fix climate change, is kind of like trying to fix the drug problem by attacking safe injection sites. It might feel like a victory in some sense but its not actually improving anything and is probably actually increasing harm.

[camgunz]

We (the USA) barely live in a democracy. Between inequal Senate representation, gerrymandering in state legislatures and the House, a broken, corrupt campaign finance system, and an underfunded election system primarily built to disenfranchise voters of color, it's hard to make the argument that any government in the US represents the will of its constituents.

A majority of Americans support the right to choose [1], a path to amnesty for undocumented persons [2], restrictions on firearm purchase and ownership [3], moving off of fossil fuels and treating climate change like the threat it is [4], a wealth tax on people with a net worth of over $50m [5], the expanded voting rights in HR 1 [6], etc. etc. etc.

Sorry I know I'm overreacting, but I think a lot of people are unaware of how dire the situation really is. If we truly lived in a democracy, we'd be moving towards at least some of these things.

[1]: https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/05/06/about-six-i...

[2]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000177-d4f4-dd7d-ab77-fcfd4...

[3]: https://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000178-cfbd-d112-a97e-ffbde...

[4]: https://morningconsult.com/2021/04/27/paris-agreement-climat...

[5]: https://www.businessinsider.com/over-half-americans-see-weal...

[6]: https://www.filesforprogress.org/datasets/2021/4/dfp-vox-hr-...

[bequanna]

A cute, overused reply that doesn’t quite apply here. If you want to reduce your “personal carbon footprint” you absolutely can.

[camgunz]

I think the point generally is that you can't appreciably fix the problems we face with individual action.

Why do Americans use so much energy? Because it's cheap as a result of excluding the externality of pollution from the price.

Why do Americans generate so much waste? Because there's no reasonable way to avoid it other than to never purchase any goods that are:

- over-packaged

- packaged in non-sustainable packaging

- created/manufactured in wasteful processes

...because the externality of waste generation isn't factored into the price.

Why do Americans ship such a huge percentage of goods using fossil-fuel-fueled transportation? Because for years we didn't build rail in service of propping up the automobile industry, and because the externality of pollution from car exhaust isn't factored into the transportation price.

There are plenty of people who diligently split their trash, compost, glass, paper, plastics. There are plenty of communities that charge by the pound of unrecyclable waste. There are plenty of subsidies for installing solar panels, and energy companies giving credits for green energy generation (and other programs, like offering to provide only green energy for a premium). After years of this, we still have a huge problem. Individual action isn't the answer. It was always a smokescreen pushed on us by fossil fuel energy companies to avoid taking responsibility themselves.

[wyattpeak]

That's not a remotely easy solution. It's just easy to state.

If someone can afford solar panels and an electric car (or don't need a car to get to work), more power to them, but that doesn't describe the vast majority of society.

[ArnoVW]

It is my understanding that solar pannels have an ROI that is ever shorter. Hell, in many countries there are companies that arrange installation and financing, and that have good prices due to centralised purchasing.

But that is another discussion. The real point is in the first R of the hierachy of the three R's : Reduce, Re-use, Re-cycle. No need to compensate huge use of energy, if you're not using the energy in the first place.

Some of the things we do in our household to reduce energy / CO2 / oil footprint (by decreasing order of impact):

   * own a house that is well insulated
   * instead of heating it, put on a sweater
   * instead of using an A/C, close shutters during hot parts of day during hot season
   * go on holiday by train or car
   * own a tiny car, that is 10 years old (we have two boys)
   * use the car only for exceptions (I bring the boys to school in a bus, train for work)
   * no red meat, very little other meat
   * buy less stuff
   * recycle packaging / paper
   * when we buy stuff, take into account packaging (reusable bags for rice, pasta, nuts, chocolate, etc)

For the avoidance of doubt, these are not choices given by economics. We're in the top 5% earning. We simply have made a choice to limit our impact whenever we can. And honestly, I can't say that our lifestyle is suffering.

Does this eliminate our footprint? No. But we are using, by my account, 20% that of an average American household. Can everyone do all of this? No, probably not. Buying a well-insulated house is expensive. Not everyone can use public transport. But if everyone made an effort, the world would be a different place today.

[wyattpeak]

I'm not arguing that people can't reduce their carbon footprint, I'm arguing against a lazy suggestion that people don't actually care because they continue to buy any oil-based products, which is essentially unavoidable in modern society.

[lupire]

How are your going to convince 2 billion other people to do the same thing?

It doesn't matter if only you reduce.

[ArnoVW]

One person at a time. By leading by example, without being judgemental.

Big changes in society never come at once. Womens right, black rights, gay rights. Progress is made bit by bit.

And even if things don't budge, and it stays with just me. All human endeavour is pointless in the end. Each of us has to define what is important to him or her.

[jl6]

100%.

Nearly everyone can do something to reduce their footprint.

We need to encourage more small changes and avoid bashing people for not doing a complete lifestyle redesign straight away.

Just to keep it concrete, there’s huge benefit to reducing meat consumption - and you can still capture a lot of that benefit without going 100% vegan.