Im sorry but I don’t see damaging infrastructure which will then get rebuilt using even more energy as helping. Even worse the mitigation which means moving oil by train and ship and such. At least if you get it legally shut down it won’t be rebuilt (but it will just get worked around). We need to reduce energy usage, not increase it.
Congratulations, protestors, you just doubled the cost of the damn thing.
How does that not help?
War of economic attrition is a patriotic tradition in the US. The colonies won independence from the British not by superior might but by making the conflict too expensive for them to maintain.
Yeah but you have not removed the energetic incentive and rebuilding causes pollution. So we add pollution to stop global warming and pollution because it helps make things more expensive which the well to do can easily afford but will make it harder for the average person. Just seems to me its adding overall to pollution and not really solving our environmental issues.
You might as well say that all climate protest is counterproductive, because people use energy and create pollution just by walking out their door to go to the protest.
Isn’t it small thinking to worry about the pollution caused by the pipeline’s construction, when the pipeline itself is going to facilitate millions of times more pollution once it’s operational?
Sorry, you more or less repeated your point, and I understand you, but I’m just not convinced.
that is a ridiculous analogy because the same protestor will use approximately the same energy regardless of what they do that day. You sound like the folks that argue electric cars are more environmentall friendly because they use less energy than a bicycle but ignoring the energy of the passenger from just existing.
the energy a person sitting in a car uses is not much less than the energy a bicycalists uses. Its easy to see if you have access to a gym with a bicycle machine that tells you are many calories you burn. Go burn just 100 calories and now realize people need 2000 just going about their day and doing nothing special.
Are you talking about calories burned? Because riding in a car definitely has a bigger carbon impact than riding a bike. I thought we were talking about environmentalism here. When I said people use energy going to a protest I was referring to their transportation, not their frikkin metabolism.
yeah but whatever transportation they use is going to be the transportation they use for whatever they do. Im saying however they do the protest is going to be in line with how they run their daily lives and the net environmental impact is going to largely be the same. The bike thing was a seperate comparison to your way of thinking you may be mixing it up as some sort of direct comparison.
Im sorry but I don’t see damaging infrastructure which will then get rebuilt using even more energy as helping. Even worse the mitigation which means moving oil by train and ship and such. At least if you get it legally shut down it won’t be rebuilt (but it will just get worked around). We need to reduce energy usage, not increase it.
Okay let’s say it just gets built again.
Congratulations, protestors, you just doubled the cost of the damn thing.
How does that not help?
War of economic attrition is a patriotic tradition in the US. The colonies won independence from the British not by superior might but by making the conflict too expensive for them to maintain.
Yeah but you have not removed the energetic incentive and rebuilding causes pollution. So we add pollution to stop global warming and pollution because it helps make things more expensive which the well to do can easily afford but will make it harder for the average person. Just seems to me its adding overall to pollution and not really solving our environmental issues.
You might as well say that all climate protest is counterproductive, because people use energy and create pollution just by walking out their door to go to the protest.
Isn’t it small thinking to worry about the pollution caused by the pipeline’s construction, when the pipeline itself is going to facilitate millions of times more pollution once it’s operational?
Sorry, you more or less repeated your point, and I understand you, but I’m just not convinced.
that is a ridiculous analogy because the same protestor will use approximately the same energy regardless of what they do that day. You sound like the folks that argue electric cars are more environmentall friendly because they use less energy than a bicycle but ignoring the energy of the passenger from just existing.
“Energy of the passenger?”
the energy a person sitting in a car uses is not much less than the energy a bicycalists uses. Its easy to see if you have access to a gym with a bicycle machine that tells you are many calories you burn. Go burn just 100 calories and now realize people need 2000 just going about their day and doing nothing special.
Are you talking about calories burned? Because riding in a car definitely has a bigger carbon impact than riding a bike. I thought we were talking about environmentalism here. When I said people use energy going to a protest I was referring to their transportation, not their frikkin metabolism.
yeah but whatever transportation they use is going to be the transportation they use for whatever they do. Im saying however they do the protest is going to be in line with how they run their daily lives and the net environmental impact is going to largely be the same. The bike thing was a seperate comparison to your way of thinking you may be mixing it up as some sort of direct comparison.