Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We risk the pollution whether the oil is shipped in rail cars or high pressure pipelines. The kicker is: the crude oil from Canada is shipped through US land for export to China! We take the risk. Are we to be suckers?
This thread isn't about solar or wind farms. I have no idea what that has to do with my post.
You were critical of the pipeline because it doesn't create many permanent jobs and I suggested the alternative to the pipeline also doesn't create many permanent jobs, thus the number of permanent jobs created is irrelevant to the discussion of whether a pipeline is justified.
The solar panel industry was booming -- well the installation and servicing -- until Trump nixed that.
When Trump imposed tariffs the reports quoted at least 20K jobs in the solar industry that were lost.
But YEAH Trump.
This is at best long term 35 jobs, short term 3K jobs......and y'all are going crazy.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/...ump-tariffsThe U.S. solar industry is losing out on the creation of around 62,000 jobs and $19 billion in investment thanks to Trump administration tariffs on imported panels imposed nearly two years ago, according to a report published on Tuesday.
It was booming because taxpayers were paying for 30% of the cost in the form of tax credits.
You were critical of the pipeline because it doesn't create many permanent jobs and I suggested the alternative to the pipeline also doesn't create many permanent jobs, thus the number of permanent jobs created is irrelevant to the discussion of whether a pipeline is justified.
I wasn't critical of the pipeline - I offered no personal comment, either way. I simply cited the actual number of jobs Keystone XL was projected to generate.
Not even British Columbia wants that crude oil pipeline (proposed to export to China via west coast) ruining their land.
Quote:
British Columbia satisfies many of those criteria. But the big problem for would-be Albertan exporters is that many of their western neighbor’s residents simply don’t want their province, home to mountains, forests and a largely unspoiled coastline, to play host to oil and gas pipelines from which they will derive little benefit. Especially not with the ecological risks involved.
Quote:
That meant Alberta’s last real hope was to expand pipelines to the south to carry Canadian crude to U.S. refineries and export terminals on the Gulf coast.
woo hooo, close that pipeline and get those oil tankers back where they belong......on American highways
what could go wrong
Not going to happen. If our country has any self respect, we will not take on that risk for companies of another country to profit by exporting their oil to China!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
