|
Condiv posted:and this? It's pretty clear the letter's author is in the tribe's corner, especially since he starts raising environmental impact concerns in what is ostensibly a letter from a historic preservation interest group, but I don't think it raises any reasonable or novel objections.
|
# ? Nov 4, 2016 22:26 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:16 |
|
Condiv posted:no, choosing the path of least resistance is not fine. it leads to poo poo this: 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
|
# ? Nov 4, 2016 22:52 |
|
blowfish posted:uhhh 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 from coal while producing 1.8% of the total pollution from coal plants. Condiv fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Nov 5, 2016 |
# ? Nov 4, 2016 23:29 |
|
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. "just happen to be"
|
# ? Nov 4, 2016 23:56 |
|
yeah i should've italicized that
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 02:00 |
|
XMNN posted:I think any plan involving the extermination of every white American is inherently just
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 02:26 |
|
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 02:41 |
|
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. edit: yeah I'm definitely right here, 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.) And as long as oil is being used as a good, it will have to be moved. It's one thing to talk about the environment and all that, but the practical reality is that oil is a vital & geostrategically import resource, and will be for the next couple of decades at the least. Eminent domain for economic reasons is also very justified, your quality of life right now is determined by economic investment. You are the beneficiary, directly, of past instances of economic development that has displaced people & their way of life. If we're to be moral, then the people being displaced should get a square deal about it, you can't just rob them, but be displaced they must, dams must be built, railroads must be laid, development has to happen, because that's how you improve the lives of the most number of people. 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 fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Nov 5, 2016 |
# ? Nov 5, 2016 03:24 |
|
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. you missed this part of your article: 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.” another problem with pipelines is spill detection. if a railroad car is leaking or spills oil, it's many more times more likely to be noticed and fixed since there are a good number of people about to observe such things. pipelines on the other hand are not nearly as observable and so when their leak reporting sensors fail they can leak for quite a long time before they're noticed (part of the reason why pipeline spills are almost always graver). Condiv fucked around with this message at 03:52 on Nov 5, 2016 |
# ? Nov 5, 2016 03:48 |
|
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
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 04:00 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 04:01 |
|
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
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 04:05 |
|
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. according to my sources, rail spills less in total than pipelines too. 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. http://247wallst.com/energy-business/2013/04/23/railroads-may-be-safer-than-pipelines-for-transporting-crude-oil/#ixzz2THmO6VNp also, as commiegir mentioned, pipelines never actually replace railroad for oil delivery, they always supplement it. so advocating for pipelines to be built is advocating for greater environmental damage with no reduction in human life lost from train accidents also, lets not pretend pipelines are explosion free http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-03/what-happens-when-the-most-important-pipeline-in-the-u-s-explodes we just had one of the largest pipelines in the us explode yesterday Condiv fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Nov 5, 2016 |
# ? Nov 5, 2016 04:08 |
|
In which the police shoot a journalist for no reason. http://fusion.net/story/365922/standing-rock-erin-schrode-shot-police-no-dapl/
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 07:41 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 08:07 |
|
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. 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. Also, police violence isn't okay as long as the victim is still walking, talking, or tweeting
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 08:16 |
|
If anything it's just as bad if she got hit by accident, because it indicates that the police in question were shooting without paying attention to their backdrop.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 08:27 |
|
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. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 09:35 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, I guess you can quibble about the exact terminology we should use for your blatant dishonesty, if you really want. "Blatant dishonesty." I've said nothing untrue. A police officer loaded a bullet into a gun, aimed it at a journalist doing no more than conducting an interview, decided that she needed to feel pain for that, and pulled the trigger. You're more worried about an internet poster's accurate description of the event than the actual event of a police officer carrying out violence against a journalist Also, in response to some of your questions/arguments/insults, I wrote out an effortpost on the practicable and un-practicable justices of reparations and you never responded to it, which hurt my feelings. Civilized Fishbot fucked around with this message at 10:43 on Nov 5, 2016 |
# ? Nov 5, 2016 10:37 |
Dead Reckoning posted:Well, I guess you can quibble about the exact terminology we should use for your blatant dishonesty, if you really want. I don't see where there's blatant dishonesty. The poster made two claims. First, the police shot a woman and hit her. This is not in dispute. Second, she wasn't posting a threat to the police but a member of the police still took the shot. Also not in dispute. Yes, it was a bullet designed to be less lethal than conventional bullets. Yes, the damage wasn't enough to take her out of action. But you don't get a pass on a battery charge just because you didn't hit the person as hard as you could. Robbing a bank with a fake gun counts as armed robbery. And shooting someone without maiming or killing them is still shooting someone. Edit: posted too soon so edited on the fly.
|
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 10:48 |
|
'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. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 11:30 |
|
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. No one's going to disagree with that, the issue you're ignoring is that maximizing lives saved while downprioritizing native titles, can in this case leads to native lives lost maximized, because it's their water near the line. Considering the US of A always seems to pick the option that kills off the most natives, perhaps it's time for a more equitable distribution of risk among the races?
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 11:37 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 11:39 |
|
i found an interesting article last night that i neglected to post: https://www.wired.com/2016/11/dismal-science-standing-rock-pipeline-protests/ lorne stockman is the research director for oil change international, a nonprofit that tracks fossil fuel economics 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. i really doubt they can complete construction in time safely 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. so building this thing will most likely up our carbon footprint too at a time where we desperately need to be reducing our CO2 emissions Condiv fucked around with this message at 11:44 on Nov 5, 2016 |
# ? Nov 5, 2016 11:41 |
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. 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.
|
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 11:42 |
|
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. Making hydrocarbons incrementally cheaper through allowing private infrastructure projects only furthers a reliance on hydrocarbons extracted by private companies. Meanwhile, sending a message to those companies that they can't expect complete capitulation might force them to think switching to investing in more sustainable sources, or public decision-makers may be forced to consider more publicly-owned alternatives. Also there's plenty of history of native lives being made poo poo by private oil profiteers driving them off land in one way or another because the natives don't 'develop the land the right way,' so you might not be able to achieve that end scenario. Apologists for capital ventures heading into places where the Other lives often rely on a trope that 'savages' stand in the way of 'civilized' man's progress to violate their sovereignty.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 11:59 |
|
I'm not being judgemental here, in fact the native americas are acting exactly how you expect people in their situation to act. People demanding that they not protest the pipeline, or whatever, are stupid. When you lose something, it hurts. You want to protect what else you have left. Expecting them to not act, to simply go quietly into the night, is disrespecting them as human beings. People shouldn't take injustice lying down, they should fight it. So I get it. I get why this has become a controversial issue, I get why there is a strong tendency to want to act in solidarity. Talking purely in terms of symbols, this protest is a statement, and a powerful + positive one. "We are human beings, we deserve dignity + respect, yet that dignity + respect is denied". It's natural to want to help them, and natural to want them to win. But there are two problems. The first is that this dependency we have on hydrocarbons is not optional. There is no substitute, we're not at that level of technology. Either you use oil, and modern society runs, or you don't, and it cannot. Society and industry have advanced so much in terms of productivity, it's almost miraculous. But at each advancement, society has reshaped itself to become dependent on that new status. If it all falls apart, there is no 'countryside' that everyone can run to. If you slow growth, you will get social dislocation, you will get higher crime & poverty. Donald Trump is as much a symptom of a localized loss-of-status among working class white people, and look what that is doing. Now imagine that that same phenomenon happens to everyone, simultaneously. That is what the reality of 'lower use' looks like. "We can just get more renewables!" Okay, but that takes time, and that's only electricity generation, and that is not what the majority of oil is used for. Fossil fuel power plants tend to be coal or natural gas. No, you need oil for vehicle fuels + plastics, that is mostly what it is used for. You cannot use renewables to substitute that. Batteries are too expensive, and you can't use them for things like planes, trains or ships, you just won't have enough energy density. 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? 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.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 13:03 |
|
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. I pretty much find myself in agreement with this perspective and advocate nationalizing the entire power generating and hydrocarbon transport/extraction industry.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 13:46 |
|
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? uhh the pipelines? didn't we already go over this? 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. giant meteor 2016 NewForumSoftware fucked around with this message at 16:05 on Nov 5, 2016 |
# ? Nov 5, 2016 16:02 |
|
blowfish posted:uhhh
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 16:36 |
|
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. If you were to go up to a crowd of people and shoot one of them with a rubber bullet, the authorities won't be like, "oh it's cool it didn't kill anyone." When a guy on a boat shoots someone in the back with a non-lethal round, they still shot someone - whether or not it meets your requirements for the definition of being shot really has no bearing, because they were still shot.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 16:38 |
|
RandomPauI posted:I don't know about the original poster, but you and I will have to disagree on this being a reasonable interpretation.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 16:48 |
|
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. Yeah and that's not from enviromental racism, which was the point of contention.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 17:12 |
|
blowfish posted:Yeah and that's not from enviromental racism, which was the point of contention. edit: perhaps you would be so kind as to define what "environmental racism" is, then? Is it, say, killing off the buffalo that Native Americans depended on, in order to make money selling pelts to wealthy people? Is it damming up rivers which Native Populations subsisted off of, and then giving the jobs to white people, and then routing off most of the power to big cities? Flat-topping mountains which the people of Appalachia have lived on for generations while ignoring the residents? Taking bulldozers to federal wildlife reserve land which used to belong to native people, and then holding it with guns? coyo7e fucked around with this message at 17:50 on Nov 5, 2016 |
# ? Nov 5, 2016 17:44 |
|
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 It's racism but it's not environmental (environment without a qualifier typically doesn't mean urban environment as in buildings).
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 17:47 |
|
Trees are people. People aren't people. Got it
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 17:50 |
|
The thing is, just because you live in an urban environment, doesn't mean that the environment doesn't exist, or that it can't be actively harmful. Do you believe that having mumble mumble percent of black people living within a couple miles of a coal plant etc is environmental racism? If you do, how is that not directly related to redlining?
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 17:52 |
|
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?" 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.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 18:42 |
|
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.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 18:47 |
|
|
# ? Jun 8, 2024 06:16 |
|
Do you have a better word for 'propelled a projectile out of a firearm via expansion of gasses from a gunpowder explosion' than shoot? Because it's an accurate description here.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2016 19:07 |