this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
147 points (100.0% liked)

World News

39364 readers
2952 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

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.

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/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Ontario Premier Doug Ford warned that Canada could cut off energy exports to the U.S. if Donald Trump imposes a proposed 25% tariff on Canadian goods.

Ford emphasized that 60% of U.S. crude oil imports and 85% of electricity imports come from Canada, highlighting the potential impact.

Canadian leaders, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, criticized the tariffs as harmful to both economies, while Deputy PM Chrystia Freeland suggested broader retaliatory measures.

The dispute raises concerns over trade relations and escalating economic uncertainty for both nations.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] HK65@sopuli.xyz 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

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?

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

which would necessitate oil and gas companies intentionally working in a way that isn’t about maximizing profit.

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.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Why would it be more profitable to do it the less efficient way? It costs per mile/km to build pipe.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] HellsBelle@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I take you've never been affected by a tailing pond or pipeline failure then.

[–] CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org 0 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

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.

[–] Windex007@lemmy.world 1 points 1 week ago

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.

[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 week ago

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.