Originally Posted by stephanie
Disagree. If they are going to do it, it's better to change the route. I bet it ends up happening. Also, of course, the idea that any significant number of jobs would result is basically fictional.
I actually don't think there would be a ton of new jobs created because of this pipeline, at least not permanent jobs. For me it was more about not being a negative - with some small upside on employment, so why be against it?
Basic economics says that the price of something affects use. The supply affects price. If the effect is de minimis (as I expect), that simply indicates that the amount from greater production in the US RIGHT NOW (as with the drilling arguments) or from other forms of energy like this one aren't any kind of meaningful solution.
Note that the economic argument is also why there should be a carbon tax or the like, to address negative externalities. It has nothing to do with wanting to make us all live off the grid.
As long as they made some sort of revenue neutral carbon tax, I would not be opposed to that. You would get the same behavioral changing effect and increased financial incentive to switch to alternatives while not raising the cost of everything. Not sure how that would work for shipping freight with trucks though, raising that cost raises the cost of almost everything.
And you may not want us to live off the grid or oil, but if you follow the logic of some of the activities of the anti keystone people, they definitely give the impression they want us to STOP using oil or tapping into more oil as fast as possible.
That is a cold turkey approach, not a change behavior approach by altering prices, its a move to shut supplies off to force a change in behavior.