I'm reminded of a quote attributed to Ben Franklin: "Democracy is two
wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner."
If you're moving a pipeline (or a power plant, or a railroad, or
landfill, or whatever) to make one group happy, you are invariably
putting the same burden on some other group. They're probably going to
be the "sheep" who in Franklin's example are just an outnumbered group
who's opinion matters less specifically because they're outnumbered. If
we need pipelines and landfills, they are going to go *somewhere*.
If we want completely fair and balanced choices, we might have to
abandon democracy in favor of a completely rational despot. Maybe we
could put a computer in charge.
....not saying I really have any answers. Just a cynical opinion.
------ Original Message ------
From: "Carl Peterson" <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
Sent: 2/17/2017 9:45:15 AM
Subject: Re: [AFMUG] OT Jaime's thread was Obama admin...
"Really? Pipeline? So you think carying all that oil via train is
safer and has less a footprint? "
In general, transport by pipeline is safer, but seems to do more
environmental damage when something goes wrong. Not the real point
though. The real issues are:
1) Is it in our best interest as a country to build a pipline across
the US so an international conglomerate can sell Canadian oil overseas.
On the face of it, I would say no but I could be missing something.
Seems to be a bunch of public risks with private profits.
2) How was the route chosen and were safer but more expensive routes an
option. If we reroute for group A and screw over group B, thats a
serious issue.
