This month, the climate-denyingist red state AGs lost their jobs to Dems: time to sue the US government


Originally published at:




Good riddance to Scott Walker’s toady Brad Schimel. Fuck that guy with a sideways cactus.


Obviously, we need cuter climate scientists.
I’m thinking furry and cuddly.


Why does the donkey appear to be drowning in this graphic?


Frankly Canada would much rather we didn’t have to sell you our oil anyway, you pay so very little for it. Shutting down pipelines doesn’t reduce the amount of oil that gets burned, it increases it through higher shipping costs via rail and truck. Shutting pipelines funnels petro-dollars to the middle east dictators rather than western democracies.

Let’s take a harm reduction approach to oil rather than a prohibition approach. How well does the prohibition approach work with other substances?

If you want to decarbonize the economy, do something to reduce carbon emissions. The current tactic of attacking north american pipelines contributes to global injustice and antidemocratic regimes.


We have to get rid of the fossil fuel industry to survive. This is as good a place as any to start.


Really? Did you even read past the first line? Killing these pipelines makes us less secure, increases conflict worldwide and increases environmental risks as the product flows through less efficient routes.

If you want to start somewhere, start at home. Use less fuel! If you have a business, support green vendors. Vote with your wallet. Move close to work so you can bike rather than drive. Don’t fly. Eat less meat. These are the things that are a true good place to start.

When the market for burning oil gets smaller, less will be extracted from the earth. In the meantime, let’s be conscious of the harms that come from our actions. By killing pipelines that carry canadian oil you are saying “I would prefer my oil come from Nigeria or Iran or Saudi Arabia where it funds atrocities and oppression”.


Which raises prices, which causes some buyers to make future investment choices that result in less consumption down the line. There are many actors and variables in play, and unavoidable near-term demand is the least important time horizon for solving our climate change problems.


Except that it won’t because there are so many sources and this is just one. Unless you are going to shut down domestic oil production, gulf of mexico offshore production and imports, this won’t make a blip on the radar screen for prices. It may hurt Alberta production numbers as future investment moves away from that jurisdiction but all you are doing is moving the problem around.

Sure, let’s talk about long term investment but right here, right now - do you want to buy oil from Alberta or Prince Journalist Assassin. These are the harms.


We have so little time to get rid of carbon burning, can we really afford to care? Preventing more global warming is already a nearly lost battle. I’m convinced we can’t afford to care about the effects of getting rid of this industry, just that we have to do it now.


But how does this get rid of an industry? The oil will travel by rail and from other places - you can’t just wish it away. This industry is here because we use the product!

Do you throw an addict in jail because he’s doing something illegal or do you get them help - counselling, a safe injection site, clean needles, housing, etc? Which one produces better results? I’ll tell you - it’s the harm reduction approach time and time again.


I’m looking at humanity and I fear that the harm reduction approach will take far too long. Yes it works in the example of a drug addict, but we don’t have the luxury of time here.


The phrase “be realistic, demand the impossible” applies here. Ending the industry is literally unimaginable but, let’s be real, it’s the only way out. Also applicable: “it’s easier to imagine the end of the world than to imagine the end of capitalism.”


That oil will sell anyway, because it is cheap. The best we can hope for is that the Saudis will have to lower their prices because there are fewer buyers. The economically efficient solution is probably to put a price on carbon dioxide emissions that rapidly rises to hundreds of dollars per ton in the span of a decade, but I’m not naive enough to think it’ll happen.

I don’t have the luxury to make only economic choices that hurt no one. Those don’t exist. Assassinations kill people and damage freedom of speech. Climate change threatens the future habitability of our planet and our future as a species. The scales are not comparable.


Where are the buyers going? Oil production and consumption continues to rise and the US is complicit on both counts. Things won’t change until that curve tips.

Forget “Economically Efficient”, short of direct regulation carbon taxes will be the ONLY effective policy choice. These have the benefit of potentially penalizing carbon intensive production operations (Alberta). I respect people who are concerned about spills in their water and on their land - this is why we carefully regulate pipelines and require consultations on routes. I think people who want all pipeline projects cancelled need to examine their goals because I don’t think these actions are aligned with them.


This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.