Eastern Railroad Discussion > Enviornmentalists try to combat crude oil by rail

See here:

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1059992784



Allen

The Never Let A (Faux) Crisis Go To Waste crowd. And the biggest dirty little secret is that they are primarily gov't funded. Fed funds go to innocuous sounding 'non-profit' groups, who then funnel money to these front line environmental and lawfare groups, sometimes laundered several times through various 'non-profits'. Even if they can't ultimately stop every project, they still keep themselves employed, kill off a good many ones, and can extort 'donations' from energy companies, transportation companies, industrial developers, etc.

Don't be fooled, substantial delays will stop several rail projects.

Just trying to extort money from someone else!!

Mike

darkcloud Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Never Let A (Faux) Crisis Go To Waste crowd.
> And the biggest dirty little secret is that they
> are primarily gov't funded. Fed funds go to
> innocuous sounding 'non-profit' groups, who then
> funnel money to these front line environmental and
> lawfare groups, sometimes laundered several times
> through various 'non-profits'. Even if they can't
> ultimately stop every project, they still keep
> themselves employed, kill off a good many ones,
> and can extort 'donations' from energy companies,
> transportation companies, industrial developers,
> etc.
>
> Don't be fooled, substantial delays will stop
> several rail projects.

One guy to watch is Tom Steyer a multi-billionaire opponent of fossil fuels. Mr Steyer has bankrolled a number of efforts to block coal to west coast ports, stop the Keystone XL, etc. He knows everyone in Washington DC.

He's been a long time fund raiser for President Obama, and long time supporter of wind, etc projects.

Completely his right to spend his money where he wishes.

I don't care how rich he is. The oil companies have deeper pockets and the congress critters do what they want.

raytc1944 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't care how rich he is. The oil companies
> have deeper pockets and the congress critters do
> what they want.

Yes, they've done really well in getting that Keystone XL pipeline completed. Supposed to be flowing oil in 2010, I believe.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> darkcloud Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Never Let A (Faux) Crisis Go To Waste crowd.
>
> > And the biggest dirty little secret is that
> they
> > are primarily gov't funded. Fed funds go to
> > innocuous sounding 'non-profit' groups, who
> then
> > funnel money to these front line environmental
> and
> > lawfare groups, sometimes laundered several
> times
> > through various 'non-profits'. Even if they
> can't
> > ultimately stop every project, they still keep
> > themselves employed, kill off a good many ones,
> > and can extort 'donations' from energy
> companies,
> > transportation companies, industrial
> developers,
> > etc.
> >
> > Don't be fooled, substantial delays will stop
> > several rail projects.
>
> One guy to watch is Tom Steyer a
> multi-billionaire opponent of fossil fuels. Mr
> Steyer has bankrolled a number of efforts to block
> coal to west coast ports, stop the Keystone XL,
> etc. He knows everyone in Washington DC.
>
> He's been a long time fund raiser for President
> Obama, and long time supporter of wind, etc
> projects.
>
> Completely his right to spend his money where he
> wishes.

Lot's of funding comes from Dubai which is just the "bundler" for Arab oil money. I guess it is OK to take oil money from "other" sources.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> One guy to watch is Tom Steyer a
> multi-billionaire opponent of fossil fuels. Mr
> Steyer has bankrolled a number of efforts to block
> coal to west coast ports, stop the Keystone XL,
> etc. He knows everyone in Washington DC.
>
> He's been a long time fund raiser for President
> Obama, and long time supporter of wind, etc
> projects.
>
> Completely his right to spend his money where he
> wishes.


Does he not use fossil fuels? If he uses electricity, drives a car or flies in a plane, he sounds like a hypocrite.

P Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lackawanna484 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > One guy to watch is Tom Steyer a
> > multi-billionaire opponent of fossil fuels. Mr
> > Steyer has bankrolled a number of efforts to
> block
> > coal to west coast ports, stop the Keystone XL,
> > etc. He knows everyone in Washington DC.
> >
> > He's been a long time fund raiser for President
> > Obama, and long time supporter of wind, etc
> > projects.
> >
> > Completely his right to spend his money where
> he
> > wishes.
>
>
> Does he not use fossil fuels? If he uses
> electricity, drives a car or flies in a plane, he
> sounds like a hypocrite.


He's rich. No different than Al Gore flying around on his firm's private jets, warning people about global warming.


[/cynicism]

It's not hypocritical at all to support a move away from fossil fuels while still using a car. You simply can not function in the US without an automobile, so even someone who is committed to using all his influence (and money) to make long term changes still has to use what's available in the short term.

As for one or two wealthy environmentalists somehow buying influence, I don't know of any individual person who has the resources to take on the combined oil/pipeline/railroad/petrochemical industries.

In the long run the oil is going to get to market somehow. You can put a finger in the dike here, another one there, but eventually that product is going to get where it's needed. In the meantime, the lobbying industry (which works for both sides) will make lots of money inflating the controversy with loud rhetoric.

march_hare Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's not hypocritical at all to support a move
> away from fossil fuels while still using a car.
> You simply can not function in the US without an
> automobile, so even someone who is committed to
> using all his influence (and money) to make long
> term changes still has to use what's available in
> the short term.
>
> As for one or two wealthy environmentalists
> somehow buying influence, I don't know of any
> individual person who has the resources to take on
> the combined oil/pipeline/railroad/petrochemical
> industries.
>
> In the long run the oil is going to get to market
> somehow. You can put a finger in the dike here,
> another one there, but eventually that product is
> going to get where it's needed. In the meantime,
> the lobbying industry (which works for both sides)
> will make lots of money inflating the controversy
> with loud rhetoric.


I somewhat agree with you. I don't agree with the move away from fossils but I understand what you are trying to say about the need for a car.

Still, the excess of these wealthy activist is very hypocritical. A great example is Leonardo DiCaprio's space tourism which is completely hypocritical. Preach to the world about conservation and then book a ticket on Richard Branson's (another hypocrite activist) rocket! Do as I say not as I do.

Please.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
------------------------------------------------------->
> Still, the excess of these wealthy activist is
> very hypocritical. A great example is Leonardo
> DiCaprio's space tourism which is completely
> hypocritical. Preach to the world about
> conservation and then book a ticket on Richard
> Branson's (another hypocrite activist) rocket! Do
> as I say not as I do.


Space tourism has nothing to do with it.....just like a need to move away from fossil fuels, continual development of space travel is a requisite for the future of human civilization.

I'm sure DiCaprio & Branson have other aspects of their lifestyles (their homes, the cars they drive, etc) that can and should be criticized as hypocritical, but I'm not sure that the space aspect is one of them.....

Here we go again.

If we all just sit in a dark room with no heat we wouldn't have all these problems.

...[/cynicism]

I support alternate energy where it makes some sense but.....
This movement is not about ending oil usage, it is about making it more expensive. This makes the alternatives less costly for the government to subsidize and more attractive in general. I believe these groups got ambushed by the fracking and tar sands. They were pretty successful in
stopping Alaska development and deep water drilling but who the heck cares about North Dakota.. They probably did some companies a favor as these source(Alaska etc) would now look more expensive in the short run.

As far as Al Gore and this billionaire, the price of energy does not hurt them and depending on their investments can make them rich.
One problem on many causes, it becomes about fund raising, winning and losing, us vs them and very cultural.
In the long run I think using safety or health as an "excuse" to further a cause ends up hurting in the long run.
I am not taking a position here on climate change but I think one big lingering doubt for some is that it is a manufactured crisis to
further an agenda.

Bob Jordan

chs7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ----->
> > Still, the excess of these wealthy activist is
> > very hypocritical. A great example is Leonardo
> > DiCaprio's space tourism which is completely
> > hypocritical. Preach to the world about
> > conservation and then book a ticket on Richard
> > Branson's (another hypocrite activist) rocket!
> Do
> > as I say not as I do.
>
>
> Space tourism has nothing to do with it.....just
> like a need to move away from fossil fuels,
> continual development of space travel is a
> requisite for the future of human civilization.
>
> I'm sure DiCaprio & Branson have other aspects of
> their lifestyles (their homes, the cars they
> drive, etc) that can and should be criticized as
> hypocritical, but I'm not sure that the space
> aspect is one of them.....


Nonsense. The advancement of space travel will not advance due to Leo's joy ride!

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> Nonsense. The advancement of space travel will
> not advance due to Leo's joy ride!


I was talking more along the lines of space tourism heklping to advance commercial space flight, which will in turn advance space travel.

Prob applies to Branson rather than DiCaprio....

chs7-321 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Nonsense. The advancement of space travel will
> > not advance due to Leo's joy ride!
>
>
> I was talking more along the lines of space
> tourism heklping to advance commercial space
> flight, which will in turn advance space travel.
>
> Prob applies to Branson rather than DiCaprio....

Maybe. Still, we have many priorities that could use the funding which are much more achievable in the short term.

Either way, DiCaprio looses his legitimacy once he proves that he is happy to burn fossils excessively for his personal pleasure.

Posted from Android



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/14 15:29 by NYSWSD70M.

NYSWSD70M Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> (snip)
>
> Either way, DiCaprio looses his legitimacy once he
> proves that he is happy to burn fossils
> excessively for his personal pleasure.
>
> Posted from Android

maybe he enjoyed the multiple bacchanalia in Wolf of Wall Street. He may have a new perspective on personal pleasures.

It's kind of bizarre that so many criticize Al Gore and others for being hypocrites, but when there are ordinary citizens who drive fuel efficient automobiles, use public transportation, recycle, bring reusable bags to grocery stores and (this seems to enrage so many people) ride bicycles, they ridiculed as environuts or granola crunchers.

I took an undergraduate course in energy - one of the best classes I've ever had. It pointed out all of the downsides to fossil fuel and alternative energy sources. I don't see the US going away from fossil fuels for most of its energy supply in the near future.

But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to use less natural gas, oil & petroleum as their use has major negative consequences.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/14/14 19:09 by RuleG.

RuleG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's kind of bizarre that so many criticize Al
> Gore and others for being hypocrites, but when
> there are ordinary citizens who drive fuel
> efficient automobiles, use public transportation,
> recycle, bring reusable bags to grocery stores and
> (this seems to enrage so many people) ride
> bicycles, they ridiculed as environuts or granola
> crunchers.

I criticize Gore for his lack of ability to live to any of his preach rhetoric. When you find out how much he has in vested in green energy, you can't help but think he is trying to stack the deck.
>
> But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to use less
> natural gas, oil & petroleum as their use has
> major negative consequences.

True. But when the environmental movement elite oppose "half steps" like converting to Natural Gas or Diesel as a means of reducing any consequence, they reveal themselves to be about something other than a better environment. It is naive to think the switch to Green Energy will happen over night. Attempting to do better with what works is realistic.

Maybe this is really the Environmentalist's "War on the poor and impoverished" as higher energy cost impact the lowest incomes individuals the most. The wealthy hardly notice the cost of energy. If they do drive, a staffer is generally fueling up the vehicle.