π³π±
Yet another indication Joe is clueless.. I dont care so much about the pipeline workers, but I do care about the environment. Blocking pipelines means more pollution, and a hell of a lot of it. But Joe is either not smart enough to understand that or cares more about his image than doing good. No surprise.
@freemo blocking the pipeline means less economical fossil fuels, which will aid in the transition to renewable energies. CO2 accumulation will be far more important in the long run than just spilled oil.
@Demosthenes Incorrect, blocking the pipeline means more pollution as it is transported via other means, the overall supply of oil is uneffected, they just buy more trucks and/or trains to move it. Same amount gets moved but now you have a ton of pollution while you do it.
Its not about oil spilled either, the ways in which they move oil that isnt pipelines equates to **huge** quantities of CO2, it essentially equates to tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of extra trucks on the roads.
@freemo the amount of oil mined is heavily influenced by the profit margins available in the market. Are you saying that oil moved without the pipeline is cheaper than oil moved with it?
Well said, and exactly...
Plus as i stated earlier in this post: https://qoto.org/@freemo/105612036766523680
There is almost 0 impact on the consumption rate of oil anyway.
So what you'd see is at best a amrginal decrease in oil consumption (1% if your lucky, or if at all) and a HUGE spike in CO2 production.
Its equivalent to forcing all power to be generated with coal rather than nuclear because although coal produces way more pollution it costs more so people will buy less.
Its a self defeating ideology when done naively.
