Judge rules environmental survey for Dakota pipeline was inadequate, operations may come to a halt - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]A federal judge has handed a lifeline to efforts to block the Dakota Access pipeline, ruling Wednesday that the US Army Corps of Engineers did not adequately consider the possible impacts of an oil spill where the pipeline passes under the Missouri river. US district judge James Boasberg said in a 91-page decision that [B]the corps failed to take into account how a spill might affect “fishing rights, hunting rights, or environmental justice, or the degree to which the pipeline’s effects are likely to be highly controversial”.[/B] [B]The judge said the army must redo its environmental analysis in certain sections and he would consider later whether the pipeline must halt operations in the meantime. A status conference is scheduled for next week.[/B] Dave Archambault II, chairman of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, which has led opposition to the pipeline, called it “a significant victory”. The pipeline developer Energy Transfer Partners (ETP) announced earlier this month that it started shipping oil to customers. ETP maintains that the 1,200-mile pipeline is safe, but the Standing Rock Cheyenne River, Yankton and Oglala Sioux tribes in the Dakotas fear environmental harm. ETP spokeswoman Vicki Granado did not immediately return email and phone messages seeking comment on Boasberg’s ruling. A spokeswoman for the US Department of Justice, Nicole Navas Oxman, said the department was reviewing the ruling.[/quote] [url]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/14/dakota-access-pipeline-environmental-study-inadequate[/url]

I'm all for the pipeline if it can be done safely and responsibly. However, if they can't manage that then they can fuck off. We can't afford to sacrifice the environment.

no shit, they did a gargantuan amount of legal shenanigans to avoid having an enviromental survey in the first place

Whatever stalls it longer and hopefully removes it

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;52369053]Whatever stalls it longer and hopefully removes it[/QUOTE] a pipeline is safer and prevents more spills by a large margin than transporting it by either train or truck and either way, that oil is coming into the united states.

[QUOTE=Shirt.;52372141]a pipeline is safer and prevents more spills by a large margin than transporting it by either train or truck and either way, that oil is coming into the united states.[/QUOTE] Additional cost of transporting the oil by other means lowers the profitability and thus the incentive to pursue the supply. More expensive oil will mean non-oil alternatives will be more lucrative, relatively. It's like saying that getting a suppressor for your handgun so you can shoot yourself into the foot without damaging your eardrums is healthy for you - how about fucking not doing it at all? And yes, we can do without shooting ourselves, and without the oil, and letting the oil stay pricier is the way of achieving that in a market economy, even if slowly.

[QUOTE=millan;52372173]Additional cost of transporting the oil by other means lowers the profitability and thus the incentive to pursue the supply. More expensive oil will mean non-oil alternatives will be more lucrative, relatively. It's like saying that getting a suppressor for your handgun so you can shoot yourself into the foot without damaging your eardrums is healthy for you - how about fucking not doing it at all? And yes, we can do without shooting ourselves, and without the oil, and letting the oil stay pricier is the way of achieving that in a market economy, even if slowly.[/QUOTE] Whether you like to admit it or not, the world runs on oil. The computer you're typing this on is created with petroleum products and likely powered by a power station burning oil as well.

What is environmental justice? What is the standard by which to measure whether something is environmentally just or not? [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] Also note that the judge didn't actually say there was anything wrong with the pipeline. He just didn't think the Army Core of Engineers did enough of the needed studies.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372821]What is environmental justice? What is the standard by which to measure whether something is environmentally just or not?[/QUOTE] [quote]The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental justice as follows: Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. EPA has this goal for all communities and persons across this Nation [sic]. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.[3][/quote] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice[/url] It means that the pros must be greater or equal to the cons.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52372847][URL]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_justice[/URL] It means that the pros must be greater or equal to the cons.[/QUOTE] That seems like a super vague and useless phrase, then. For example, it says that everyone must enjoy the same degree of protection from hazards. That's impossible. Obviously someone living near something is going to have higher levels of possible hazard than a person living across the country. It's a sliding scale with everyone at a different points. There doesn't seem to be any real standard by which to compare a project to. Thanks for the definition, though.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372862]That seems like a super vague and useless phrase, then. For example, it says that everyone must enjoy the same degree of protection from hazards. That's impossible. Obviously someone living near something is going to have higher levels of possible hazard than a person living across the country. It's a sliding scale with everyone at a different points. There doesn't seem to be any real standard by which to compare a project to. Thanks for the definition, though.[/QUOTE] Elaboration: [quote]Environmental justice (EJ) is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations and policies. [B]Fair treatment means no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the [highlight]negative environmental consequences[/highlight] resulting from industrial, governmental and commercial operations or policies.[/B] Meaningful involvement means: - People have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may affect their environment and/or health - The public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision - Community concerns will be considered in the decision making process - Decision makers will seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected[/quote] [url]https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice[/url] It means that everyone should have the same amount of negative consequences. It's not equality, it's equity. [img]http://i.imgur.com/TIj3hN3.png[/img]

[url]http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-dakota-access-pipeline-permit-20161104-story.html[/url] just to refresh everyone on why no overarching enviromental survey was taken. Instead of assessing the whole thing, they filed hundreds and hundreds of short leg pipeline permits to construct the entire length of the project instead of filing a full permit for a project of that scale. The law really should not be used in such a manner, and is an egregious abuse to avoid regulatory oversight. Projects on this scale, that cross over hundreds of bodies of water, and over several states and territories should have a full scale review, not hundreds of little segmented reports

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372821]What is environmental justice? What is the standard by which to measure whether something is environmentally just or not? [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] Also note that the judge didn't actually say there was anything wrong with the pipeline. He just didn't think the Army Core of Engineers did enough of the needed studies.[/QUOTE] Environmental Law is a very, very important part of law and it is very real and studied. Everything has strict definitions, don't try and downplay it. My state specifically has one of the largest (if not [i]the[/i] largest) environmental law sectors in the US, mostly because the water table is so high and any business that doesn't follow the strict rules can essentially poison our drinking water.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52372922]Elaboration: [url]https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice[/url] It means that everyone should have the same amount of negative consequences. It's not equality, it's equity. [img]http://i.imgur.com/TIj3hN3.png[/img][/QUOTE] Are you equating equity with equality of result? Because that's what that picture is showing. I still don't see how even that would be possible. There will always be groups that bear higher amounts of negative consequences than other groups in every situation. It's impossible to make it even for every group. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52373022]Environmental Law is a very, very important part of law and it is very real and studied. Everything has strict definitions, don't try and downplay it. My state specifically has one of the largest (if not [i]the[/i] largest) environmental law sectors in the US, mostly because the water table is so high and any business that doesn't follow the strict rules can essentially poison our drinking water.[/QUOTE] I'm just reading what he quoted. It's extremely vague and hard to objectively apply.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52372862]That seems like a super vague and useless phrase, then. For example, it says that everyone must enjoy the same degree of protection from hazards. That's impossible. Obviously someone living near something is going to have higher levels of possible hazard than a person living across the country. It's a sliding scale with everyone at a different points. There doesn't seem to be any real standard by which to compare a project to. Thanks for the definition, though.[/QUOTE] Same degree of protection =/= same exact laws across everywhere. C'mon man, you can't be this thick. Environmental law has some really powerful agencies in it too. You best hope the superfund never goes after your ass, good lord. Honestly, the only government agency that always does it's job right simply because of how it works. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;52373026]I'm just reading what he quoted. It's extremely vague and hard to objectively apply.[/QUOTE] Maybe you shouldn't make stupid statements about something you know you don't know anything about then. You could've also clicked the link he supplied before forming your opinion, or god forbid, post about your uninformed opinion. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] Environmental law is hard to pin down what it does in most states, but it's definitely there and definitely a real thing that impacts your everyday life. In Florida, it's impact is incredibly obvious because a small change in the environment here either poisons our drinking water, floods our homes, or kills the grass on our golf courses (this means that even rich people here care about the environment). Not to mention the fact that we need tourists for keep pumping our economy after our governor has been systematically gutting our private sectors every now and then.

[QUOTE=sgman91;52373026]Are you equating equity with equality of result? Because that's what that picture is showing. I still don't see how even that would be possible. There will always be groups that bear higher amounts of negative consequences than other groups in every situation. It's impossible to make it even for every group. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] I'm just reading what he quoted. It's extremely vague and hard to objectively apply.[/QUOTE] Part of the EPA's purpose is to protect people from the potential of environmental disaster for those who need it to the point where everyone who is affected is negatively affected the same amount. For example House A is at risk of 1 meter high flooding from a proposed corporate project. House B is at risk of a 2 meter high flooding from a proposed corporate project. The EPA would make sure that House A receive protections/preventions that are meant to deter a 1 meter high flood, and that House B will receive protections/preventions that are meant to deter a 2 meter high flood. Both houses will be affected negatively the same way. of course the above example won't happen in reality since the EPA would likely throw that project out the window since the costs outweigh the benefits and I can't imagine any projects that would cause flooding of that magnitude to nearby houses.

[QUOTE=millan;52372173]Additional cost of transporting the oil by other means lowers the profitability and thus the incentive to pursue the supply. More expensive oil will mean non-oil alternatives will be more lucrative, relatively. It's like saying that getting a suppressor for your handgun so you can shoot yourself into the foot without damaging your eardrums is healthy for you - how about fucking not doing it at all? And yes, we can do without shooting ourselves, and without the oil, and letting the oil stay pricier is the way of achieving that in a market economy, even if slowly.[/QUOTE] Well I would like a turbine powered car that runs on nail polish melting the front bumpers of tailgaters but I don't think you realise how much oil and its abundancy effects your daily life. Plastics have been a great boon to us in general and there is no way to get it without the use of oil or products of similar quality such as ethanol. As a society you would be shooting yourself not using it. No other material has the same qualities or versatility as oil with the exception of silicon. I wouldn't compare using petroleum to shooting yourself in the foot, it seems more like a case of a amphetamine/roids combo addiction. It helps your performance tremendously but your fucked if you even try to ween yourself off of it.

[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;52373073]Part of the EPA's purpose is to protect people from the potential of environmental disaster for those who need it to the point where everyone who is affected is negatively affected the same amount. For example House A is at risk of 1 meter high flooding from a proposed corporate project. House B is at risk of a 2 meter high flooding from a proposed corporate project. The EPA would make sure that House A receive protections/preventions that are meant to deter a 1 meter high flood, and that House B will receive protections/preventions that are meant to deter a 2 meter high flood. Both houses will be affected negatively the same way. of course the above example won't happen in reality since the EPA would likely throw that project out the window since the costs outweigh the benefits and I can't imagine any projects that would cause flooding of that magnitude to nearby houses.[/QUOTE] I get your theoretical example, but I don't think it applies to reality. It's almost always impossible to totally negate all risk so that it's equal for everyone involved. There will always be some who are a greater risk. Let's take the example of building a nuclear reactor. Say it's being built outside of a small town named "Johnsonville." It's just the nature of building a nuclear reactor that everyone inside the town of Johnsonville is going to be at greater environmental risk than everyone outside of the town of Johnsonville. Sure, the risk may be small, but it's still there. It is physically impossible to make the risk of those in the town equal to those outside of the town. This is an extreme example, but it applies to anything in real life. Let's take a look at this pipeline. It's a given that the closer a person lives to the pipeline, the greater risk they will incur. That's just the nature of the beast. To say that we must ensure that all groups have equal consequences is to deny the reality of risk and how it works. It seems the more important question is whether there's anyone being put above a minimum acceptable level of risk and whether they are being fairly compensated for being put into that position. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=ForgottenKane;52373032]Same degree of protection =/= same exact laws across everywhere. C'mon man, you can't be this thick. Environmental law has some really powerful agencies in it too. You best hope the superfund never goes after your ass, good lord. Honestly, the only government agency that always does it's job right simply because of how it works. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] Maybe you shouldn't make stupid statements about something you know you don't know anything about then. You could've also clicked the link he supplied before forming your opinion, or god forbid, post about your uninformed opinion. [editline]17th June 2017[/editline] Environmental law is hard to pin down what it does in most states, but it's definitely there and definitely a real thing that impacts your everyday life. In Florida, it's impact is incredibly obvious because a small change in the environment here either poisons our drinking water, floods our homes, or kills the grass on our golf courses (this means that even rich people here care about the environment). Not to mention the fact that we need tourists for keep pumping our economy after our governor has been systematically gutting our private sectors every now and then.[/QUOTE] I'm not quite sure what you're going at me for. I never said environmental law didn't exist. I said the definition he posted was vague and hard to apply to reality. In my opinion, one of the reasons it's so hard to deal with environmental agencies is because of the lack of objective standards.

[QUOTE=Ridge;52372717]Whether you like to admit it or not, the world runs on oil. The computer you're typing this on is created with petroleum products and likely powered by a power station burning oil as well.[/QUOTE] Yeah go ahead and pretend vast majority of value in that crude isn't gonna be burnt in engines of personal cars. We can get a myriad of plastics from other sources and even if we stick to petroleum, the relative volume of crude required is a miniscule fraction of the crude that gets burnt in cars. And the oil based plastics would still barely go up in price from the transportation difficulties, since the volumes needed are a fraction of what cars chug down. The electricity they powers my computer is sadly about half made of coal, third made of nuclear, and the next biggest non renewable is 2.4% of it from natural gas. As far as I know there's not a single thermal power plant in Czech Republic burning any product that comes from oil (unless you count natural gas I guess, which makes up negligible amount anyway).

[QUOTE=Ridge;52372717]Whether you like to admit it or not, the world runs on oil. The computer you're typing this on is created with petroleum products and likely powered by a power station burning oil as well.[/QUOTE] what sort of argument even is this, especially when about 90% of the energy in the czech republic is produced through coal and nuclear? oil isn't burned there to produce fuel an economy in which oil plays a much reduced role is real possibility and it's stupid to go "oh the world runs on oil" when there are multiple examples of countries and times where that is not the case

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52374213]an economy in which oil plays a much reduced role is real possibility and it's stupid to go "oh the world runs on oil" when there are multiple examples of countries and times where that is not the case[/QUOTE] He clearly, specifically mentioned things created with petroleum products. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Czech Republic has plastics, automobiles, asphalt, and airplanes, all of which are critically dependent on oil, so even if they get their power from coal and nuclear they're still stuck in an oil-based economy.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52374254]He clearly, specifically mentioned things created with petroleum products. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Czech Republic has plastics, automobiles, asphalt, and airplanes, all of which are critically dependent on oil, so even if they get their power from coal and nuclear they're still stuck in an oil-based economy.[/QUOTE] [quote]Yeah go ahead and pretend vast majority of value in that crude isn't gonna be burnt in engines of personal cars. We can get a myriad of plastics from other sources and even if we stick to petroleum, the relative volume of crude required is a miniscule fraction of the crude that gets burnt in cars. And the oil based plastics would still barely go up in price from the transportation difficulties, since the volumes needed are a fraction of what cars chug down.[/quote] Not to mention the same thing applies to all this other shit as it does for direct energy production. Until something else than market economy is adapted, difference in price will be always one of the strongest motivations behind technology selection. We have built planes that don't need crude to fly, we've synthesized materials that don't rely on crude, and cars are just ridiculous to put in this context when the shift to electric ones is massively picking up speed. A fuckton of crude based materials and technologies is only kept in use over often outright better performing alternatives, just simply because it's cheaper, and often marginally so.

[QUOTE=catbarf;52374254]He clearly, specifically mentioned things created with petroleum products. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the Czech Republic has plastics, automobiles, asphalt, and airplanes, all of which are critically dependent on oil, so even if they get their power from coal and nuclear they're still stuck in an oil-based economy.[/QUOTE] and it's not like you can manufacture those things without having to drill for oil too is it? there are bioplastics (plus numerous materials which can substitute for plastics), automobiles and aircraft can be likewise manufactured without use of plastics made from fossil fuels, asphalt is cheaper to make as a byproduct of fossil fuels but can be found in abundance throughout the world in its natural form the world existed prior to the advent of the oil economy, and the world will continue to operate after it as well

[QUOTE=Ridge;52372717]Whether you like to admit it or not, the world runs on oil. The computer you're typing this on is created with petroleum products and likely powered by a power station burning oil as well.[/QUOTE] Hi, let me just rebuttal with 9/10 commodity plastics (PE, PP, PVC, PMMA/Acrylic, PS) and 9/10 engineering plastics (PC/Lexan, ABS/Lego Plastic, etc) are [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermoplastic"]thermoplastics[/URL] meaning they can be directly recycled without any chemical processes only requiring a cleaning process and then heating them up to modest temperatures typically <150°C. Yes our world runs on oil in more ways than just gas/petrol/diesel (and even then we have carbon neutral solutions involving say [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethyl_ether"]Dimethyl Ether[/URL] and [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_fuel"]Methanol[/URL]), but we legitimately have loads of technologies to not only be carbon neutral but petroleum neutral. i.e.: [IMG]https://image.slidesharecdn.com/liquidfuelnuclearreactorspresentationdraft4-100407055815-phpapp02/95/liquid-fuel-nuclear-reactors-61-728.jpg?cb=1272402669[/IMG]

[QUOTE=millan;52372173]Additional cost of transporting the oil by other means lowers the profitability and thus the incentive to pursue the supply. More expensive oil will mean non-oil alternatives will be more lucrative, relatively. [/QUOTE] I'm not entirely sure which universe you came from but in this universe this is the polar fucking opposite to what ANYONE in business wants. [editline]ewrtew[/editline] Actually, I went to see if examples of this practice exist here and it turns out a few people did try this. Unfortunately I am seeing an alarming rate of business failure or financial collapse associated with this. Seems to be hovering somewhere around 100%. It's almost as if this is the equivalent to committing suicide. :thinking:

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52374371]and it's not like you can manufacture those things without having to drill for oil too is it? there are bioplastics (plus numerous materials which can substitute for plastics), automobiles and aircraft can be likewise manufactured without use of plastics made from fossil fuels, asphalt is cheaper to make as a byproduct of fossil fuels but can be found in abundance throughout the world in its natural form the world existed prior to the advent of the oil economy, and the world will continue to operate after it as well[/QUOTE] 'The world doesn't currently run on oil because hypothetically we could overturn our current technological base to switch to non-oil-derived alternatives', uh, no. Until electric vehicles are widespread and bioplastics are the norm, the world will be reliant on oil. Dismantling pipelines wouldn't cause a seamless transition to renewables and Teslas, it would cause an energy crisis. Are you legitimately having difficulty understanding the difference between 'the world runs on oil' and 'the world will forever run on oil, no future alternatives exist, we are doomed', or are you just trying to score irrelevant rhetorical points? You're already moving the goalposts from 'the Czech Republic doesn't rely on oil' to 'well [I]technically[/I] they could stop relying on oil if we all switched over to non-petroleum products'.

[QUOTE=pentium;52374451]I'm not entirely sure which universe you came from but in this universe this is the polar fucking opposite to what ANYONE in business wants. [editline]ewrtew[/editline] Actually, I went to see if examples of this practice exist here and it turns out a few people did try this. Unfortunately I am seeing an alarming rate of business failure or financial collapse associated with this. Seems to be hovering somewhere around 100%. It's almost as if this is the equivalent to committing suicide. :thinking:[/QUOTE] I think you have completely failed to grasp what I wrote. This isn't a voluntary business practice, this is a question of national level policy, and has been applied at some level in pretty much every west democracy, including the United States. Things that aren't in long term public interest or aren't morally preferable, even if not outright anyhow illegal or criminal, can be discouraged through economical means, be it directly through taxing (Tobacco tax? Fuel tax?) or through turning down a request at approving a construction of some sort (building a paper mill next to a natural reservation, RIDDLING COUNTRYSIDE WITH CRUDE OIL PIPELINES). [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=catbarf;52374457]'The world doesn't currently run on oil because hypothetically we could overturn our current technological base to switch to non-oil-derived alternatives', uh, no. [B]Until electric vehicles are widespread and bioplastics are the norm[/B]...[/QUOTE] [B]Which will happen the sooner the more expensive oil is, this is elementary school level shit, people, get a goddamn grip.[/B]

[QUOTE=catbarf;52374457]'The world doesn't currently run on oil because hypothetically we could overturn our current technological base to switch to non-oil-derived alternatives', uh, no. Until electric vehicles are widespread and bioplastics are the norm, the world will be reliant on oil. Dismantling pipelines wouldn't cause a seamless transition to renewables and Teslas, it would cause an energy crisis.[/quote] dismantling this pipeline won't cause an energy crisis. a complete ban on the construction of new wells and pipelines won't induce one either the way things are going right now with oil prices being so low and alternative energy becoming commercially viable. [quote]Are you legitimately having difficulty understanding the difference between 'the world runs on oil' and 'the world will forever run on oil, no future alternatives exist, we are doomed', or are you just trying to score irrelevant rhetorical points? You're already moving the goalposts from 'the Czech Republic doesn't rely on oil' to 'well [I]technically[/I] they could stop relying on oil if we all switched over to non-petroleum products'.[/QUOTE] well i genuinely think that if all of the oil reserves in the globe vanished right now, the czech republic would most likely still be around in a hundred years.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52374371]and it's not like you can manufacture those things without having to drill for oil too is it? there are bioplastics (plus numerous materials which can substitute for plastics), automobiles and aircraft can be likewise manufactured without use of plastics made from fossil fuels, asphalt is cheaper to make as a byproduct of fossil fuels but can be found in abundance throughout the world in its natural form the world existed prior to the advent of the oil economy, and the world will continue to operate after it as well[/QUOTE] Hey man, you took the wrong multiverse thread, yours is 2 threads over. This is the universe where the vast majority of engines run on fossil fuels. Yea the world existed prior to the advent of oil but transportation and logistics was laughably bad. [editline]18th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52374594]dismantling this pipeline won't cause an energy crisis. a complete ban on the construction of new wells and pipelines won't induce one either the way things are going right now with oil prices being so low and alternative energy becoming commercially viable.[/quote] Even if oil is cheap, that doesn't mean we don't need it for now. You can't just swap the entire world over to renewable resources overnight, and you sure as shit can't convert every engine in the world over to an electric one. [QUOTE=Sobotnik;52374594] well i genuinely think that if all of the oil reserves in the globe vanished right now, the czech republic would most likely still be around in a hundred years.[/QUOTE] Well yea, but considering there would be a massive transportation crisis across the globe, moving supplies essential to life would start to get kinda tough for a few years. You can put up a million windmills but thats not gonna change the fact we need oils to keep worldwide logistics functioning.

[QUOTE=Cyke Lon bee;52374840]Hey man, you took the wrong multiverse thread, yours is 2 threads over. This is the universe where the vast majority of engines run on fossil fuels. Yea the world existed prior to the advent of oil but transportation and logistics was laughably bad.[/quote] no it wasn't. until the end of the 19th century the world ran on steam, muscle, wind, and water. railways and massive ships moved the bulk of goods around (and both still carry massive quantities of goods around the world today). the transition from horses and carts to steam locomotives and ships was a bigger leap than the transition from steam engines to oil-fuelled ones, so you're pretty wrong on that count. [quote]Even if oil is cheap, that doesn't mean we don't need it for now. You can't just swap the entire world over to renewable resources overnight, and you sure as shit can't convert every engine in the world over to an electric one.[/quote] i didn't say to do a swap immediately, i said to put a ban on the construction of new pipelines and stop establishing new oil drilling sites, something that is both possible and will not harm us