Condiv posted:

and this?

it seems to be their wheelhouse tbh, so I assume the achp knows what they're talking about here.

Condiv posted:

no, choosing the path of least resistance is not fine. it leads to poo poo this:


http://www.goldmanprize.org/blog/en...ental-policies/

http://www.naacp.org/climate-justice-resources/coal-blooded/

blowfish posted:

uhhh

how does a three percentage point (or like 9%) difference in living next to coal plants lead to a 200% asthma difference

I mean clearly something is wrong for that level of asthma difference to be there but it's something additional besides coal

and again because living next to a modern nuclear waste dump has negligible health effects unlike living directly downwind of a modern coal plant the path of least resistance has no harms other than pr for nuclear waste

Condiv posted:

reading the report, it seems a lot of really badly maintained and lovely coal plants just happen to be near low-income colored peoples. for example, the top 12 worst environmental justice offenders (e.j. is defined in the report, but basically measures the plant's impact on low-income people of color) produce .8% of america's power while producing 1.8% of the total pollution from coal plants.

XMNN posted:

I think any plan involving the extermination of every white American is inherently just

Hitlers Gay Secret posted:

Condiv posted:

i question this. first of all, i don't think there's a valid strategic or economic concern to build this pipeline. the pipeline is not going to increase employment much at all, and i don't see that the US as a whole would benefit enough from its construction to justify its constuction, even if you think eminent domain for economic reasons is valid. as for strategic reasons, i don't see how a pipeline is strategically better for the us than the railways we already have, especially considering pipelines are much less secure than rail transit. second of all, i don't think eminent domain for economic reasons is ever justifiable. from an economic standpoint you prevent those who would sell from maximizing the return on their property, and from a justice standpoint money is a poo poo analog for property for those who would never sell.


as someone mentioned, all those examples are externalities. we are in the ecological mess we are because of our refusal to appropriately price poo poo for externalities, so you can imagine that I would in fact like such things to be factored into eminent domain IF we are going to allow it for the idiot reasons we use it for today.

Wall Street Journal posted:

Pipelines are typically the cheapest, and in some cases quickest, way to move crude in the U.S., and they spill less often than other transport methods. In 2014, pipelines delivered 3.4 billion barrels of crude oil to U.S. refineries, according to Energy Information Administration data. The Association of Oil Pipe Lines says it has a 99.999% safe-delivery rate on these shipments. “On an apples-to-apples basis, pipelines have less accidents, cause less environmental damage and cause less harm to human health than do railcars moving comparable masses of oil and gas,” says Mr. Green. (The Energy Information Administration figures are based on U.S. refinery receipts of crude cargo. But crude shipments often combine several modes of transportation, so the numbers don’t give a complete picture.)

Civilized Fishbot posted:

If the tribe actually legally owned the land (which of course they don't), the federal government would probably just expect Dakota Access LLC to buy the land from the tribe the way that it's bought the land from everyone else. And if the project were really worth more as a pipeline than it's worth to the tribe, that transaction would happen.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

The Corps didn't listen to Standing Rock concerns in the 60s, when they destroyed entire towns, why should the Standing Rock expect them to listen now

rudatron posted:

Oil doesn't move itself, and rail transport of oil has one very big problem - derailment. I don't think rail transport of oil is actually any safer than pipeline transport, in fact I'd probably guess it's more likely to gently caress up, on account of having more points of failure.

edit: yeah I'm definitely right here,

quote:

Trains tend to spill a smaller amount of oil than other forms of transport. An International Energy Agency study said that from 2004-12 there were six times as many rail spills as pipeline spills, but “the average pipeline spill was far graver.” For instance, Ed Greenberg, spokesman for the Association of American Railroads, says that for trains last year “84% of the nonaccident releases involved spills of less than five gallons.”

CommieGIR posted:

Yeah we've already highlighted that even if the pipeline was about safely transporting oil well pipelines have less overall spills their spills have larger quantity actually spilled vs Rail and that's beside the point because they continue to use the rail even after the pipeline is built claiming that the pipeline is safer is just an excuse to get it approved for construction their goal at the end of the day is to continue using Rail and the pipeline to get more quantity the market they could care less about the safety

rudatron posted:

Does having less regular, less overall spilled, but a greater catastrophe when ir does spill, make pipelines worse? Another thing that should be considered against rail (and trucks) - they tend to travel through urban areas directly, and can also do things like explode. So if we're valuing human life, we should minimize rail and road transport. The trade off there means you'll get more boat and pipeline transport, which means more environmental damage (especially boats + barges, because then you have oil released into an aquatic environment). But I can't in good conscience say that that is better than having more people die from trucks + rail causing problems in urban areas.

So, how much are human lives worth, how much is the environment worth, and how much is native title worth? You have to make a tradeoff, and I think the only moral one is minimize the loss of first one, even if that maximizes damage the later two.

quote:

For every million barrels moved by rail an estimated 0.38 gallons were spilled, compared an estimated spill rate of 0.88 gallons were spilled for every million barrels moved.

Dead Reckoning posted:

You're kinda burying the lede when you don't mention that she allegedly got winged by a rubber bullet and is still walking, talking, and tweeting.

Civilized Fishbot posted:

If you're saying I over-sensationalized the story, that's the opposite of burying the lede. Burying the lede is focusing on so many unimportant details that it's impossible to make out what the story is actually about.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Well, I guess you can quibble about the exact terminology we should use for your blatant dishonesty, if you really want.

Dead Reckoning posted:

Well, I guess you can quibble about the exact terminology we should use for your blatant dishonesty, if you really want.

rudatron posted:

So, how much are human lives worth, how much is the environment worth, and how much is native title worth? You have to make a tradeoff, and I think the only moral one is minimize the loss of first one, even if that maximizes damage the later two.

quote:

The first thing to consider is the Dakota Access Pipeline’s cost—$3.8 billion to connect the Bakken oil fields in North Dakota to another pipeline (leading to refineries on the Gulf Coast) in Pakota, Illinois. An analysis by RBN Energy says oil producers will pay around $8 per barrel to move their crude through Dakota Access. At max capacity, the pipeline could carry about 570,000 barrels per day. So, if the pipe runs at peak, the pipeline will earn its owners, Energy Transfer Partners, roughly $1.7 billion a year. That means the pipeline only needs a few years to put the investment back into the black.

No surprise there: Moving oil makes money. But the Dakota Access Pipeline was built on promises, and can only move oil (and make money) if it delivers. Energy Transfer Partners promised to have the pipeline finished by the end of December 2016. In return, oil refiners promised to buy oil delivered through the pipeline for a certain cost. That stuff is in contracts, signed back in 2014.

Do you know what the price of oil was back in 2014? Seventy to 80 bucks a barrel, buddy! Currently, oil prices are way down, and profit margins in the oil industry are (by oil standards) pretty thin. Prices hover around $40 or $50 a barrel. “For sure, Energy Transfer Partners are concerned with delivering the pipeline by the end of the year, because otherwise they have to renegotiate their contracts, and no shipper who made terms in 2014 wants to renegotiate in 2017,” says Stockman. Energy Transfer Partners probably can’t count on making $8 per barrel.

quote:

Stockman estimates that shutting down the pipeline would keep nearly 30 coal-fired power plants worth of CO2 from the atmosphere each year. But really, that’s only if some other, cheaper-to-ship oil-producing region doesn’t pick up the slack.

rudatron posted:

'Shot' has a strong implication of 'shot with lethal ammunition', so unless you say 'shot with rubber bullets', you are actually being dishonest. This is obvious to everyone, even yourself, and the only reason you're denying it (in public), is because it's convenient for you to do so, and you (falsely) assume that by arguing technicality/pedantically, you can frustrate other people into not calling your bullshit.

rudatron posted:

All former colonial nations can and should do much more to help their dispossessed groups, and the only reason they don't is basically racism/lack of political will. But that doesn't change the fundamental reliance of modern industry on hydrocarbons, and therefore the economic necessity of things like this pipeline. My ideal end scenario has has the pipeline built and natives lives less poo poo.

rudatron posted:

The second is a little more abstract, and you're probably not going to like it, but here it goes: I don't think this opposition is materialist, I think it's mostly operating at the symbolic level, and I'm not a fan of that. When you have speeches like "water is life, oil is death", you are doing something more than simply protesting the possibility of an industrial accident affecting your community. You're propagating a set of values that fundamentally rejects modernity. The modernist version of that statement would be 'water is a solvent, oil is an energy source' - an object is interpreted based on its utility, not its metaphoric meaning. The pipeline company, by contrast, has a very simple set of values, that's entirely materialist. So I want the oil company to win, not just for the economic development, but because I actually want everyone to start thinking like oil companies.

rudatron posted:

So oil must be consumed, it must therefore be moved, and either you have exploding rail cars or leaking pipelines. That's going to be the case for a couple of decades at least, no matter what you do now. Which is worse?

rudatron posted:

So I want the oil company to win, not just for the economic development, but because I actually want everyone to start thinking like oil companies.

blowfish posted:

uhhh

how does a three percentage point (or like 9%) difference in living next to coal plants lead to a 200% asthma difference

I mean clearly something is wrong for that level of asthma difference to be there but it's something additional besides coal

and again because living next to a modern nuclear waste dump has negligible health effects unlike living directly downwind of a modern coal plant the path of least resistance has no harms other than pr for nuclear waste

rudatron posted:

'Shot' has a strong implication of 'shot with lethal ammunition', so unless you say 'shot with rubber bullets', you are actually being dishonest. This is obvious to everyone, even yourself, and the only reason you're denying it (in public), is because it's convenient for you to do so, and you (falsely) assume that by arguing technicality/pedantically, you can frustrate other people into not calling your bullshit.

RandomPauI posted:

I don't know about the original poster, but you and I will have to disagree on this being a reasonable interpretation.

If I opened fire on the police with rubber bullets they'd be in the right to open fire with live ammo because they were under fire. The investigation after the fact wouldn't suddenly penalize the cops because I didn't fire metal bullets. The act by and of itself would be sufficient.

coyo7e posted:

You're somewhat conflating coal plants with the asthma epidemic in urban environments. I mean imagine growing up in the Bronx in the cities - you weren't getting asthma from coal plants, but from burning buildings and dust.

blowfish posted:

Yeah and that's not from enviromental racism, which was the point of contention.

coyo7e posted:

I dunno, white developers conspiring to burn down buildings in minority neighborhoods so that the developers could reap huge profits by rebuilding and gentrifying entire neighborhoods, while ignoring and/or decrying the dangerous hellscape they themselves created, and its effects on those who live and work there? Sounds a lot like environmental racism to me

twodot posted:

How is this related? Sure if you were shooting rubber bullets, the police would have a reasonable fear for their lives. If someone later reported you shot a bunch of police I would call them dishonest. Lots of things "shoot" stuff: staple guns, pitching machines, whatever, if, in the context of a police interaction, someone reports that a person was shot with no other information, I expect it to be with a firearm and normal ammunition. I'm not going to pause and ask "Oh, what if they meant with a paintball?"

Liquid Communism posted:

A paintball would be a different thing entirely. Rubber bullets are, like tasers, a less lethal option than normal firearms. Not a nonlethal option. So the point here is that potenilly lethal force was used on a reporter, either intentionally by an officer, or just because she was in the area and they didn't care what was beyond their target.