I’m playing something of a devil’s advocate here, but I think there’s a case to be made that the three new pipelines announced recently could end up being a good thing–for the environment!
I’m playing something of a devil’s advocate here, but I think there’s a case to be made that the three new pipelines announced recently could end up being a good thing–for the environment!
No, this is an economic and political argument not an environmental one.
The less oil removed from the ground the better.
We’re talking about carbon capture and storage technologies while we could just NOT PUMP THE OIL and have the same effect with 0 effort.
“Someone else will do it” Sure, but also, they will run out faster and then… Less total carbon will have been released.
I don’t see how we can remove economics and politics from environmental policy. We’re not talking about climate science, we’re talking about what human beings are doing to the environment. And everything we do isn’t a question of doing the best thing possible—it’s about doing the best thing that the citizens and the ‘players’ will let you do.
I’ve argued for ‘leave it in the ground’ most of my life. I was pretty successful in that I got people elected and build a large body of people working together. But the fact was both inside that organization and among the general public the vast majority weren’t going to buy a simple ‘leave it in the ground’ strategy.
Well then, the vast majority are in the wrong. It happens sometimes. This is one of those times. It does not mean you should join them.
From the posting comment:
There ARE economic and political reasons why they could be good, but building more pipelines will NOT be good for the environment.
The facts don’t care about the feelings of the electorate, let alone that of shareholders.