If it would be just as cheap to ship via train or boat then why make the pipeline? If it costs more to ship then it costs more to sell and less of it will be sold. That, in itself, devoid of any bigger picture market predictions, is a huge win for humanity.
Fuck underpaying for carbon emissions. There need to be some current winners made into losers if we pretend to be humans that care about the future of humanity.
You could get the safety and efficiency advantages of pipelines while still creating the same cost increase through taxes.
Blocking pipelines is not a logical way to achieve that cost increase. That would simply make oil more expensive because it's now less safe/efficient. That does not actually cause the externalities to be priced in like a tax could achieve.
Conservatives don't like change. We shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good enough. A carbon tax is the right solution, but it isn't the one we will see in this congress. Meanwhile actually doing something actually makes a difference. Pontificating hypothetical policy is not an alternative solution.
Not bleeding money into nuclear plants has bipartisan support. The way to make nuclear competitive is with a carbon tax. Guess which side opposes a carbon tax.
Do you have anything that supports this? This is not supported by anything I have read thus far and I think we are all aware that Nuclear was actually cheap back in the 60's. USA nuclear costs did increase drastically, especially after three Mile Island and political pressures. Many countries managed to keep costs consistent (Japan, Canada) though. Money doesn't need to bleed into Nuclear, and you should expect to see more investment there in the near future with fusion. The issues in USA with nuclear are over half a century old so I think your comment is disingenuous. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Sure, but if they can sell conservatives on blocking the pipeline, why can't they sell conservatives on a carbon tax? If anything, I think it's more likely that the carbon tax could be seen as a bipartisan win between those options.
Because you don't need legislative approval to stop a pipeline from being built. If you're looking to make money but the executive pendulum swing will consistently block you, eventually you'll stop being able to push your behavior that people don't approve of because it isn't worth it. People lost money on Keystone XL. That's a good thing. That's the system working.
Fuck underpaying for carbon emissions. There need to be some current winners made into losers if we pretend to be humans that care about the future of humanity.