^^It still boggles my mind that anyone ever approved mountain removal as an ok means to get to coal.

Take something that has stood for millions, perhaps billions of years and destroy it. For coal.

11/30/2017 12:25:30 PM

It isn't destroyed, just transformed. Nature herself has destroyed more mountains than we ever will. One mountain won't be missed.

11/30/2017 10:49:31 PM

^ LOL. That same argument could be used to justify murder.

11/30/2017 11:05:36 PM

Quote :

"It still boggles my mind that anyone ever approved mountain removal as an ok means to get to coal. Take something that has stood for millions, perhaps billions of years and destroy it. For coal."

But yet you're still a Republican.

[Edited on December 1, 2017 at 1:04 AM. Reason : ^ that wasn't an argument. It was sarcasm.]

12/1/2017 1:02:43 AM

you may wanna check their previous posts when it comes to the environment before assuming that they’re being sarcastic

12/1/2017 1:13:18 AM

^^This isn't the thread for this comment, but

There are some things I just can't let go, however the horrible treatment of the environment, Trump, this tax plan - there are lots of things going on right now that are working on swaying me the other way.

12/1/2017 7:20:51 AM

so then what part of the republican platform do you like? their identity politics?

12/1/2017 8:51:09 AM

I'll be what he doesn't like are questions like that

12/1/2017 9:06:22 AM

https://www.wsj.com/articles/south-dakota-regulator-raises-prospect-of-revoking-keystone-permit-1512087617?mod=e2tw

12/1/2017 11:16:20 AM

Quote :

"^ LOL. That same argument could be used to justify murder."

The reason murder is illegal is not that we'd run out of humans.

A human is worth a lot more than a mountain.

[Edited on December 3, 2017 at 2:59 PM. Reason : .,.]

12/3/2017 2:58:30 PM

I'm not saying a person is not worth more than a mountain; I'm saying its a shitty argument in either application.

12/4/2017 12:10:43 AM

LoneShark, do you honestly believe what you're saying here? You don't feel like taking a mountain and reducing it to rubble isn't destruction? So (God forbid) if your house caught on fire, and you're in the front yard looking at the burnt out husk, are you just going to tell your wife "Honey, don't worry, our house isn't destroyed, it's just been transformed."

12/4/2017 8:43:03 AM

Well, bad example, burning a house down is risky to your neighbors. So, change the metaphor to "the house was torn down by a bulldozer."

Well, if my wife and I wanted the house torn down, perhaps so we could build something else, then no, that isn't destruction, it is progress towards fulfilling our goals for the place.

Well, Earth has a lot of mountains. One more won't do much for us. What we clearly prefer is metal, coal, whatever happens to be under the mountain.

12/6/2017 1:11:15 PM

And removing a mountain isn't risky to neighbors? The pollution from runoff alone is detrimental to entire communities around a mine.

Careful, your Hack is showing.

12/6/2017 1:43:22 PM

Quote :

"Well, Earth has a lot of mountains. One more won't do much for us."

Quote :

"One mountain won't be missed."

You know what the logical progression of such a stand leads to, right?

Let me throw this one bottle here into the ocean; one bottle hurt no one ever.

12/6/2017 1:50:39 PM

Yes, that's a very terrible argument.

12/6/2017 2:27:32 PM

Quote :

"Let me throw this one bottle here into the ocean; one bottle hurt no one ever."

The ocean currently has tens of million bottles in it, and yet we're not all dead yet. Similarly, many a mountain has already been removed, and the world has similarly not ended.

Life is trade-offs, and mining is an important function for mankind, so sacrifices must be made.

12/6/2017 2:39:09 PM

But we're continuously removing mountains, and continuously adding bottles to the ocean. You can remove the bottles sure, but nobody is really doing it. And you can't add a mountain.

12/6/2017 3:01:46 PM

We have tens of thousands of mountains. We remove one every five years or so. So, yes, in fifty thousand years we'll be out of mountains, assuming nothing changes. At some point, a problem is sufficiently far in the future that it is a waste of time to worry about.

Of course, long before then all we'd have left are actually important mountains, not to mention all the mountains with nothing under-them of value, so mankind will presumably be using them for recreation or as part of a nature preserve, and won't allow their removal. Remember, life is trade-offs, and at some point mining this particular spot isn't worth it.

12/6/2017 3:19:32 PM

Quote :

"The ocean currently has tens of million bottles in it, and yet we're not all dead yet. Similarly, many a mountain has already been removed, and the world has similarly not ended. "

Oh, so is that the criteria you use to evaluate good/bad decisions?

12/6/2017 3:28:03 PM

^ The reality of a situation? Absolutely. It is far better to be rational and discuss reality rather than go on pure emotion: mountains good/coal bad, so "destroying" a mountain for coal is evil! As if electricity never did anything useful for anyone.

12/6/2017 3:55:13 PM

As an environmentalist, I think its quite strange that people who live environmentally destructive lifestyles and generally support environmental degradation, will suddenly pick small sites to put their foot down and claim "don't destroy this pristine environment"

These are the same "not in my backyard" type folks who will shutdown a nuclear power plant or even wind turbine proposal over "environmental concerns" when the alternative is the fossil fuel electricity they are using to protest the ugly wind power that will "destroy" their view. Fucking hypocrites.

Its pointless to pick one pipeline or mountain to protect when you are still promoting fossil fuel use on a global scale.

12/6/2017 4:02:32 PM

^^No, it's not the reality of the situation. It certainly reads as though your judgment is: It's fine as long as it does not kill everyone. You said, "The ocean currently has tens of million bottles in it, and yet we're not all dead yet," and I am simply asking: Do you think that (we're not all dead yet) is a sufficient condition for justifying these actions?

[Edited on December 6, 2017 at 4:05 PM. Reason : ^^]

[Edited on December 6, 2017 at 4:06 PM. Reason : ^^]

12/6/2017 4:04:46 PM

^ You should not be taking my statement as a singular statement by itself. It was made in response to OEP implying that enough bottles in the ocean would be deadly.

My position I have given: Life is trade-offs. That it won't kill anyone is relevant, but not the whole answer. I don't believe enough people die from litter to matter, but I still would never litter on purpose, because the litter being there would make me sad by itself.

But, "it is my mountain, I own it, and there is more than enough financial incentive for me to bulldoze it in a way that minimizes the harm to my neighbors" is more than enough condition to justify the actions.

12/6/2017 8:56:43 PM

I hope every person devil who was involved in the approval process magically falls dead like a fly.

Keystone Pipeline leaks 210,000 gallons of oil in South Dakota
https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/16/us/keystone-pipeline-leak/index.html

The wretchedness of those in power/with money never ceases to shock.

3/9/2018 11:27:13 PM

Are you just now finding out about that? The damn link is from November, ffs. If it takes four months for you to find out about it, how important was it to you, really?

3/11/2018 12:35:17 AM

https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/10/31/keystone-pipeline-leaks-gallons-oil-second-big-spill-two-years/

of course it did

11/1/2019 12:33:01 AM

I’m not saying it’s OK, but let’s have perspective: it has impacted a half-acre, and like the other spill, is about a swimming pool’s worth of oil.

11/1/2019 1:41:10 AM

this leak doesn't impact drinking water, but leaks in other places definitely could. the pipeline crosses drinking water sources and the response to concerns about this was that leaks rarely happen but this is, what, the 3rd major leak since protests?

and the current estimate on the amount is undoubtedly low and will be revised up like they always are

11/1/2019 9:06:26 AM