XPost: can.politics, ab.politics, bc.politics   
   XPost: ont.politics   
   From: ConsRCons@govt.cda   
      
   Debating the best way to do something we shouldn't be doing in the first   
   place is a sure way to end up in the wrong place. That's what's   
   happening with the "rail versus pipeline" discussion.   
      
   Some say recent rail accidents mean we should build more pipelines to   
   transport fossil fuels.  Others argue that leaks, high construction   
   costs, opposition and red tape surrounding pipelines are arguments in   
   favour of using trains.   
      
   But the recent spate of rail accidents and pipeline leaks and spills   
   doesn't provide arguments for one or the other; instead, it indicates   
   that rapidly increasing oil and gas development and shipping ever   
   greater amounts, by any method, will mean more accidents, spills,   
   environmental damage - even death. The answer is to step back from this   
   reckless plunder and consider ways to reduce our fossil fuel use.   
      
     If we were to slow down oil sands development, encourage conservation   
   and invest in clean energy technology, we could save money, ecosystems   
   and lives - and we'd still have valuable fossil fuel resources long into   
   the future, perhaps until we've figured out ways to use them that aren't   
   so wasteful. We wouldn't need to build more pipelines just to sell oil   
   and gas as quickly as possible, mostly to foreign markets. We wouldn't   
   have to send so many unsafe rail tankers through wilderness areas and   
   places people live.   
      
   We may forgo some of the short-term jobs and economic opportunities the   
   fossil fuel industry provides, but surely we can find better ways to   
   keep people employed and the economy humming. Gambling, selling guns and   
   drugs and encouraging people to smoke all create jobs and economic   
   benefits, too - but we rightly try to limit those activities when the   
   harms outweigh the benefits.   
      
   Both transportation methods come with significant risks. Shipping by   
   rail leads to more accidents and spills, but pipeline leaks usually   
   involve much larger volumes. One of the reasons we're seeing more train   
   accidents involving fossil fuels is the incredible boom in moving these   
   products by rail. According to the American Association of Railroads,   
   train shipment of crude oil in the U.S. grew from 9,500 carloads in 2008   
   to 234,000 in 2012 - almost 25 times as many in only four years! That's   
   expected to rise to 400,000 this year.   
      
   As with pipelines, risks are increased because many rail cars are older   
   and not built to standards that would reduce the chances of leaks and   
   explosions when accidents occur. Some in the rail industry argue it   
   would cost too much to replace all the tank cars as quickly as is needed   
   to move the ever-increasing volumes of oil. We must improve rail safety   
   and pipeline infrastructure for the oil and gas that we'll continue to   
   ship for the foreseeable future, but we must also find ways to transport   
   less.   
      
   The economic arguments for massive oil sands and liquefied natural gas   
   development and expansion aren't great to begin with - at least with the   
   way our federal and provincial governments are going about it. Despite a   
   boom in oil sands growth and production, "Alberta has run consecutive   
   budget deficits since 2008 and since then has burned through $15 billion   
   of its sustainability fund," according to an article on the Tyee   
   website. The Canadian Taxpayers Federation says Alberta's debt is now $7   
   billion and growing by $11 million daily.   
      
   As for jobs, a 2012 report by the Canadian Centre for Policy   
   Alternatives shows less than one per cent of Canadian workers are   
   employed in extraction and production of oil, coal and natural gas.   
   Pipelines and fossil fuel development are not great long-term job   
   creators, and pale in comparison to employment generated by the   
   renewable energy sector.   
      
   Beyond the danger to the environment and human health, the worst risk   
   from rapid expansion of oil sands, coal mines and gas fields and the   
   infrastructure needed to transport the fuels is the carbon emissions   
   from burning their products - regardless of whether that happens here,   
   in China or elsewhere. Many climate scientists and energy experts,   
   including the International Energy Agency, agree that to have any chance   
   of avoiding catastrophic climate change, we must leave at least   
   two-thirds of our remaining fossil fuels in the ground.   
      
   The question isn't about whether to use rail or pipelines. It's about   
   how to reduce our need for both.   
      
      
     ~ By David Suzuki with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation   
   Senior Editor Ian Hanington   
      
   _______________________________________________   
      
   “It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government to save the   
   environment.”    ― Ansel Adams   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)