World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Without knowing the specifics, my guess would be that a refinery near the Great Lakes might have a shorter distance, so fewer costs and emissions importing oil from Canada than Texas.
That said, fuckery is really everywhere, so you might be right.
Nope.
https://theodora.com/pipelines/north_america_oil_gas_and_products_pipelines.html
Just piping that shit all over the place like it's no big deal.
I'm trying to understand your line of thinking and it seems to necessitate accepting that oil isn't moving between inputs and outputs at the most cost effective way, which would necessitate oil and gas companies intentionally working in a way that isn't about maximizing profit.
Am I misunderstanding your premise in such a way that I'm inappropriately needing to bake that in?
There was a shell game with aluminum a number of years back where truckload ofbit just...moved around...to raise stock prices. It wouldn't surprise me if the same things happened with oil.
Source.
No. I'm saying because it's slightly more profitable they pipe it all over, somehow you took the opposite message?
I assumed we didn't need to talk about why pipelines are bad, did I overestimate?
Like...
Oil pipeline protests have been pretty big news for decades now, I thought everyone commenting on an article about gas pipelines was up to speed.
Quick edit:
Deja Vue...
We had another conversation a week ago where I went over the basics of why oil pipelines are bad, and nothing I explained seemed to have stuck. It was even about Canada/US pipelines too.
Someone else may be able to explain it differently, but I'm not gonna be able to help.
Why would it be more profitable to do it the less efficient way? It costs per mile/km to build pipe.
Yeah but this is America...
Pipelines are so much cheaper than truck, even with massive leaks:
https://www.eenews.net/articles/inspector-weak-pipeline-rules-put-profit-over-safety/
And when it's bad enough taxpayers bail them out:
https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/investing-america-biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-200-million-replace
The problem is they put profits over everything. I'm not sure where all this misunderstanding is coming from
Not shipping it would be cheaper yet, though.
I don't think there's a misunderstanding here, exactly. You want to shit on pipelines, and that's okay, but I'm more interested in the how this all fits together economically.
I take you've never been affected by a tailing pond or pipeline failure then.
Look, if you have no mental bandwidth for anything but rage like that, you're just as much a part of the problem as the other guys. Details matter, the world is complex.
I guess this is why I was confused. The comment you were replying to was saying the justification for impor/exports existing simultaneously was based on the geographical (aka logistical) efficiencies of moving different products to different facilities with different needs.
You appeared to me to be rejecting that justification.