Union Threatens Retribution to Dems for Keystone XL Opposition
26 replies, posted
[url]http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/203379-union-threatens-retribution-for-house-dems-opposing-keystone[/url]
The Laborers' International Union of North America sent letters to Democrats who oppose the Keystone XL pipeline stating that if they can't support the pipeline, then the LIUNA will not support them in the mid-term elections. It appears that unions don't like it when you mess with their union members' livelyhoods and jobs....
This year's mid-terms could actually get interesting....
the keystones a fucking waste of time and money.
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;44531707]the keystones a fucking waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]
Care to back that up with some facts, or is this opinion night at the Apollo?
[QUOTE=A_Pigeon;44531707]the keystones a fucking waste of time and money.[/QUOTE]
Pipelines are the safest, most reliable, fastest way of transporting oil across the country. Trucks are slow and inefficient, and trains have been having lots of issues with derailments as of late.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44531760]Care to back that up with some facts, or is this opinion night at the Apollo?[/QUOTE]
because every economist in america agrees that building the pipeline would be bad for the economy
?
stop insisting america should invest millions for a limited and environmentally dangerous energy source.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44531760]Care to back that up with some facts, or is this opinion night at the Apollo?[/QUOTE]
Why not built modern nuclear reactors that are far more efficient than shit oil and coal can ever hope to be? Complete waste of money, and if something goes wrong, the effects would be horrendous.
[QUOTE=sYnced;44531901]because every economist in america agrees that building the pipeline would be bad for the economy
?
stop insisting america should invest millions for a limited and environmentally dangerous energy source.[/QUOTE]
Link to every economist saying it would be a bad thing to create jobs?
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44531957]Why not built modern nuclear reactors that are far more efficient than shit oil and coal can ever hope to be? Complete waste of money, and if something goes wrong, the effects would be horrendous.[/QUOTE]
So we replace oil and coal with nuclear. Now, how do you build roads? Asphaltic concrete is made from the crude oil distillation process. What are you going to replace plastic with? That also comes from oil. How are you going to create jobs for the millions of people you just made unemployed?
But you're right, oil is a complete waste of money.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44531957]Why not built modern nuclear reactors that are far more efficient than shit oil and coal can ever hope to be? Complete waste of money, and if something goes wrong, the effects would be horrendous.[/QUOTE]
what about the 10-15yrs of planning and construction involved with these plants, we could build 10 pipelines in that time for 1/100th of the cost. while the reactors would be a better investment, it's a hard thing to argue for when people need energy now.
[QUOTE=darunner;44531898]Pipelines are the safest, most reliable, fastest way of transporting oil across the country. Trucks are slow and inefficient, and trains have been having lots of issues with derailments as of late.[/QUOTE]
Until it fucking leaks. You can't just wipe away crude oil.
[QUOTE=Aide;44532154]Until it fucking leaks. You can't just wipe away crude oil.[/QUOTE]
You can with blue shop towels
[QUOTE=Aide;44532154]Until it fucking leaks. You can't just wipe away crude oil.[/QUOTE]
Keystone won't be transporting crude. It'll be transporting dilbit. Which is harder to clean.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44531978]Link to every economist saying it would be a bad thing to create jobs?
So we replace oil and coal with nuclear. Now, how do you build roads? Asphaltic concrete is made from the crude oil distillation process. What are you going to replace plastic with? That also comes from oil. How are you going to create jobs for the millions of people you just made unemployed?
But you're right, oil is a complete waste of money.[/QUOTE]
You get them to work on the reactors. Plastic isn't all made with crude oil. Modern plastics are transitioning over to a plant oil base and research is being conducted into making oils from algae. Fossil oil from Alberta ain't the deal you Americans think it is. The pipeline is also a very fast build, meaning most jobs it creates will be temporary. They can only build so much pipeline.
The only reason that train crashes are becoming more common is because they are being reported more. It may be noted that news of train crashes tends to align with a new keystone ad campaign. Pipelines aren't safer at all really. A train crash probably spills about as much oil as a pipe leak would, and pumping that much oil is gonna take a lot of energy
But no you're right, jobs are more important than getting
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44531957]Why not built modern nuclear reactors that are far more efficient than shit oil and coal can ever hope to be? Complete waste of money, and if something goes wrong, the effects would be horrendous.[/QUOTE]
The stringent regulations are kind of a turnoff for most energy companies. Plus political opposition.
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;44532245]The stringent regulations are kind of a turnoff for most energy companies. Plus political opposition.[/QUOTE]
The tech and capabilities are there. It's the political opposition, and the NIMBYs.
[QUOTE=darunner;44532269]The tech and capabilities are there. It's the political opposition, and the NIMBYs.[/QUOTE]
Well, some of the regulation is justified. The soviets built slapdash, outdated plant designs, and look what happened with that.
But yeah, a fair portion of it is knee-jerk, reactionary shit.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44531978]Link to every economist saying it would be a bad thing to create jobs?
So we replace oil and coal with nuclear. Now, how do you build roads? Asphaltic concrete is made from the crude oil distillation process. What are you going to replace plastic with? That also comes from oil. How are you going to create jobs for the millions of people you just made unemployed?
But you're right, oil is a complete waste of money.[/QUOTE]
Energy-wise yes, in the case of plastic and asphalt, transport it by train, make the containers heavier and thicker. I'm sure it would cost less than the massive amounts of money spent on cleaning up and repairing pipelines, compensating people that lose homes and property, and families of people that are killed from pipeline ruptures and explosions. Oh and poisoning of rivers and lakes, killing off animals and displacing ecosystems.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century[/url]
[QUOTE=sYnced;44531901]because every economist in america agrees that building the pipeline would be bad for the economy
?
stop insisting america should invest millions for a limited and environmentally dangerous energy source.[/QUOTE]
im not sure thats quite right either...
the main argument AGAINST it is that by not building it tar sand oil will go away...which is demonstrably false, because canada's said they'll go ahead and ship the oil to the west coast in a pipeline through canada instead
there's no envormental reason not to build this pipeline anymore, they've agreed to route it around the wild-life sanctuary that they would have clipped a corner from, and its by far the most safest way to transport crude. and like its been said tons of times, not allowing canada to export through the U.S. will not stop canada from exporting the tar sands oil, this is a big deal for our northern hat
[QUOTE=omggrass;44531984]what about the 10-15yrs of planning and construction involved with these plants, we could build 10 pipelines in that time for 1/100th of the cost. while the reactors would be a better investment, it's a hard thing to argue for when people need energy now.[/QUOTE]
The return on the energy produced from nuclear reactors is much greater than coal and gas, and the chance for a modern reactor to meltdown is virtually non-existent. While we continue to spill millions of gallons of oil into the oceans, lakes, and rivers, and destroy land and other species. Your thinking is very short sighted.
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;44532319]Energy-wise yes, in the case of plastic and asphalt, transport it by train, make the containers heavier and thicker. I'm sure it would cost less than the massive amounts of money spent on cleaning up and repairing pipelines, compensating people that lose homes and property, and families of people that are killed from pipeline ruptures and explosions. Oh and poisoning of rivers and lakes, killing off animals and displacing ecosystems.
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_the_21st_century[/url][/QUOTE]
im not sure you understand how this works, you can only ship so much weight on a train car, the tracks are rated for only so much. pipelines don't generally rupture especially when its important lines like this, because having such an accident would be more of an explosion than a leak. engineers know exactly how much pressure they can put through the pipe, and exactly how viscus of oil they can pump through, so the fact that this is denser crude is meaningless, since they'll just dilute it to make it flow through the pipe easier.
[QUOTE=Sableye;44532337]im not sure thats quite right either...
the main argument AGAINST it is that by not building it tar sand oil will go away...which is demonstrably false, because canada's said they'll go ahead and ship the oil to the west coast in a pipeline through canada instead
there's no envormental reason not to build this pipeline anymore, they've agreed to route it around the wild-life sanctuary that they would have clipped a corner from, and its by far the most safest way to transport crude. and like its been said tons of times, not allowing canada to export through the U.S. will not stop canada from exporting the tar sands oil, this is a big deal for our northern hat[/QUOTE]
It's either going to be routed over the ogallala aquifer in the US or through the mountains of BC. (if there aren't any there already) Environments gonna lose either way.
oil and natural gas aren't going anywhere anyways. even if we transitioned to FCV's and EVs, there still is no better way to make a lot of industrial chemicals than using oil. nuclear is great for power, FCVs, EVs and trains can take over transportation, but when it comes to synthesis of most chemicals, you're still going to need natural gas and crude feedstock.
[editline]13th April 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=OvB;44532350]It's either going to be routed over the ogallala aquifer in the US or through the mountains of BC. (if there aren't any there already) Environments gonna lose either way.[/QUOTE]
how? we've had a pipeline across alaska for 40 years and NOTHING has happened on the pipeline, i keep hearing arguments on how the pipeline destroys the enviroment just by existing, but that's just false
[QUOTE=Sableye;44532353]
how? we've had a pipeline across alaska for 40 years and NOTHING has happened on the pipeline, i keep hearing arguments on how the pipeline destroys the enviroment just by existing, but that's just false[/QUOTE]
I was saying that to people that are afraid that it'll ruin the environment if it leaks. If we don't build it, it's still going to exist. Just through a different, arguably more pristine environment. The oils just not going to stop existing because we don't build some tubes.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;44531978]So we replace oil and coal with nuclear. Now, how do you build roads? Asphaltic concrete is made from the crude oil distillation process. What are you going to replace plastic with? That also comes from oil. How are you going to create jobs for the millions of people you just made unemployed? [/QUOTE]
These things will happen in the future anyway, might as well use nuclear power and save the oil for those things instead of using it all up now.
Shut down all power and electric utilities, Amish or bust.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;44532420]These things will happen in the future anyway, might as well use nuclear power and save the oil for those things instead of using it all up now.[/QUOTE]
It's not a "use it now or use it later" type of deal. Every bit of crude oil is used for something. So if you're using it for plastic, then gasoline, kerosene, and asphaltic concrete will be the by-products of the process. It's probably one of the only raw materials that we waste very little, if we waste any of it...
[QUOTE=Sableye;44532353]
we've had a pipeline across alaska for 40 years and NOTHING has happened on the pipeline[/QUOTE]
This is simply not true. The Trans Alaska pipeline has leaked in a number of incidents.
Also this will be traveling threw a more populated area.
[QUOTE=Sableye;44532353]oil and natural gas aren't going anywhere anyways. even if we transitioned to FCV's and EVs, there still is no better way to make a lot of industrial chemicals than using oil. nuclear is great for power, FCVs, EVs and trains can take over transportation, but when it comes to synthesis of most chemicals, you're still going to need natural gas and crude feedstock.
[editline]13th April 2014[/editline]
how? we've had a pipeline across alaska for 40 years and NOTHING has happened on the pipeline, i keep hearing arguments on how the pipeline destroys the enviroment just by existing, but that's just false[/QUOTE]
2001 On October 4, a drunken man used a rifle to shoot a hole in the Alaskan Pipeline. More than 285,000 gallons of crude oil were spilled, costing more $13 million to clean up. The man was later convicted in Court
nothing?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.