Permit for the Keystone XL pipeline to be canceled on Biden's first day

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Biden needs to have a much better reason than "I don't like pipelines" when he cancels the permit at this stage or he'll end up with some major legal egg on his face.

Incidentally, the idea that cancelling this pipeline will significantly impact either the development of Alberta's tar sands or climate change is ludicrous. Oil prices will be of far greater impact on the development of the tar sands than whether the resulting oil is transported by pipelines or railcars.

Opposition to pipelines comes primarily from ignorance over the other methods that can and would be used to transport oil and gas in their absence.  As a method of transporting oil and gas, pipelines are the most ecologically sound. Blocking pipelines won't prevent POL extraction.  At most, they'll affect which POL reserves are extracted first.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Ugh

This is not a bad thing.
Do Native American treaties mean nothing to you?

If I remember correctly, tribal issues were already resolved by the courts in favor of the pipeline builder.  If that's Biden's reason for revoking the permit, he'll lose in court, and lose early.  As I stated earlier, he's going to need something considerably more substantial than "I think pipelines are bad" if he doesn't want to get slapped down as hard as Giuliani arguing why the courts should have overturned Trump losing the election.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As a method of transporting oil and gas, pipelines are the most ecologically sound.

Oh wow, do you really think this makes your case? You got any actual data to back it up or just a couple more cherry picked photos?

While the right is out of touch with reality on most issues, this is one where the left is completely out of touch with reality.

What a strangely angry response to a simple piece of evidence that this specific oil pipeline that we are discussing has already inflicted serious damage to a local ecosystem.

I'll admit that I initially provided zero context for the photo, but it comes as no surprise that this is the first time many of you are seeing it.  It was big news at the time to anybody who gave a sh**t.

No method of transporting oil will be without risk, and I never claimed that. Compared to other methods of transporting oil, they've generally been the lowest risk option and they definitely are the most energy-efficient method, which given how we get a lot of our energy, means transporting by pipeline contributes the least to climate change.  The whole eco-Luddite argument for not building pipelines is that if we don't build them, the oil won't be used.  In general, that's simply not true. About the one pipeline that could be said of is the Alaska Pipeline, because there weren't already existing alternatives to transport oil from the North Slope.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It will be so good that America's President finally takes climate change seriously again, and he can lead the world rather than being left behind.

Can you explain how this helps with climate change? It just makes it more likely the oil at Cushing and other major terminals in Texas will be either domestic or from Venezuela/gulf states. It does not lower the amount of consumption of gasoline.

Sure. Domestic/Venezuelan/Gulf gas is way, way better for the environment than obscenely dirty tar sands oil. Everybody knows we're going to use oil in the 2020s, but we can at least not use tar sands oil. It's like the difference between anthracite and lignite coal. If we must use coal, using the former exclusively would least be less bad.

Anthracite is sufficiently rare and has other uses besides power generation. It's too expensive to use for electricity generation. Conversely, lignite is primarily useful only for electricity generation, but has such a low carbon content that it is economically viable only for use near the mine. As far as global warming is concerned, there's little difference in the CO₂ output per Kwh between the various grades of coal. The difference in ecological impact between coal types is primarily due to the non-carbon content of the coal and the more traditional types of pollution that result.

In any case, the economics of electricity generation using coal are such that it's already a dying industry.  Indeed, finance types distinguish between companies that produce metallurgical coal and those that produce thermal coal because the former have, at least for now, a future, while the latter have none.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is one of the dirtiest sources of oil on the planet and a project that's funded by American and Canadian taxpayers and utility customers, glad Biden is killing this garbage.

Exactly how are American taxpayers funding this? I know Canadian ones are because of the stupidity of Alberta's premier, but I am not aware of any Keystone specific funding by American governments.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is one of the dirtiest sources of oil on the planet and a project that's funded by American and Canadian taxpayers and utility customers, glad Biden is killing this garbage.

Exactly how are American taxpayers funding this? I know Canadian ones are because of the stupidity of Alberta's premier, but I am not aware of any Keystone specific funding by American governments.

 The American government has been funding this pipeline through American Banks and American public utility customers got price increases because of the pipeline, for infrastructure "improvements".

"Utility customers" is not the same as "taxpayers" ; I wasn't aware that any government had forced any American bank to provide financing to this project; and as far as utility price increases are concerned, I think that perhaps you're confusing this pipeline with the Atlantic Coast Pipeline for natural gas. The Keystroke Pipelines don't have anything to do with utilities to begin with. Oil is almost never used for electricity generation these days.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

This is one of the dirtiest sources of oil on the planet and a project that's funded by American and Canadian taxpayers and utility customers, glad Biden is killing this garbage.

Exactly how are American taxpayers funding this? I know Canadian ones are because of the stupidity of Alberta's premier, but I am not aware of any Keystone specific funding by American governments.

 The American government has been funding this pipeline through American Banks and American public utility customers got price increases because of the pipeline, for infrastructure "improvements".

"Utility customers" is not the same as "taxpayers"

 Who said they were? I clearly said both. Also try to understand how banking works. If The United States lends big banks money for near nothing to fund infrastructure projects that will also receive subsidies and tax breaks, that means the US taxpayer is also paying for this pipeline.

And I clearly focused on the taxpayers portion of your comment. Yet your response had nothing to do with them, but about the utility customers. Also, it's rather ridiculous to criticize something of general application as a handout to a specific project.If you want to be against all infrastructure, say so.