Keystone Pipeline, what do you think?
Submitted by weirman on Sun, 02/12/2012 - 12:10I know many of are you against the "environmentalists" who oppose this pipeline... but I am coming at it from a different perspective. I am an environmentalists, but only through strict property rights & privatization. I think this sort of project, which WILL receive federal funding and will be similar to the Hoover Dam during the New Deal, will create thousands of temporary jobs in the U.S. However, it WILL NOT make us less dependent on foreign oil or more energy secure.
The main issue I have with it is not environmental per se (it is a a factor), but the fact that THOUSANDS of homes and peoples land will be seized by the government using eminent domain. I am not quite sure how believers in liberty could support such a federal project that will crush the privacy and individual freedom of Americans by stealing their land or paying them to insert a giant pipeline of oil through their property with their own tax dollars! Its no different than FDR with roads, dam, and other infrastructure investments.
I think that if oil were not subsidized, we would have a much more expansive market for clean energy, which is where the market needs to go. More choices make everything better and it is not different in terms of energy. A strong example is GMO food, the gov. subsidizes corn, which in turn makes cheap, shitty meat & cheap processed foods that comprise over 80% of most grocery stores. THIS, as you guys are aware i'm sure, drives up the price of REAL food. Just like the subsidization of oil, natural gas, & coal drive up the price of cleaner alternatives.
I was just curious as to what DP'ers think on this issue. These are some downsides to the pipeline, what are the positives from a free market viewpoint? Thanks! Go Ron 2012!!!
I have a crude oil pipeline
I have a crude oil pipeline in my backyard. We were completely ignorant of what that meant when we bought this house 13 yrs ago. 3 months after we moved in the other fuel pipeline that runs parallel to this one, only a few blocks away blew up. Amazingly only 3 people were killed. After that event my experience of having a pipeline company who has an easement in my backyard is basically like having little Nazis watching us. A few yrs ago when we were putting in a garden in our back yard. We got a knock on our door by Herr pipeline company's employee wanting to know what we were doing in our backyard. "The helicopter has a picture of you looking up at it, and you are digging in the grass." Ofcourse having a garden was OK but he had to check. That's just one of many issues me and my neighbors have experienced.
Thats so nice of him to give
Thats so nice of him to give you permission. what a scumbag. And they don't see anything wrong with it either. How did your garden turn out? in terms of keystone, I can only imagine the issues involving property rights erupting if this goes through. Just in scale alone, most people wouldn't having it go through their backyard, the land would just be seized and they would get a check and 60 day to evacuate.... for the "greater good."
Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...
I'm against it.
It does nothing for any of us in the US.
The fuel is to be pumped from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico, where it will be put on tankers and sent to other areas of the world. The "jobs" will probably be imported workers from somewhere else too.
So, there's nothing in it for us, it disturbs our landscape and threatens unnecessary pollution from a leak or break, and it may only provide temporary jobs(if that).
It's a raw deal, and I'm against it.
I work in the oil industry...
and am against ANY involvement by government other than protection of property rights (including protection from pollution), and enforcing of contracts.
There should be no subsidy of this pipeline, no eminent domain.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
This brings up an entire new
This brings up an entire new debate.... how should people's property be "protected" (to the best ability) from pollution. This is very tricky because the theoretical answer may greatly differ from true circumstances. In theory, if a corporation or business or any individual participate in activity that does your or your land harm, you should be able to bring them to court, and if proven, they would be subject for fine or penalty. BUT proving this kind of behavior before its too late or without millions of dollars is next to impossible. Often time, the damage is already done so its a catch 22. One thing is for sure, having companies use their lobbying powers to influence environmental issues or court decisions is a major issue.
There is no perfect system, this is certainly one that makes my brain sweat... but there has to be a way to encourage responsible business and still have these companies make money. The sad thing is that its really a small percentage of businesses or industries that cause the harm.
I think under a Paul presidency, companies would be more responsible for their actions... because now, much of the "clean up" cost is thrown out the window through the EPA.
Their motto is "Dont Tread On Me"...
Against
We need to be refining the oil here in Alberta. Under the terms of NAFTA we are required to sell our oil to the US for less than what we pay for it ourselves. With Obama's dithering over the project we need to have a debate in this country over whether NAFTA is indeed still a viable agreement.
We are due for an election here in Alberta and yet I can't see this becoming an issue, all political parties here read from pretty much the same script.