🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@anonymoose

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.

@Demosthenes

@koherecoWatchdog

Since I worked on this in a data science role I know the numbers intimately. To give you an idea of just how insignificant the price-demand curve is for consumers:

In 2008 we have the most telling data, the average national gasoline price shot down from $4 dollars a gallon to $1.75 a gallon (nominal price) before rising back up again to $4 dollars a gallon in the year or two that followed.

Despite the price having decreased by more than half there was no noticable difference in number of miles driven by vehicals in on the road (total across all vehicles). In fact it **decreased*** slightly from 3.275 trillion miles traveled per year to 3.2 trillion miles traveled per year.

Likewise as the prices rose again there was no significant difference seen either.

Definitively showing that an increase in gas price (or decrease as the case may be) has a negligible effect on consumption, even when the difference in price is extremely significant.

@Demosthenes @tursiops

@koherecoWatchdog As a data scientist ive worked on this problem before, and yes it factored in cost cutting demand, and it isnt hard to do actually. We look closely how gasoline prices effect consumption and it isnt very significant, and certainly does not outweigh the cost-benefits your describing.

@koherecoWatchdog yea the car drivers are of course a big part of the issue, but in fact they arent the bulk of the pollution or the majority of gas consumers. So they really arent where the focus should be. Airplanes and freighters (large boats) are the bigger problem

@biomedmax you can easily just block whole servers if it has content you dont want to see. There are only a small number of servers that allow lolicon and by blocking those servers on your account you're good.

@tursiops Well thats the problem isnt it... people will pay the extra 10 cents to get their gas when a pipeline is cut and it doesn't matter that it costs 10 cents extra or that it equates to an extra few million tons of CO2 in the air than it would have if a pipeline was used.

Which is the very reason stopping pipelines is one of the most idiotic things any president who cares about the environment could possibly do. It tells you they care more about their image (because public will see it as a good thing even when it isnt, just like you did) then they care about the environment.

@koherecoWatchdog not when those scenarios have a net result of more pollution and not less. Blind ignorance towards a goal without analylizing the results of an action is how we cause more harm than good...

Dice it however you want the simple fact, and what the numbers show, is that if you block pipelines the net result is more pollution, not less. Pipelines contribute negliible pollution, Trains for transporting oil alone (and thats more ecofriendly than trucks) contributes 10 million tons of just CO2 for the transport of oil inside the USA. Trucks produce significantly more than that.

@koherecoWatchdog Exactly... which is why its good to try to push for an increase fuel tax (particularly if that fuel tax is going towards ecological investments). But should you fail to get such a law passed (and as you say its likely you may not) then its better to do nothing then to block a pipeline out of desperation and cause far far more damage than doing nothing.

@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.

@Demosthenes

yes but if you have a marginal impact on the cost and a HUGE impact on the CO2 output you arent having any positive impact, your just punching yourself in the face repeatidly.

@valleyforge

@koherecoWatchdog If you cant implement solutions that reduce oil consumption, real solutions, then better to do nothing.

Blocking pipelines is a huge step backwards and is effectively dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the air with no real benefit other than costing people a few pennies on their gas price which we already know people will easily pay anyway.

@Demosthenes

Not a "much better solution"... the only solution of the two considered. The other one isnt a solution anymore than building coal power plants is a solution to reduce power generatione missions.

@valleyforge

@koherecoWatchdog None of that is based on reality unfortunately in terms of the actual data.

The contributed pollution from trucks hauling oil across country is astronomical. Any area that needs a pipeline likely does not have access to trains so its going to be by truck not train.

The cost for drivers is offset by the cost for pipeline engineers. You have fewer pipeline engineers but they cost 5x as much to hire, so thats a moot point.

I dont think you realize just how many trucks we are talking here, 10,000 + more trucks ont he road is a **lot** of pollution.

@Atlas Of course it is, he is the president im sure he has access to good data if he wanted. If he bothers to even check he knew damn well the end result of this is huge quantities of pollution and a step in the wrong direction. But I doubt he cares in the least what the actual effect is

@Demosthenes No I am saying that the cost-benefit balance is nothing like what you are proposing.

By that logic we should replace all our nuclea power plants (relatively nonpolluting but not perfect, but very cost effective) with coal power plants because coal costs more to operate and the added cost will decrease consumption...

it doesnt work like that

Increasing the cost per gallon by 10 cents for the consumer by forcing the oil to be moved by trucks, but at the same time ensuring each gallon of gas contributes 2x the amount of pollution it did before, is not a win, not by any measure. You cant **increase** pollution by a huge margin and expect you to have a net positive result simply because the price goes up a little. Thats an aburd and self-defeating tactic.

@koherecoWatchdog Not really the effect is marginal..

That would be like arguing we need to push for more coal energy because coal is less economical and costs people more therefore it reduces consumption.

Increasing price by 10 cents and then ensuring the oil you deliver pollutes x3 as much as it would otherwise is no win.

@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.

@koherecoWatchdog

The image is Bidens response when asked about how he blocked the pipeline the effect it would have on workers. So yea its about the pipeline.. why what image do you see?"

And yes i am saying that a pipeline does not facilitate burning oils, well not exactly. Oil can get from point A to point B many ways, the three main ways are train, truck, and pipeline. The quantity of oil transported is based on demand, blocking one of these only causes the oil to move by the other and has no effect on the amount of oil in circulation or consumed.

Combine that fact with the fact that of those three ways pipeline contributes by far the least amount of pollution per barrel.

So the effect of blocking the most evo-friendly mode of transport and forcing companies to utilize significantly less eco-friendly modes of travel is not that there is less facilitation of oil, only that there is far far more pollution and little else to gain.