🇳🇱
@tursiops Except the reality isnt that simple.
You block a pipeline it doesnt reduce the quantity of oil being consumed in any noticeable quantity. all you've done is move the transport from the most evo-friendly mode of transport (pipelines) to the least eco friendly modes of transport (like trucks)... So the end result is 10,000+ new trucks on the road in an endless line of moving oil from point A to point be and a few million more tons of CO2 in the air than before.
@freemo I am not following this closely, so maybe I am wrong, but my understanding is that this is about a pipeline which is not operational yet (in planning, or in construction?). If I am right, then technically speaking, stopping the pipeline project _is not_ going to put more trucks on roads, because nothing needs to be replaced. The volumes of oil which now will not be transported were not transported anyway. So there your argument fails a bit.
So (theoretically speaking) the effect of this decision can have twofold effect: 1) curb the supply side (or better said: keep it constant); and 2) incentivise seeking an alternative replacement for whatever purpose there was - e.g., if this single step would increase prices of oil (which I highly doubt), it could incentivise people to move to electric cars. But all that is theory. In reality it's clear what is going on: 1) the administration wants to have environmentally friendly image, 2) there is an opportunity to boost that, 3) the opposition to this project is significant. In the end there is little risk taking this political decision.
> If I am right, then technically speaking, stopping the pipeline project _is not_ going to put more trucks on roads, because nothing needs to be replaced. The volumes of oil which now will not be transported were not transported anyway. So there your argument fails a bit.
This statement makes no sense to me. Why would that matter. They have an oil field somewhere, right now the oil is being transported by trucks, building the pipeline means no trucks would be needed, reducing the CO2 footprint. Why does the fact that the pipeline doesnt already exist matter or effect the equation?
Even if we were talking about an oil field that isnt operational, it still would be a failed counter argument. If someone owns a huge oil field and gets denied the pipeline they need to transport it why would you think they wont spend that money on trucks to get it operational? The oil is a source of money and they wont pass that up and is not related to if its in operation or not.
> So (theoretically speaking) the effect of this decision can have twofold effect:
Since your axioms are invalid all the other points made hereafter are likewise invalid.
> This statement makes no sense to me.
Let me explain it then :-) :
I do not know whether the purpose of the pipeline was to 1) strictly shift the current truck transport into a pipe (and thus reduce CO2 emissions), or 2) to do 1 and on top of that also increase the amount of oil coming into the country.
If the former, then the CO2 emissions will not be realised and the situation stays as it was 2 weeks ago. We can call that a missed opportunity, but it does not change anything (in terms of emissions).
If the latter, then not constructing the pipeline will in principle *not lead* to increased oil supply, i.e., *will not* increase CO2 emissions to a level higher than it was 2 weeks ago.
What I am saying is that (again, strictly technically speaking!) not building the pipeline is not going to have a negative environmental effect in comparison to today's situation.
> Since your axioms are invalid all the other points made hereafter are likewise invalid.
Conversations with you are a bliss :-). Of course you are always right. Fortunately, I have a deep and very intimate understanding of a technical mind manhandling politics with cold logic :-).
the failure here is in your 2nd point:
> 2) to do 1 and on top of that also increase the amount of oil coming into the country.
You are under the mistaken impression that a pipeline, under any scenario, will increase the overall amount of oil being moved. This is false and not bore out by the data.
1) If there is a truck transport going on, then a pipeline reduces the number of trucks. 2) If there is no truck transport going on and the pipeline is being built to support a new operation, then if the pipline is blocked then they buy trucks and transport in the oil that way.
No one sits on a pile of black gold and goes "Oh well if we cant transport it via a pipeline we will just ignore all the other ways we can transport it and not sell this extremely expensive product we have millions of tons of it"
The fact is, the oil, whether a new construction or old, once identified and owned is getting sold one way or another, blocking a pipeline, doesnt change that fact if the setup is established or not, it just means instead of the pipeline replacing already existing trucks the pipeline would be preventing new trucks from being bought... either way its the same deal and there is no reason to think a preexisting condition changes that equation.
> If the former, then the CO2 emissions will not be realised and the situation stays as it was 2 weeks ago.
Again since the axiom is still incorrect everything that follows it is likewise incorrect.
>Well, now, when we together derived falsity, obviously I am banished into the void hell of inconsistency among all the other low beings (99% of humankind?) and shall never ever crawl back again to the daylight where the pure logic resides. What a lovely way to tell the conversation partner they are an idiot. 🙂
That is purely your own interpretation and neither my intent nor what my words suggested.
The fact is if your going to make an argument that leads from one logical point to the next if you do not make an argument that convinces me of your axiom (your first point) then any arguments you make that rely on that axiom/assumption cant be considered.
It has nothing to do with your character or your argument.. What it means is, you either need to do a better job at arguing your axioms before you continue on, at least if you want me to be convinced, or you can abandon the conversation (as you did)
> To question others is a great start. But it is just that. To teach ourselves (outside of technical fields, so politics etc.), it is vital to listen and deeply understand why other human beings think what they do, while assuming all along that they are at least as smart as we are (in this case Biden's administration, not me).
Biden is a family friend, he has been over my family home, even spent the night and had dinner with us. My mom likes the guy but neither me nor my dad like him, he is very fake and a slimeballl in ever respect IMO.
More importantly I never said he was an idiot, what I said was:
> But Joe is either not smart enough to understand that or cares more about his image than doing good.
I gave two options, and honestly the answer is not that he is an idiot, it is that he doesnt care about right or wrong and he only cares about how he is perceived... Listening to others is great, but you need to make sure you listen to people who have demonstrated they bring value to the conversation in the first place. Otherwise your just wasting everyones time.
@freemo First, let me say that this is my last response in this conversation. I see little point in continuing it, I said most of what I felt was useful, apparently it does not make sense to you and I do not care enough to change that - to me that pipeline decision is like Uzbekistan deciding to change their default timezone. I was just seeking some little sparring on Sunday evening, which I got. Thanks for that.
> Again since the axiom is still incorrect everything that follows it is likewise incorrect.
Well, now, when we together derived falsity, obviously I am banished into the void hell of inconsistency among all the other low beings (99% of humankind?) and shall never ever crawl back again to the daylight where the pure logic resides. What a lovely way to tell the conversation partner they are an idiot. 🙂
To question others is a great start. But it is just that. To teach ourselves (outside of technical fields, so politics etc.), it is vital to listen and deeply understand why other human beings think what they do, while assuming all along that they are at least as smart as we are (in this case Biden's administration, not me).
@tursiops