|
Raerlynn posted:Police officers have been killing unarmed non-white people, lying about the circumstances under which they killed said person, and then got off scot-free for years. Most of those cases never even went to trial. Then fix that part of the justice system so that police officers get arrested over murder (unlike the nodapl people, blm people have a valid point here). The optimal scenario I described may not be reality but you don't throw up your hands over it and give up. Doc Hawkins posted:So you dislike these protestors because you question their commitment to protesting? They haven't broken the law enough? e: why would you think that? They're still there, sitting their stupid asses down, and most haven't even been arrested over it yet. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Dec 4, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 10:28
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Morbus posted:But, as far as your statement goes, If you start from the premise that "fossil fuels are bad" (and taking for granted that the main reason for this is climate change--which is an existential threat) then why is protester- driven interference with fossil fuel infrastructure necessarily bad compared to "acceptable" things like government-driven regulation changes or technologically-driven improvements in renewable energy? In a societal vacuum, no pipeline = good. But, this is not a societal vacuum. Allowing protestors to decide what gets built is bad because protestors aren't necessarily right about what to protest. For instance, when it comes to climate change, nuclear power plants are good but have a long and rich history of being delayed by years (and rising in cost by billions during those years) because of stupid protestors sitting themselves down, chaining themselves to things, and even shooting literal rocket launchers at the construction sites. If protestors stopping a pipeline (a minor step backward in the grand scheme of climate change) is legitimate, then we can't turn around and say protestors stopping a nuclear power station (a much larger step forward) isn't. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 10:50 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 10:43
|
|
|
Actually I'm pretty sure it's possible and logically consistent to support people protesting the construction of oil pipelines while also trying to educate and dissuade the people who protest against modern nuclear power plants? Why the gently caress would you even claim otherwise? Sounds the same typical liberal bullshit that had supposed leftists clucking their tongues at those "silly" Occupy Wall Street protestors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And here's the other thing we've covered multiple times: Its NOT safer, it LOOKS safer, and while spills occur less, they are generally overall larger spills than tanker or train. And we've had numerous spills in just 2016 due to pipelines, and they are slower to report and slower to stop. This isn't even close to being true.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 14:20
|
|
|
I lost my wicked red title for daring to discuss a project on scientific terms, but check out the link below: http://cdm16021.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p16021coll7/id/2427 This is both the EA and the Draft EA document. Read this if you care about the project. This thread, both for and again, seems to be arguing this project based on wsj articles. One page summaries of a 1300+ page set documentation. I took a look through the document and frankly their plan for construction, and importantly their monitoring and mitigation plans are drat good for the Missouri River crossing. Is there a specific issue people have with it? They are using horizontal directional drilling for construction, which other then a very small risk of a bentonite blowout (which is just clay), will have literally no impact on the benthic wildlife. I personally have never seen a bentonite blowout actually happen. There is always a risk of leaking, but they have committed to a pretty hefty monitoring program. They are also going very deep under the river, which increases construction costs significantly but greatly mitigates risk to the environment from leaks. I think there are other deficiencies in the EA, but those can be dealt with as terms and conditions for project approval. So I guess I ask the thread, is there something I'm missing on why this project is so terrible?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Allowing protestors to decide what gets built is bad because protestors aren't necessarily right about what to protest. So because sometimes people protest good things, it's also bad when people successfully prevent a bad one via protest. You probably at least vaguely know that over the course of American history, many different protests have succeeded, but our society has yet to be rendered powerless against protests. BEAR GRYLLZ posted:Actually I'm pretty sure it's possible and logically consistent to support people protesting the construction of oil pipelines while also trying to educate and dissuade the people who protest against modern nuclear power plants? He knows nuclear plants are good and pipelines are bad, he just thinks that protestors are much worse. It may a non-sequitur to you and I, but I believe to him it's the central issue at stake here: people agitating the wrong way are beneath contempt, and must be taught a lesson, lest the march of progress grind to a halt.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 15:21
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So if a direct action group started just randomly killing refinery workers to intimidate them into not showing up for work, and it was effective in doing that, you would consider that legitimate? So is your position that so long as I personally own enough oil to destroy human civilization, it's my right to burn it all if I wish?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Laminar posted:This isn't even close to being true. Laminar posted:I lost my wicked red title for daring to discuss a project on scientific terms, but check out the link below: This has nothing to do with actual pipeline spills. This only covers the CONSTRUCTION and initial improvement. C'mon now. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century#2016 This is 2016. Alone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This has nothing to do with actual pipeline spills. This only covers the CONSTRUCTION and initial improvement. C'mon now. No there are reaction plans for spills in the document.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:06
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:So because sometimes people protest good things, it's also bad when people successfully prevent a bad one via protest. Decisions with large scale and long term effects need to be made by competent people, and if necessary through formal processes. If you think this process produced a bad outcome then you need to actually specify what problem you see with the process, not just sit your rear end down in other peoples' way like an obstinate child.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This has nothing to do with actual pipeline spills. This only covers the CONSTRUCTION and initial improvement. C'mon now. Do you have any idea how many spills their are per day on railways and and tanker trucks? That list is a testament to how safe pipelines can be.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:20
|
|
|
FYI for transporting oil in terms of spills it goes like this: truck>train>pipeline>boat With truck being the most dangerous by a wide margin.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This has nothing to do with actual pipeline spills. This only covers the CONSTRUCTION and initial improvement. C'mon now. This is like posting a list if every car accident in the United States and thinking it's a solid argument for never driving. Especially since you upped the scale considerably by choosing a list that includes all pipelines of every type and size: every little four inch natural gas pipe all the was up to the poo poo that we're actually talking about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
botany posted:No there are reaction plans for spills in the document. Nobody reads the actual document. Depressing.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:32
|
|
|
Laminar posted:Nobody reads the actual document. Depressing. It's over a thousand pages long. Nobody will read it unless it's their job. Which is why only people who's job it is to read it are actually qualified to comment on whether the pipeline is a danger to the water supply and not random protestors who are really angry about the fact that it's a pipeline and/or vaguely near an oppressed minority.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
The actual important bit is about 170 pages, most of which can be skimmed easily for the important parts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
botany posted:The actual important bit is about 170 pages, most of which can be skimmed easily for the important parts. This. Most EA's have a specific section meant for the public to read. I think it is very important for the public to get involved, read the summary, and submit comments. The Canadian CEAA process was frankly a little messed up under Harper, but it has made some great strides overall at getting the public involved, however it is still a huge issue. With most of the EA's I'm involved with, we write a 10 or so page popular summary at the start of the document, and I find that helps. The issue is they are super tricky to write, as you are summarizing a truly massive amount of data. The style of EA that the DA pipeline follows is archaic as hell, but I'm assuming that is the fault of the US Corp of Engineers when they specified the format.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Laminar posted:This. Most EA's have a specific section meant for the public to read. I think it is very important for the public to get involved, read the summary, and submit comments. The Canadian CEAA process was frankly a little messed up under Harper, but it has made some great strides overall at getting the public involved, however it is still a huge issue. Do you agree with blowfish's assertion that the opinions of people affected by construction projects should never be considered?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:07
|
|
|
My internet connection does not seem up to downloading a file of that size, but I'll keep trying.blowfish posted:Decisions with large scale and long term effects need to be made by competent people, and if necessary through formal processes. Who has decided what constitutes competence and formality, and how did their standards gain such moral weight? I'm worried your answer to the latter part will be something about how things would be bad without some laws, in the same way they'd be bad without some infrastructure, therefore we should be loath to criticize any laws or infrastructure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Do you agree with blowfish's assertion that the opinions of people affected by construction projects should never be considered? Nice strawman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:11
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Nice strawman. That is exactly what you have been saying. That only expert opinions should be considered.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Do you agree with blowfish's assertion that the opinions of people affected by construction projects should never be considered? I don't see where blowfish said this, but no, obviously not. Social license should be considered for every project.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Who has decided what constitutes competence and formality, and how did their standards gain such moral weight? People who have studied the topic in question sufficiently to make an informed and factual assessment get to make an informed and factual assessment. This is because their findings are not just based on random-rear end opinions but state-of-the-art knowledge and well-tested methods. If the question is "does this project risk harming the environment/drinking water/etc" then you ask environmental engineers and ecologists, not the first person with a really strong opinion you come across. A good place to start when looking for sufficiently qualified people would be e.g. a selection of universities or institutes with active research departments in the relevant field, because that's where you find people who study complicated issues too hard for the layman to understand. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 17:36 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:32
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:This has nothing to do with actual pipeline spills. This only covers the CONSTRUCTION and initial improvement. C'mon now. This poo poo is completely loving useless without telling us what percentage of miles of pipeline run these failures represent, and then comparing that rate to trucks, trains, etc etc. So please go ahead and post a source that gives us that information or stop it with the white noise.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Laminar posted:I think there are other deficiencies in the EA, but those can be dealt with as terms and conditions for project approval. So I guess I ask the thread, is there something I'm missing on why this project is so terrible? A lot of people believe this is not about pipeline safety. Instead, it's about boundaries of the Great Sioux being chipped away over time, from the Fort Laramie treaties of 1851 and 1868, to the systematic killing of buffalo by the US Army to deny them their primary food source, to modern day. The pipeline itself crosses through land that was ceded to the Sioux in the Fort Laramie treaty of 1851. Note that this land no longer belongs to them as of the Fort Laramie treaty of 1868. Notorious R.I.M. fucked around with this message at 18:02 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:
  So: You are telling me that they will stop shipping by rail as soon as this 'critical infrastructure' is built, right? CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Dec 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 18:16
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Now post the same stats except by volume transported.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
Laminar posted:Now post the same stats except by volume transported. The estimated spill rate in that graph is based on the ratio of oil spilled per distance traveled per volume, and Pipelines appear to spill about 2.9 times as frequently per this model. How is this different than your stats. Also, I have no idea about the validity of that data he posted either since he didn't cite anything. I assume that since you don't have a problem with the raw numbers that the source is at least valid. You're an expert here, so educate us. I'd like to learn. I'm starting to wonder if you just came here to concern troll though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 18:47
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:The land the pipeline is being built on isn't Sioux ancestral lands. They're Crow ancestral lands. The Crow nation is on-site and part of the protest, so  . Even you have probably gotten it through your skull by now, that there is not one single reason for the protest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Tias posted:The Crow nation is on-site and part of the protest, so Mmmm yes and I'm sure consistent with their stance on the Black Hills the Sioux will be giving the Crow back that land anytime now. CommieGIR posted:
As Laminar pointed out, rail shipping won't stop but it has been reduced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
It's cool how racist the defenders of oil are.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:
Aren't you the guy in the Nuclear Energy Megathread who whines about how NIMBYs take statistics out of context to grossly magnify the safety and environmental risks of nuclear power plants? Aren't you doing basically the same thing here, but not with your favorite energy technology?
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's cool how racist the defenders of oil are. Oh poo poo now our secret is out. You guys are going to win so many elections with this strategy, gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Oh poo poo now our secret is out. You guys are going to win so many elections with this strategy, gently caress. No, we don't have to let you murder American Indians to win elections.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
What the gently caress is wrong with all of you Defenders of the Pipeline, seriously? There isn't a single issue that has caused this protest to gain the attention it has, it's a culmination of many things, much like Occupy was (granted much narrower in scope with an actual central physical "thing" to protest). I did not expect to see so much backlash toward the protesters in this thread when I opened it, and I truly can't understand the motives of some of you to continue trying to hammer away the legalities of the protesters, the who and what tribe claims this and doesn't have that, and "environmentally friendly" aspects of loving oil. Just the fact that the US government is taking its time to poo poo on natives yet again, standing atop its mountain of legal loopholes and outright changes against the tribes, should be enough reason to be for these guys instead of laying down all these reasons why this isn't such of a big deal and we can just point fingers at how wrong and dumb the protesters are. Maybe my bleeding heart has caused too much blood loss and I'm not seeing poo poo straight, but right now it's just insane what I'm reading. I except goons to be generally centrist, but holy moly that's not how a lot of you are coming off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:02
|
|
|
Private property is not a loophole. The pipeline is outside the 1868 borders.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Leavy posted:What the gently caress is wrong with all of you Defenders of the Pipeline, seriously? There isn't a single issue that has caused this protest to gain the attention it has, it's a culmination of many things, much like Occupy was (granted much narrower in scope with an actual central physical "thing" to protest). I did not expect to see so much backlash toward the protesters in this thread when I opened it, and I truly can't understand the motives of some of you to continue trying to hammer away the legalities of the protesters, the who and what tribe claims this and doesn't have that, and "environmentally friendly" aspects of loving oil. Well, again, you have a guy justifying genocide and ethnic cleansing on the grounds that the victims were savages, so it's obvious this is largely about hatred. Hatred of American Indians, hatred of democracy, hatred of protests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Leavy posted:I truly can't understand the motives of some of you to continue trying to hammer away the legalities of the protesters, the who and what tribe claims this and doesn't have that, and "environmentally friendly" aspects of loving oil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Tias posted:The Crow nation is on-site and part of the protest, so It reminds me of people who try to absolve their own group of blame for slavery by saying "they had it coming, I mean if you look at how black slavers sold their own people out..." treating all the members of a later-constructed racial grouping as a monolithic entity. Of course if you tried to treat white people monolithically and say something like "The Whites had all of the deaths from the world wars coming, they betrayed and killed themselves in record numbers, what a bunch of idiots!" that would be obviously absurd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 11:15 |
|
|
Leavy posted:What the gently caress is wrong with all of you Defenders of the Pipeline, seriously? There isn't a single issue that has caused this protest to gain the attention it has, it's a culmination of many things, much like Occupy was (granted much narrower in scope with an actual central physical "thing" to protest). I did not expect to see so much backlash toward the protesters in this thread when I opened it, and I truly can't understand the motives of some of you to continue trying to hammer away the legalities of the protesters, the who and what tribe claims this and doesn't have that, and "environmentally friendly" aspects of loving oil. The occupy protestors, while too ineffective and disorganised to accomplish anything and eventually overrun by crazies, at least were protesting an actual systemic issue worth protesting. The DAPL protestors are protesting a single issue that isn't actually bad in the way they're claiming it's bad while pretending a mess of pre-existing opinions are additional valid reasons, and in the process they're doing a pretty good job out-assholing the oil company.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 21:17
|
|