Keystone opponents:Which is worse a 1.4 million spill or 3,000 barrels

[kwc57]

1. I think the people near the Gulf would disagree with you about there never having been another accident.

But your point seems to be which disaster would be best. Here the only thing that is relevant when it comes to policy:

2. According to the GOP and Ron Paul, Obama is acting exactly as he should. That is, he is respecting the wishes of the states to determine whether they find the risks acceptable. ConservaRepubs consistently claim that states should decide such issues.
It is very hypocritical of them to want to take away the power they claim is so important, when it doesn't serve their agenda.

Personally, assuming we had strong regulations to insure safety, I'd like to see the pipeline built but I don't live where it would affect me.

Incorrect.

Obama Administration Delays Keystone XL Pipeline Approval | PBS NewsHour | Nov. 10, 2011 | PBS

"And he had been largely silent about this until just recently, where he did a public interview with an Omaha, Neb., TV station. And it is at that point that he really said that he would be involved in this decision, even though it would be done by the State Department, and that he wanted to weigh these public health and environmental considerations against what he called a few thousand jobs that would be created by the project."

"JULIET EILPERIN: Absolutely.

And one of the critiques that some environmentalists have made is, you know, we're celebrating this, but actually this ultimate decision could be made by a president who might not share our environmental values. So there's no question this pushes it past the 2012 election. And then the real question is, will Obama make the final decision about this controversial project, or will it be a Republican who would be in office instead?

RAY SUAREZ: After the project is redesigned, what's the presidential role? Are we still at the point where whoever is making the decision, whatever president is sitting in the Oval Office will still be considering this possibility?

JULIET EILPERIN: Well, it will still be within the purview of the State Department, but, yes, ultimately, the president can -- first of all, at any point -- the president has delegated this responsibility to the State Department. The president can take it back.

And so at the end of the day, it will be the president, whether it's President Obama or the person who follows him, who will say yea or nay to this project."

Nice strawman.
GOP & Libertarians say the power should be in the hands of the state. The governor of Nebraska vehemently opposed it going through his state. So Yes or No: Should his views be ignored? Should the issue be delayed until a consensus is reached with the state?
Or is it screw the power or views of the state, if the GOP wants to invoke federal power to get their way?

There was no strawman and you know it. You said Obama is respecting the wishes of the Republicans. No he isn't and he never has. Obama is a statist and fears giving power to the states. He isn't respecting the concerns of Nebraska or any other state. He is using the State Department to block the pipeline for political purposes. He is anti-oil and anti-business. He keeps begging Congress to pass his "jobs bill", yet his own Speaker of the Senate is the one who keeps blocking it. Obama could bring good paying, long term jobs to Americans with the swipe of his pen if he would allow offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR and building the pipeline......and ease our dependence on foreign oil at the same time. The question is why isn't he?

 

[kwc57]

Why can't we also have these long pipelines to pipe water? The spring melt in Canada could end all droughts in the United States.

It's already piped to the US in these things they call creeks, streams, rivers and lakes.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Actually, it's called risk mitigation. Look it up. Problem, we have to move oil from point A to point B. Between the two options given and based on previous experience, which presents the least risk? Businesses do this every day.

This would be a good point, if the issues behind the Keystone were a simple matter of risk, and if they only options were A and B. However, as I explained, they aren't. There are plenty of objections raised to the Keystone project that have nothing to do with the hypothetical risk of an oil leak.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Incorrect.

Obama Administration Delays Keystone XL Pipeline Approval | PBS NewsHour | Nov. 10, 2011 | PBS

"And he had been largely silent about this until just recently, where he did a public interview with an Omaha, Neb., TV station. And it is at that point that he really said that he would be involved in this decision, even though it would be done by the State Department, and that he wanted to weigh these public health and environmental considerations against what he called a few thousand jobs that would be created by the project."

"JULIET EILPERIN: Absolutely.

And one of the critiques that some environmentalists have made is, you know, we're celebrating this, but actually this ultimate decision could be made by a president who might not share our environmental values. So there's no question this pushes it past the 2012 election. And then the real question is, will Obama make the final decision about this controversial project, or will it be a Republican who would be in office instead?

RAY SUAREZ: After the project is redesigned, what's the presidential role? Are we still at the point where whoever is making the decision, whatever president is sitting in the Oval Office will still be considering this possibility?

JULIET EILPERIN: Well, it will still be within the purview of the State Department, but, yes, ultimately, the president can -- first of all, at any point -- the president has delegated this responsibility to the State Department. The president can take it back.

And so at the end of the day, it will be the president, whether it's President Obama or the person who follows him, who will say yea or nay to this project."

Nice strawman.
GOP & Libertarians say the power should be in the hands of the state. The governor of Nebraska vehemently opposed it going through his state. So Yes or No: Should his views be ignored? Should the issue be delayed until a consensus is reached with the state?
Or is it screw the power or views of the state, if the GOP wants to invoke federal power to get their way?

There was no strawman and you know it. You said Obama is respecting the wishes of the Republicans. No he isn't and he never has. Obama is a statist and fears giving power to the states. He isn't respecting the concerns of Nebraska or any other state. He is using the State Department to block the pipeline for political purposes. He is anti-oil and anti-business. He keeps begging Congress to pass his "jobs bill", yet his own Speaker of the Senate is the one who keeps blocking it. Obama could bring good paying, long term jobs to Americans with the swipe of his pen if he would allow offshore drilling, drilling in ANWR and building the pipeline......and ease our dependence on foreign oil at the same time. The question is why isn't he?

Hmmm. Apparently you're having a hard time grasping what I write because you're wrong on virtually everything here. Let me try to make this simple (although the evidence seems to be that you will dodge anyway) and see if you are capable of direct answers on a point by point basis.

1. Do Republicans and Libertarians hold that states should have more power?
2. Do they hold they should regulate issues such as environment, rather than the Fed?
3. If the governor of Nebraska says his state doesn't want the pipeline going through, should the Fed exercise its' power to over-ride those wishes?

We'll just start with those three simple questions as i doubt you'll answer even those, directly.

 

[Inthemiddle]

OK.. so you assail the "logic" of asking "which is a greater risk".
The risk being how much damage is done to water versus land.
The risk of NOT being able in 24 hours to shut down a 2,147 mile pipeline releasing
700,000 into the end terminal..huh????
Or the risk of a tanker in the Arctic seas breaking up and horrors of horrors turning polar bear cubs black!!! OH the humanity!!!

Where in either case is the greater statistical chance AND the damage with:
ONE which runs the risk of happening EVERY DAY i.e. tanker crashes..
OR
two a pipeline that might leak in one mile of a pipeline releasing 3,000 barrels?

That seems to logical people a no brainer... that is if you have a brain!!!

You've presented a question to people who oppose the Keystone project. I've explained why your post is illogical. Asking "which would you rather have" is an illogical question. What makes you think people want either one to happen? You really think that anyone wants an oil spill? Because that's what your question is asking. I don't think anyone wants either scenario to happen. You're making it out to sound like an oil spill can be a good thing. As I also explained, your post is also committing the fallacy of the false dilemma. You are essentially implying that if we don't go ahead with the Keystone project, then the consequence will be oil spills in the ocean. There is no reason to make this assumption. It's completely illogical. I realize that you are completely ignorant of logic. So I encourage you to educate yourself on it. May I suggest "Introduction to Logic" by I.M. Copi. It's a very good textbook that provides a clear and vigorous treatment of the subject matter. When you are done, you'll better understand why complex questions and false dilemmas are not suitable forms of argumentation.

Your post is further illogical because you're generalizing that all people who oppose the Keystone project do so based on the hypothetical event of an oil spill. So, even if you were to gain the response you are looking for from those opposed to the project, that would still not accomplish anything toward the goal of dissolving such opposition.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, it's called risk mitigation. Look it up. Problem, we have to move oil from point A to point B. Between the two options given and based on previous experience, which presents the least risk? Businesses do this every day.

This would be a good point, if the issues behind the Keystone were a simple matter of risk, and if they only options were A and B. However, as I explained, they aren't. There are plenty of objections raised to the Keystone project that have nothing to do with the hypothetical risk of an oil leak.

The main objections from environmental wacko morons is the risk of an oil spill. What are these other "objections?" The "carbon footprint" issue is not an issue except to nutburgers and morons. Canada is going to market the oil one way or another.

You claim there are alternatives? What are they? Since the Canadian companies building the pipeline are the ones who are in control of all the alternatives, what makes you think you have the ability to impose any others?

Keeping the oil in the ground simply isn't a plausible scenario. The American government has no control over that.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What I'm trying to get evidently the irrational Luddites to understand
is that which is a greater risk of occurring and if did occur which causes most damage?
.. 1 million barrel tanker each day carrying as much as Keystone
365 days on the ocean has GREATER risks tanker will crash
700,000 barrel/day pipeline travels 2,147 miles mostly underground and even if a leak occurred in a one mile length.. less then 3,000 barrels would spill in that one mile.

And what's even worse is that your analysis of the risks between the two hypotheticals is horribly flawed and illogical. A proper risk assessment will not look at the singular event, like the Exxon Valdez spill, and compare it to a singular hypothetical event, like a pipeline leak. It needs to look at the bigger picture. As noted, the Exxon spill was more than 22 years ago. It was a singular event. We cannot focus in on this, otherwise we are committing fallacy of accident. We need to look at the greater scheme of shipping oil by boat, and compare it to the overall scheme of shipping oil by pipeline. I would imagine that while individual pipeline leaks are going to be much smaller events than a single boat spill, pipelines are probably more likely to have spills and leaks than boats. A proper risk assessment needs to analyze how much oil is shipped in each manner and how much oil is spilled from each shipping mechanism. And it needs to examine these things over time. That's the only way that we're going to have a comprehensive risk assessment. I don't have anywhere near the data to begin comparing which is more risky. And I'm pretty sure that neither do you.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Actually, it's called risk mitigation. Look it up. Problem, we have to move oil from point A to point B. Between the two options given and based on previous experience, which presents the least risk? Businesses do this every day.

This would be a good point, if the issues behind the Keystone were a simple matter of risk, and if they only options were A and B. However, as I explained, they aren't. There are plenty of objections raised to the Keystone project that have nothing to do with the hypothetical risk of an oil leak.

The main objections from environmental wacko morons is the risk of an oil spill. What are these other "objections?" The "carbon footprint" issue is not an issue except to nutburgers and morons. Canada is going to market the oil one way or another.

You claim there are alternatives? What are they? Since the Canadian companies building the pipeline are the ones who are in control of all the alternatives, what makes you think you have the ability to impose any others?

Keeping the oil in the ground simply isn't a plausible scenario. The American government has no control over that.

Okay so since your Conserv Buddies seem to dodge difficult questions, how about you take a shot there Pat? The Governor of Nebraska has made it clear the people of his state don't want the pipeline going through their neighborhoods. So 3 simple questions:

1. Do Republicans and Libertarians hold that states should have more power?
2. Do they hold that states should regulate issues such as environment, rather than the Fed?
3. Do these views only apply when in agreement with the GOP agenda (hypocrisy), or is it the Conservative view that if the governor of Nebraska says his state doesn't want the pipeline going through, should the Fed exercise its' power to over-ride those wishes?

It seems the ConservaRepubLitarians want to dodge these simple questions but who knows? Maybe you will step up to the plate and answer them directly!

 

[bripat9643]

You've presented a question to people who oppose the Keystone project. I've explained why your post is illogical. Asking "which would you rather have" is an illogical question. What makes you think people want either one to happen?

Your belief that environmental kookburgers have the ability to enforce their preferences on foreign corporations operating in a foreign country is hilarious. The only options we've been given is a "yes" or "no" decision on whether we allow the pipeline to be built. If we say "no," then we have no further input into what happens.

You really think that anyone wants an oil spill? Because that's what your question is asking. I don't think anyone wants either scenario to happen.

No one wants to have car accidents either. So what's your plan to eliminate them entirely?

You're making it out to sound like an oil spill can be a good thing.

Wrong, but you're giving the impression that government can waive a magic wand and make all risk disappear. It can't. Everything humans do involves risk and it has a cost. There is no legislation that can eliminate risk. None.

As I also explained, your post is also committing the fallacy of the false dilemma. You are essentially implying that if we don't go ahead with the Keystone project, then the consequence will be oil spills in the ocean.

There will be oil transported across the ocean, and that means the risk of oil spills. Where do you imagine the oil is going to go? You keep talking about "alternatives," but you haven't described a single one. What are these "alternatives?"

There is no reason to make this assumption. It's completely illogical. I realize that you are completely ignorant of logic. So I encourage you to educate yourself on it. May I suggest "Introduction to Logic" by I.M. Copi. It's a very good textbook that provides a clear and vigorous treatment of the subject matter. When you are done, you'll better understand why complex questions and false dilemmas are not suitable forms of argumentation.

When you provide a feasible alternative, then you might have an argument. Until that time, you're blowing wind out your ass.

Your post is further illogical because you're generalizing that all people who oppose the Keystone project do so based on the hypothetical event of an oil spill. So, even if you were to gain the response you are looking for from those opposed to the project, that would still not accomplish anything toward the goal of dissolving such opposition.

Huh?

 

[bripat9643]

And what's even worse is that your analysis of the risks between the two hypotheticals is horribly flawed and illogical. A proper risk assessment will not look at the singular event, like the Exxon Valdez spill, and compare it to a singular hypothetical event, like a pipeline leak. It needs to look at the bigger picture.

What is "the bigger picture?" If you actually think risk assessment doesn't look at singular events, then you obviously don't know jack squat about risk assessment. I actually had to study risk assessment when I majored in mechanical engineering. Singular events have to be considered all the time. For instance, when you build a damn, you have to perform a risk assessment that considers the possibility of a catastrophic collapse of the damn.

As noted, the Exxon spill was more than 22 years ago. It was a singular event. We cannot focus in on this, otherwise we are committing fallacy of accident.

"the fallacy of accident?" You make up logical fallacies left and right.

We need to look at the greater scheme of shipping oil by boat, and compare it to the overall scheme of shipping oil by pipeline.

That's what he did.

I would imagine that while individual pipeline leaks are going to be much smaller events than a single boat spill, pipelines are probably more likely to have spills and leaks than boats.

Really? I think that's totally wrong. Boats have leaks all the time. Boats are always hitting things and bumping into things because they move. Pipelines are stationary. Furthermore most of them are underground. What's the chance of a pipeline hitting anything?

A proper risk assessment needs to analyze how much oil is shipped in each manner and how much oil is spilled from each shipping mechanism. And it needs to examine these things over time.

He just did that.

That's the only way that we're going to have a comprehensive risk assessment. I don't have anywhere near the data to begin comparing which is more risky. And I'm pretty sure that neither do you.

thanks for admitting you don't know what the hell you're talking about, but we already knew that.

 

[Inthemiddle]

There are no logical fallacies in the OP, dipstick.

Yes, there are. You just didn't see them because you don't comprehend logic. Which is probably why you opened up with a logical fallacy.

That's what I tried to explain to you but your congenital stupidity prevented it from penetrating.

Two logical fallacies.

I'm sure you do wish I would avoid these discussions because it will be difficult to hide the fact that you're a moron if I don't.

Three and four logical fallacies. It seem that fallacy is all you got.

 

[Inthemiddle]

InTheMiddle thinks choosing between options that entail varying amounts of risk is a logical fallacy. Next he'll tell us that claiming people prefer a lower price to a higher price is a logical fallacy.

Oh look, another logical fallacy.

 

[Inthemiddle]

The main objections from environmental wacko morons is the risk of an oil spill.

Two more logical fallacies. Not all opposition to the Keystone project is based on environmental concerns. It's illogical to generalize as such. And ad hominems are not going to make your position any stronger.

 

[bripat9643]

Okay so since your Conserv Buddies seem to dodge difficult questions, how about you take a shot there Pat? The Governor of Nebraska has made it clear the people of his state don't want the pipeline going through their neighborhoods. So 3 simple questions:

1. Do Republicans and Libertarians hold that states should have more power?

How is that relevant? We aren't discussing reorganizing our entire system of government. If we were going to organize the government along libertarian lines, then neither the state nor federal government would have any say in the matter. It would be totally up to the property owners along the proposed pipeline. The only question here is, given current law, should the federal government approve the pipeline. It has the authority, so it's irrelevant whether i believe in state's rights.

2. Do they hold that states should regulate issues such as environment, rather than the Fed?

Neither should, except perhaps for air pollution. Torts and property law should handle all other environment problems.

3. Do these views only apply when in agreement with the GOP agenda (hypocrisy), or is it the Conservative view that if the governor of Nebraska says his state doesn't want the pipeline going through, should the Fed exercise its' power to over-ride those wishes?

The governor of Nebraska speaks for himself, not every person in the state. I have no idea what the GOP position on the issue is, but the libertarian position is that neither the federal government nor the state government should have any say in the matter.

It seems the ConservaRepubLitarians want to dodge these simple questions but who knows? Maybe you will step up to the plate and answer them directly!

The question is simply a gambit where libs attempt to blame the problem on the governor of Nebraska rather than their messiah.

 

[bripat9643]

The main objections from environmental wacko morons is the risk of an oil spill.

Two more logical fallacies. Not all opposition to the Keystone project is based on environmental concerns. It's illogical to generalize as such. And ad hominems are not going to make your position any stronger.

What are the non-environmental concerns? You declined to describe any. That seems to be standard operating procedure for you.

 

[Inthemiddle]

Your belief that environmental kookburgers have the ability to enforce their preferences on foreign corporations operating in a foreign country is hilarious.

And two more fallacies.

No one wants to have car accidents either. So what's your plan to eliminate them entirely?

And another fallacy.

Wrong, but you're giving the impression that government can waive a magic wand and make all risk disappear. It can't. Everything humans do involves risk and it has a cost. There is no legislation that can eliminate risk. None.

And another logical fallacy.

There will be oil transported across the ocean, and that means the risk of oil spills. Where do you imagine the oil is going to go? You keep talking about "alternatives," but you haven't described a single one. What are these "alternatives?"

And another logical fallacy.

When you provide a feasible alternative, then you might have an argument. Until that time, you're blowing wind out your ass.

Two logical fallacies.

Huh?

Exactly.

 

[bripat9643]

InTheMiddle thinks choosing between options that entail varying amounts of risk is a logical fallacy. Next he'll tell us that claiming people prefer a lower price to a higher price is a logical fallacy.

Oh look, another logical fallacy.

You mean people don't prefer a lower price to a higher price?

Are you eve going to address any of my arguments, or just take pot shots from the gallery?

 

[bripat9643]

Exactly.

Calling everything I post a logical fallacy isn't an argument. It's a cop-out.

 

[Inthemiddle]

What is "the bigger picture?" If you actually think risk assessment doesn't look at singular events, then you obviously don't know jack squat about risk assessment. I actually had to study risk assessment when I majored in mechanical engineering. Singular events have to be considered all the time. For instance, when you build a damn, you have to perform a risk assessment that considers the possibility of a catastrophic collapse of the damn.

You're actually right, for once. Catastrophic events do need to be taken into consideration. But singular events are not the totality of a proper risk assessment.

"the fallacy of accident?" You make up logical fallacies left and right.

You're wearing your ignorance on your sleeve. Here, let me google that for you.

That's what he did.

No he didn't. He's comparing a single historical event with a hypothetical future event, and that's it.

Really? I think that's totally wrong. Boats have leaks all the time. Boats are always hitting things and bumping into things because they move. Pipelines are stationary. Furthermore most of them are underground. What's the chance of a pipeline hitting anything?

What you think is irrelevant. Unless anyone has a professional analysis available that relied on comprehensive data, we may as well be flipping a coin.

He just did that.

No he didn't. He's comparing a single historical event with a hypothetical future event, and that's it.

thanks for admitting you don't know what the hell you're talking about, but we already knew that.

One, two, three logical fallacies.

 

[IndependntLogic]

Okay so since your Conserv Buddies seem to dodge difficult questions, how about you take a shot there Pat? The Governor of Nebraska has made it clear the people of his state don't want the pipeline going through their neighborhoods. So 3 simple questions:

1. Do Republicans and Libertarians hold that states should have more power?

How is that relevant? We aren't discussing reorganizing our entire system of government. If we were going to organize the government along libertarian lines, then neither the state nor federal government would have any say in the matter. It would be totally up to the property owners along the proposed pipeline. The only question here is, given current law, should the federal government approve the pipeline. It has the authority, so it's irrelevant whether i believe in state's rights.

2. Do they hold that states should regulate issues such as environment, rather than the Fed?

Neither should, except perhaps for air pollution. Torts and property law should handle all other environment problems.

3. Do these views only apply when in agreement with the GOP agenda (hypocrisy), or is it the Conservative view that if the governor of Nebraska says his state doesn't want the pipeline going through, should the Fed exercise its' power to over-ride those wishes?

The governor of Nebraska speaks for himself, not every person in the state. I have no idea what the GOP position on the issue is, but the libertarian position is that neither the federal government nor the state government should have any say in the matter.

It seems the ConservaRepubLitarians want to dodge these simple questions but who knows? Maybe you will step up to the plate and answer them directly!

The question is simply a gambit where libs attempt to blame the problem on the governor of Nebraska rather than their messiah.

Libertarians hold that neither State nor Fed government should have any say in environmental matters??? So if I want to dump toxic waste down the streets, that's fine???

WTF? I'm thinking I must be misunderstanding your meaning on the part in bold above.