View Single Post
Old 04-16-2018, 10:35 AM   #8
Traum
RS.net, helping ugly ppl have sex since 2001
 
Traum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Paradise, BC
Posts: 8,384
Thanked 8,148 Times in 3,389 Posts
Failed 262 Times in 148 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by DragonChi View Post
Yeah, I don't know why BC would assume the environmental risk for nothing. The BC spill protection program should not be from tax payer money. Shouldn't Kinder Morgan and the tanker companies be footing the bill for a spill?

Get money from the pipeline
Build offshore windfarms
Fund electric car network
Get off fossil fuel use... the dream. lol.
^^ This.

As a realist and pragmatist, I see our continual need (and the world's need) for years to come. I also see how rail, truck, and other forms of transport are almost certainly riskier and more prone to environmental disasters than a pipeline would. So in that sense, I think all parties involved, including the people in BC, would be better off from having the pipeline built.

But this does not mean we should just blindly agree to everything Kinder Morgan and that stupid Notley woman demands. From what I can see, the vast majority of the risks are borne by BC, and the bulk of the benefits are reaped by Alberta. So unless BC sees some major assurances to mitigate the risks, and some real economic benefits that would be worth our while to bear that risk, I say we cantinue to give a big FU to KM, AB, and Notley.

As an additional thing to bear in mind, it seems to me that a lot of people are severely underestimating the risk implications of a spill. Any kind of commercial level oil spill is probably a bad thing, but a spill involving diluted bitumen is extra special bad, and that is precisely what the new Trans Mountain pipeline is supposed to carry.
Traum is offline   Reply With Quote
This post thanked by: