Obama breaking out the veto pen today for Keystone

[Mechaman]

From a jobs, safety, and environmental perspective, it might actually be better to continue shipping it by rail rather than build more pipelines.

The railraod industry is booming in part because of the oil boom. Shipping drilling equipment and supplies to drilling sites, and taking the crude oil to refineries. Additionally, the new tank cars required will support thousands of good manufacturing jobs. Over the 2010 - 2019 period, the railroads are investing over $200 billion to upgrade their infrastructure, which is pretty much free (non-government) stimulus. And to my understanding, railroad employees on pretty much all levels are paid very well, and their union contracts and profit-sharing agreements mean they get big bonus checks at the end of the year and pretty solid pensions. After declining from 1947 - 1997 and flatlining, railroads have on a hiring spree (small compared to other industries, but it's still very well paying jobs) since 2007.

Lec-Megantic (SP?) and some other high-profile derailments aside, railroads might be safer and more environmental because when a derailment does happen, it's pretty hard to miss, as opposed to pipelines, which can leak significant amounts of oil before the leak is discovered and fixed, and are more insidious to the surrounding environment because the leak occurs underground and is far harder to clean up than a train derailment. It's easier to require railroad rolling stock to be stronger and safer in the event of derailments/collisions than it is to require "safer" piplines (granted, I don't know much about piplines). It's also less politically charged to regulate the railroads, not being so high-profile politically but very high-profile to all the voters who live in towns through which railroads pass.

Obviously transporting crude is an inherently risky business, and accidents and spills will occur whether we're using railroads or pipelines, but the "less bad" option here is probably railroads.

So as apathetic/lean-against as I am about Keystone, as a supporter of railroads over pipelines and trucking/cars, I guess this might be a small plus in some areas

This post is hard comfort for the many livelihoods that have been forever altered by said railroad collisions.  I don't mean to make judgements on your character, but I find it incredibly disturbing how in this post you almost wave off the deaths of dozens of people as collateral damage.

Does that make me a supporter of Keystone XL?  Hell no.  I doubt the construction of that pipeline will stop the practice of transporting crude on railways (likely they would continue that practice along with the pipeline).  Really, the amount of collisions that are happening on these railroads along with the points raised by Politicus show firstly the immorality of crude oil special interests and secondly the inherent danger posed from the transporation and production of crude oil.  Okaying the construction of the Keystone Pipeline would be like pouring gasoline on an already lit fire.

Read moar: http://stories.weather.com/boom

Just because the Keystone XL is wrong doesn't mean we should defend the status quo.  Sure, Democrats have done a somewhat good job of opposing this and this is probably one of the very few times that the President has shown some real testicular fortitude, but where the hell was their alternative to the pipeline?  I certainly haven't heard of any real alternative energy plans or serious efforts to take on big oil, besides responding to those costly oil spills after the fact.

I wish I could be more optimistic about "railroad regulations", but so far the success of recent regulations leave me doubtful if kicking the can down the road is the right solution.

Needless to say, I share Crabcake's enthusiasm.  The sooner the fossil fuels industry dies, the better.

[Mechaman]

This post is hard comfort for the many livelihoods that have been forever altered by said railroad collisions.  I don't mean to make judgements on your character, but I find it incredibly disturbing how in this post you almost wave off the deaths of dozens of people as collateral damage.

...

I wish I could be more optimistic about "railroad regulations", but so far the success of recent regulations leave me doubtful if kicking the can down the road is the right solution.

Man, just imagine if people were willing to use this sort of logic when it came to cars and trucks and buses.

People would be in the streets.  And not giving them back.

But, no, America is horrified when a freak accident happens on the rails or in the air, while the daily carnage (and let us be clear– carnage is the most appropriate word) on asphalt gets a yawn.

For the record, I don't disagree with anything you just said.  In fact I fully endorse such a behavior (as a supporter of a massive public transportation system).

Also, another ftr here, I don't want my above post to be misinterpreted as an blanket "f*** trains" post.  Trains obviously have a useful purpose in transporting people, goods, resources, etc. etc. etc. long distances.  Hell, I am not even entirely opposed to some very limited transportation of crude (ie Rome wasn't destroyed in one day).  What I am opposed to, however, is the mentality that says that expanding crude by rail is a very good thing.  It is not.  If anything it needs to be reduced (but not immediately done away with, again Rome wasn't destroyed in one day) and Americans need to get used to having more limited supplies of it (even if it means paying significantly higher costs).

So far the Democratic response has been lacking on this front.  Supporting speed limits and stronger train containers can only go so far guys.  At the very least there needs to be a significant infrastructure bill to repair/replace old and damaged bridges and tracks around the country.  About the most useful idea I can see somebody advancing in the meantime is limiting the size of crude transportations.

Just my further two cents.