Question forEnvironmentalist on Keystone Pipeline

[Revoltingest]

What exactly is "eco-terrorism"? It seems like it's one of those conservative catch-phrases that is being bandied about now to refer to people who want to protect the environment.

For your edification....
Eco-terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unabomber is perhaps the most famous of'm.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What exactly is "eco-terrorism"? It seems like it's one of those conservative catch-phrases that is being bandied about now to refer to people who want to protect the environment.

It's kind of like people who bomb abortion clinics - it's a minute sliver of people, but they are used by the other side to attempt to smear the whole ideology. Ideologues seem to love to take part in such banal festivities.

 

[esmith]

What exactly is "eco-terrorism"? It seems like it's one of those conservative catch-phrases that is being bandied about now to refer to people who want to protect the environment.

I have no problem with people expressing their ideas in a non-violent, peaceful manner. What I have a problem with is those that commit crimes in the name of ecology or environmental ideals. Here are a few examples:

remove link Revoltingest has referenced it.
Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements

 

[Alceste]

I realize that you are Canadian and we do share a common language, with a few idiosyncrasies, but you are misconstruing the term "take". If one offers an item for sale to two different parties at a certain price one party might "take" the offer while the other does not. From your comment it appears that you think that I meant that China would "take" the oil and not buy it. I would hope that you realize that your comment was just lashing out without thinking.

If I am correct,I believe that there is a considerate push and opposition to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline if the Keystone pipeline is rejected by the US. I may be mistaken, but from what I have read one or the other will be built but not both. Some sources of information are as follows:

Energy Independence Will Die With The Keystone Pipeline
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/24/business/energy-environment/canadas-new-pipeline-woes.html?_r=0

You would be mistaken. The tar sands wants both pipeline projects, and environmentalists are fighting them both. Why on earth would you think we'd be trying to pick one or the other? If you were a guy with a T-shirt factory, would you be saying "Well, I can ship to Zellers or Walmart, but not both!"

A buyer is a buyer. There's a huge market in China, and another huge market in the US. The oil companies want access to both markets, not one or the other.

And opposition to the Keystone pipeline has absolutely no influence on opposition to the Northern gateway pipeline. In fact, the Keystone pipeline is more likely to succeed because the Gateway pipeline is opposed by a large majority of British Columbians, and Albertans need our permission to build it. The Keystone pipeline can carry oil straight to the US from Alberta, with no barriers except the conscience of Americans. (Albertans don't have a conscience, as we can see from the fact that the tar sands projects exist).

In the interests of pedantry, wild geese and red herrings, I'd like to point out that the Athabasca Tar Sands belong to Alberta. Not all Canadians, just Albertans.

Also, any criticisms and harsh words should be directed there, rather than just arbitrarily tossed over the border.

(The federal government oversees trade, but they're our filthy polluting provincial natural resource.)

I will happily criticize you rednecks. I used to live there myself.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Look, you have one of the protesters admitting on camera that if the pipeline is approved that they would do anything, including eco-terrorism, to prevent the pipeline from being built.

I think they should do anything...short of breaking the law. I do not condone violence or any form of terrorism.

Now, I am not saying that they all advocate violence to justify their beliefs but history does point in that direction.

Kind of harkens back to the days when "christians" were killing and terrorizing at abortion clinics....huh?.....There are alternatives to this..legally..!

The statement that if the pipeline was built and this oil refined that it would increase pollution. One would have to assume that they believe that if the pipeline is not built in the US that this oil will not be refined elsewhere.

So you're a ....'because Johnny might do it I should do it'...kind of guy? No one is saying that if we don't do it that some one else will/won't do it...What we're saying is it shouldn't be done because it disrupts and potentially destroys the ecosystem. The process is dirty and causes pollution.....You're looking at the financial side of it and I get that. There's a price to pay when looking at situations with blinders on. We should stop being the country that's screwing up the environment for profit. Let BP be a prime example.

Unless the Canadian Government stops the exporting of this oil, it will be refined.

Maybe I was a little harsh in calling them "dumb". I guess the correct term would living in a bubble and really do not understand the global issues on energy. I see them as self-righteous hypocrites.

Or maybe it's you who don't understand. Did you ever think of that? I get it....sometimes environmental activist can seem a little nutty....but their eccentric behavior, IMO, a lot of times is for good reason. I find that many of them do know what they're talking about and the evidence for such disasters they warn us about speak for themselves.

I get that you're a proponent of "Drill baby drill"....but that shouldn't be the sole answer to energy independence (if you can call getting it from Canada..."independence"). I opt for a mixture of fossil fuels and alternative energy sources until one day we as a nation have the technology to be completely off the fossil fuel teet.

 

[Falvlun]

For your edification....
Eco-terrorism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Unabomber is perhaps the most famous of'm.

I have no problem with people expressing their ideas in a non-violent, peaceful manner. What I have a problem with is those that commit crimes in the name of ecology or environmental ideals. Here are a few examples:

remove link Revoltingest has referenced it.
Ecoterrorism: Extremism in the Animal Rights and Environmentalist Movements

Thanks.

I does seem a strange word to me. I heard it for the first time yesterday on some talk show. I understood from context that an "eco-terrorist" was someone who did acts of terror to protect the environment, but by itself, it sounds more like someone who damages the environment as their terrorism MO.

Anyway, at least according to the talk-show, eco-terrorist was being thrown about to also include peaceful demonstrations and non-violent civil disobedience (like handcuffing yourself to the White House fence), as well as political activism to stop such projects like the Keystone Pipeline.

I think that's definitely an abuse of the word, in that case.

 

[tytlyf]

I can't think of an eco-terrorist act that could have been more damaging to the environment than some of these major oil spills. Exxon Valdez. BP in the Gulf. Although accidental, regulations may have prevented them.

 

[Willamena]

Unless the Canadian Government stops the exporting of this oil, it will be refined.

Actually, it may likely be refined anyway, locally. It is one of many options Alberta is proposing to explore.

 

[YmirGF]

Actually, it may likely be refined anyway, locally. It is one of many options Alberta is proposing to explore.

That is, of course, if the Eco-weenies allow a refinery to be built. My guess is that project would be bitterly opposed as well.

 

[Willamena]

That is, of course, if the Eco-weenies allow a refinery to be built. My guess is that project would be bitterly opposed as well.

Unless the Eco-weenies have the support of their local MPs, they really have no say.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That is, of course, if the Eco-weenies allow a refinery to be built. My guess is that project would be bitterly opposed as well.

As it should be...

 

[YmirGF]

Unless the Eco-weenies have the support of their local MPs, they really have no say.

I wouldn't write them off that quickly. Even if correct, they will certainly be out in force to stop the export of refined products beyond Albertan borders.

That said, I support both the Enbridge and Keystone Pipelines. Future generations are going to be too broke to worry much about choking to death in a poisoned environment.

 

[Sunstone]

I have a question for those environmentalist who oppose the Keystone pipeline on pollution concerns.
It seems that there is an environmental issue with the Keystone pipeline because it will bring tar sand oil from Canada to the US. This tar sand oil, opponents of the pipeline say, will have cause increased problems with climate change. Question, are these people really that dumb, or do they think if the oil doesn't come to the US it will not be used. Yeah, right; the Canadians are really stupid...if the US doesn't buy it they will just leave it in the ground. Canada has already said that if the US doesn't want it they will sell it to China. I guess China has a way to use the oil that the US doesn't have.

So, if someone told you to kick the crap out of your neighbor, you'd happily do it if you knew they'd ask someone else to kick the crap out of your neighbor should you decline to do it.

Great reasoning, esmith. Remind me to sell you a bridge sometime.

 

[Willamena]

Future generations are going to be too broke to worry much about choking to death in a poisoned environment.

Wiser words have rarely been spoken.

 

[Alceste]

That is, of course, if the Eco-weenies allow a refinery to be built. My guess is that project would be bitterly opposed as well.

This is Alberta we're talking about. What eco-weenies? That whole province is redder than a baboon's bum cheeks. They'd still vote conservative if the Once-ler himself was running the party.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

This is Alberta we're talking about. What eco-weenies? That whole province is redder than a baboon's bum cheeks. They'd still vote conservative if the Once-ler himself was running the party.

I have my concerns about the attitude of "drill baby drill"....but do you think, in the overall grand scheme of things, that trying to prevent these oil companies and the governments that say YES to them is a lost cause to the environmental activist? Sometimes I admire their drive and tensity but think sometimes their complaints are falling on def ears....

 

[Alceste]

I have my concerns about the attitude of "drill baby drill"....but do you think, in the overall grand scheme of things, that trying to prevent these oil companies and the governments that say YES to them is a lost cause to the environmental activist? Sometimes I admire their drive and tensity but think sometimes their complaints are falling on def ears....

At this moment it's pretty hopeless because Albertan interests and ideology are in control of the federal government. The surprising growth of the NDP in the last election shows that an environmentally progressive platform potentially has a lot of public support.

Any major paradigm shift needs to reach a critical mass of public support before anything happens, but when the dam breaks things tend to happen quickly. We are fighting powerful people with deeply entrenched archaic ideals. It may feel like trying to budge a mountain with a crowbar, but I imagine the progressives of the past felt the same. The overthrow of monarchies in Europe, the abolition of slavery, universal enfranchisement, the civil rights movement, the end of apartheid in south Africa, the overthrow of the British in India... all these revolutions simmered for decades before suddenly accomplishing most of their goals all at once.

Personally I think we will see some major transformations when the baby boomers start dying off. They have it pretty cushy so they are heavily emotionally invested in preserving an economic system based on thoughtless consumption. They assimilated their values during a time of rapid growth, so environmental issues are somewhat alien to their perspective, and they vote in greater numbers than their kids.

That said, Alberta will always be Alberta. The temptation of the oil sands is too great to resist. The only way to slow the extraction or improve the process to reduce pollution and emissions is to reduce the demand or elect a federal government willing to enforce environmental regulations. Albertans will never control these problems on their own.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

At this moment it's pretty hopeless because Albertan interests and ideology are in control of the federal government. The surprising growth of the NDP in the last election shows that an environmentally progressive platform potentially has a lot of public support.

Any major paradigm shift needs to reach a critical mass of public support before anything happens, but when the dam breaks things tend to happen quickly. We are fighting powerful people with deeply entrenched archaic ideals. It may feel like trying to budge a mountain with a crowbar, but I imagine the progressives of the past felt the same. The overthrow of monarchies in Europe, the abolition of slavery, universal enfranchisement, the civil rights movement, the end of apartheid in south Africa, the overthrow of the British in India... all these revolutions simmered for decades before suddenly accomplishing most of their goals all at once.

Personally I think we will see some major transformations when the baby boomers start dying off. They have it pretty cushy so they are heavily emotionally invested in preserving an economic system based on thoughtless consumption. They assimilated their values during a time of rapid growth, so environmental issues are somewhat alien to their perspective, and they vote in greater numbers than their kids.

That said, Alberta will always be Alberta. The temptation of the oil sands is too great to resist. The only way to slow the extraction or improve the process to reduce pollution and emissions is to reduce the demand or elect a federal government willing to enforce environmental regulations. Albertans will never control these problems on their own.

Sounds like that government and ours has a lot in common......:help:

 

[Wirey]

If the US were to boycott the tar sands it would have a real impact on the activity there.

No, it won't. The Chinese just bought Nexen (I helped build Long Lake), and they'll buy more. The US can have a cheap, stable supply of oil, or the Chinese can, but there's a dollar to be made. Sorry, that oil is coming out of the ground.

A bigger concern should be how much oversight will Chinese tankers have?

 

[Wirey]

This is Alberta we're talking about. What eco-weenies? That whole province is redder than a baboon's bum cheeks. They'd still vote conservative if the Once-ler himself was running the party.

You mean bluer. Red is Liberal. And we have eco-weenies. But as soon as they find out they don't qualify for Employment Insurance because of all the work, they move back to Vancouver.