After the West Texas fertilizer explosion

[Bluemage]

nemonowan wrote:

---

And that would be a perfectly legitimate argument to make, if the
builders of the pipeline didn't already have an alternate pipeline,
through a different country, planned.

How do you make a pipeline from Canada to the USA pass through a different country than Canada and the USA?

As it is, the choice isn't
between 'no oil' and 'pipeline', but between 'pipeline to/through the
US' and 'pipeline into Asia'.

How do you make a pipeline from Canada to Asia????I do hope you meant that they declared the intention to SHIP the extracted oil to interested asian states.

1.  You don't.  You make a pipeline to someplace other than the USA, which is the point.
2.  Technically, you could probably have a floating pipeline, or an underwater pipeline.
I did two minutes of research, though, and found that the alternate proposal was for a pipeline from Alberta oil production to ports in British Columbia, for shipment by boat to Asia.  My point- that denying the pipeline isn't going to stop oil production, and will, in fact, divert it to nations who don't regulate pollution as stringently- stands.
I apologize for the inexactitude of my earlier statement.  I was working entirely off of memory in my last post.

---

My Unitarian Jihad Name is: Brother Atom Bomb of Courteous Debate. Get yours.

I've been writing a bit.