The EPA has shown that there is no negative environmental impact from the pipeline.
Given that and knowing that pipelines are perhaps the safest way to transport oil resulting in less spillage than rail, truck or ship why do you sheep have a problem with it?
By definition ALL construction jobs are temporary aren't they? So I guess we shouldn't ever build anything because none of those construction jobs are permanent.
Tell me does your ass get jealous of the shit that comes out of your mouth?
Anything that disrupts the natural existing environment
is going to have a longterm impact.
If you look at the destruction caused by the oil industry in general --
from Ogoniland/Biafra in Nigeria, the Valdez spill, BP in the Gulf, etc. --
there is not enough check on corporations and oil and related interests
to ensure the full cost to the public and environment is
included in the profits and responsibilities.
Can you really blame citizens concerned for the environment
for not trusting the constant collusion between oil interests
and corporate financiers and politicans influencing and pushing policies?
These objections may not be letter-perfect arguments,
but the sentiment behind them is valide: the protest of lack of accountability
for unequal corporate influences on govt and the public, where
collective power and resources are too easily abused
to override equal protections, consent, and due process for redressing grievances
for which the public and environment is left absorbing the consequences and costs.
This should be addressed if we are going to make sound policies
and hold corporations accountable for side effects or collateral damages,
deliberate or unintentional, whether these are proven in advance or the risks ignored.
There should be an agreement first to pay the additional costs as needed
to resolve objections and meet the concerns, instead of overriding them as invalid.
If it is TRUE there is "no risk of impact to the environment"
where is the agreement to guarantee in writing to cover those costs IN FULL
if they should occur (instead of "assuming the assertions are correct as studied"),
and agree in advance what those costs could be? When BP signed agreements
with the federal govt for damages in the Gulf disaster, they capped the
damages to a maximum amount that does not guarantee it can cover all the cleanup, impact, and repercussions on the indigenous wildlife and ecosystem over the longterm,
since that has never been determined and may take years to restore and measure.
The environmental impact and killing off of species in Alaska is still not back to normal,
and there was not enough money paid to restore the economic burdens locally.
How is this distrust of corporations and politicians with conflicts of interest
NOT a valid factor in making decisions that affect the public and environment?
