4855
Comments (251)
sorted by:
234
PotatoJoe 234 points ago +235 / -1

This is about Warren Buffet and his trains moving oil. The pipeline was going to cut off his destructive, polluting cash cow. He paid for his part of the fraud, now he wants to collect

111
elvisbird 111 points ago +111 / -0

100% correct. Now we can have train derailment again with explosions.

105
Hshsvsvsvsv 105 points ago +106 / -1

Reminder that liberals also campaigned against Green energy like nuclear power

Nuclear power is safe and clean and the only realistic alternative to oil and fossil fuels..

Liberals campaigned against it because their special interests wanted them to..

57
Wexit-Delecto 57 points ago +60 / -3

Liberals don’t want us using any energy. It is not about pollution, they just don’t think nature’s bounty is ours.

38
spezisthedevil 38 points ago +39 / -1

They are antihuman luciferians.

9
HighPedeEnergy 9 points ago +9 / -0

Pot bellied goblins

3
this_mortal_coil 3 points ago +3 / -0

and they're turning the frickin frogs gay.

2
Riderx101 2 points ago +2 / -0

I resemble that remark

1
223_Liberty_Tree 1 point ago +2 / -1

They come up from under rocks, They have green lookin' skin, and they run around saying we love satan, we want to eat babies

8
RegularAmerican 8 points ago +8 / -0

Truth

22
Isolated_Patriot 22 points ago +22 / -0

Oh but they love all their technology and amenities. It's the elite that want their serfs to have a lower quality of life.

18
Wexit-Delecto 18 points ago +18 / -0

They ONLY love technology which makes us more dependent upon centralized authority.

Nuclear batteries which could power your house cleanly for 20 years and which can’t be enriched without two warehouses of equipment visible from space? FUCK NO

Extracting oil from our own land to avoid wars and to ensure it is produced to our labour and environmental standards? FUCK NO

Solar panels which don’t make enough power and make us dependent on China for batteries and panels? FUCK YES

Pipelines over freighters and trains? FUCK NO

Etc.

10
RedPilledRaven 10 points ago +10 / -0

Also how do electric cars recharge their batteries? Through burning coal at another location.

2
Wexit-Delecto 2 points ago +2 / -0

Deboonked! (I.e., “inconvenient!”)

15
ClaytonMagnet 15 points ago +15 / -0

That's right - "progressives" never create laws that affect or change the way THEY live. Nope, their laws always affect everybody else.

12
Trump_USA_2020 12 points ago +12 / -0

Liberals want to feel better, in the sense that any pollution isn't so obvious and plain to the eye. For pipelines, the pollution is quite obvious to the liberals, since they feel hurt when Native American tribes complain and say that the pipelines are desecrating their cultural heritage. Also, in the minds of the liberals, potential pipeline leaks and pollution of groundwater is very obvious to them.

But the liberals will be fine with solar panels that require all sorts of heavy metals mined from Africa or China or other less developed nations to actually function properly. Liberals will be fine with the windmills manufactured and assembled in China. Are these green energy components produced through equally polluting manufacturing processes? Of course that is the case, and it is especially the case, since these less developed nations are permitted by the globalist UN, World Bank, WHO, and lots of other international agencies to purposefully have very lenient environmental laws. But you know what, because the pollution is happening over there and not on the lands of a Native American reservation, the liberals are totally fine with that. They wouldn't dare to take a closer look.

Honestly, humanity was conditioned to destroy and pollute after Adam and Eve got fooled by the serpent. There is no way to escape our current trends of unmitigated destruction and pollution of the natural environment, unless we want to go back to the days of zero plumbing, zero electricity, zero running water, zero heating and cooling, and even zero toilets. We may be able to stop polluting by a lot, if we choose to return to the 1700s and to live like animals in mud huts and log cabins with gravelly floors. Why do we have so much pollution? Because we want to be hygienic and modern... that's why. Living more primitively is definitely possible, and honestly, this extremely conservative solution is also the most sustainable one. So then, it's time for us to change our expectations and go back to the good old days.

Regarding all of the hygiene, plumbing, and utilities, humanity as a whole ended up bamboozling ourselves. Now, we are stuck between wanting to save the planet by living more primitively to actually live more sustainably and wanting to safeguard the health of the human population through hygiene and modern safety regulations for our homes and buildings. Of course, the globalists want to solve this conundrum by stealing all of our property so that a one-world government owns everything and runs the world. I say, let's just go back to the days of 200 acres for each family, a small farm for each family, and self-reliant communities... as intended by Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers.

3
this_mortal_coil 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think you are right on the mark with all of that. Not to mention the wars and conflicts that go on incidentally over control of those resources. That's why Trump didn't have a war for four years: we didn't care about their resources.

Living sustainable is very simple. I set up enough hydroponic equipment to feed my entire family fresh fruits and vegetables for about $200 and some basic plumbing and general tool skills. I was able to build a 10 x 10 greenhouse with a rocket heater for next to nothing. I was gifted four chickens and built a coop with scrap lumber and wire. I catch rainwater and am in the process of building a filtration system that runs through a solar heating system that supplements my daily needs. The point is, you are right...sustainable alternatives exist. But these alternatives require ppl make to make their own choices about what they value, where they want to live, etc. If people value ecology, sustainability, and the broader environment they will get off of their collective asses and do something about it.

Armchair environmentalism is the worst because it's like checkers or one-dimensional chess, as if a govt mandate happens in a vacuum. The govt makes an edict and then everyone feels good and they go back to recycled paper lattes, Activist 5ks, and their $500k homes while simultaneously complaining about $7/gallon gas. Mind boggling.

The system can't have people making choices because human desires are endless, but resources are finite. They must control those resources and their allocation. It's really that simple.

3
Wexit-Delecto 3 points ago +3 / -0

Aye, the yeoman on his acre(s) is the way.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
1
this_mortal_coil 1 point ago +1 / -0

Kinda the same thing

3
justwow 3 points ago +3 / -0

Correct

27
Wahzuhbee 27 points ago +27 / -0

My most successful red-pilling experiences are all around asking green-oriented liberals why they don't push for nuclear power. It's literally the solution they're looking for but their corporate propaganda keeps their eyes off of it and gives them a reason to dislike it.

19
LiskaEman 19 points ago +19 / -0

Don't forget to point out to them that their windmill farms and their solar farm installations, quite literally, include cutting down mass amounts of forests and fields/animal habitats! It's fun

10
NC_patriot 10 points ago +10 / -0

And windmill blades go into landfills.

3
hloblart 3 points ago +3 / -0

Some of those things are huge enough that you'd think there would be a market for popping the end caps off of them to use as rural storage containers, similar to shipping crates. I see them going down the high way sometimes taking up two lanes. Appear to be a one piece shell fiberglass except the endcaps.

4
Flag_falsely 4 points ago +4 / -0

wtf could you store in them? the dimensions aren't at all conducive for storing anything.

Best case scenario is you cut them up and use them as shingles.

3
MegaMagaManX 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is the biggest of the pro/con things. Many conversations I've had with "green, renewable energy" people. You never hear about the actual impact and time it takes to "break even" on environmental impact. But the talking points only ever mention cost break-even. Read articles that say the blades are so robustly built that it's not worth it to repurpose, so they get buried in landfills.

6
justwow 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yeah, and if you dare point out impact on migrating birds, you quickly discover how little these people really care about the environment, habitat, wildlife.

4
Meddlesom 4 points ago +4 / -0

Fun Fact: Obama gave windfarms a 25 year clemency period where they face no penalty for killing endangered birds.

5
justwow 5 points ago +5 / -0

Yes sir! There is a big fight being fought right now in northwest Ohio, where they want to put a massive wind farm smack in the middle of a major migration route on the shores of Lake Erie -one of the most important migration routes IN THE WORLD. In fact, people come from all over the world for the "Biggest Birding Week" of yr. Being fought out in the courts. It's "green" you see. :Last I read, they were offering to turn the blades off at night or something. Disgusting.

Why can't we have intelligent debates about anything? Honest debates?

3
mulejuicemcquaid 3 points ago +3 / -0

That's the saddest thing about Climate Change Activism. It gets 95% of all the attention and funding while tangible conservation efforts go under the radar. What happened to planting trees and protecting the rainforests?

5
WhiteTrashJesus 5 points ago +5 / -0

Because it requires competence and responsibility to not kill everyone, which are lacking. I am personally opposed to nuclear plants anywhere where a democrat could possibly ever be required to take action to maintain it or even be within a 100 mile radius. Oh the local nuclear plant needs funding for repairs? Well we will write a bill for it, but it also includes provisions for mandated abortions and requirements to quarter lgbtq muslim migrants in your house. Oh the opposition doesn't want that? we'll have to all be radiated then and it's their fault

3
WhiteTrashJesus 3 points ago +3 / -0

All infrastructure which requires maintenance for safety, such as dams bridges or powerplants should be privately run and bonded in such a way that it does not require government action to prevent tragedies. (Remember the dam in Michigan?)

15
thisguy883 15 points ago +16 / -1

Nuclear would have killed big oil, coal, and natural gas.

No fucking wonder they wanted to get rid of it by spouting scare campaigns.

"Muh Chernobyl "

Chernobyl was the result of communists cutting corners to save a buck. Nothing to do with the reactor melting down because "it will eventually happen". Dumb fucks.

1
Flag_falsely 1 point ago +1 / -0

They weren't trying to save money, they ignored safety measures because they thought they were being clever, thats all.

-2
Pandas4Trump -2 points ago +6 / -8

Killed, no. Brought down the cost of energy globally, yes. Oil is needed until hydrogen nuclear fusion can produce the near endless energy needed to create synthetic petrochemicals

6
Anon1970 6 points ago +7 / -1

Nicola Tesla had a much better idea - free energy plucked right out of the air. I wonder what happened to him and his visionary ideas?

7
Coldbyte 7 points ago +7 / -0

Well he was working for Westinghouse during some of his energy experiments. Problem was Westinghouse was a huge investor in copper min and copper wire. So wireless energy would have ruined him so he pulled funding from Tesla after he found out.

4
HocusLocus 4 points ago +6 / -2

Tesla was a brilliant engineer but a lousy chemist and he didn't give a flying fuck about the Inverse Square Law. . His wireless power dreams would have destroyed (low power) radio communication and poisoned the planet with the byproducts of galvanic corrosion.

4
FireannDireach 4 points ago +4 / -0

They didn't work. And yes, I've watched the documentaries and read a couple of books. Yes, he was smart. No, his grand idea just didn't work.

3
Anon1970 3 points ago +3 / -0

Was it even honestly tried? TPTB do NOT want free anything for the masses. They need their $$$ fix. How many inventions have been shelved for this reason we may never know.

-7
Pandas4Trump -7 points ago +2 / -9

Grand Scheme met physical reality most likely. Not every nugget from a Newton, Telsa, or Einstein, ect is going to be hitting a target no one else can see

0
TwelveMoreYears 0 points ago +1 / -1

You will not get to fusion without mastering fission.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Hunter1970 2 points ago +2 / -0

But muh three-headed fishes

1
ParticleCannon 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hooray, we saved the environment

1
Efrum 1 point ago +1 / -0

Already starting in Washington. Helped along by some Antifa sabotage.

42
KarpLykov 42 points ago +42 / -0

The killer is.... they are now going to invade Syria TO INSTALL A PIPELINE !!!!!!

19
IvIA6A 19 points ago +19 / -0

Already started sending in convoys to invade the oilfields in the north.

12
5
deleted 5 points ago +5 / -0
2
LibertarianXian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Cheap opium for the pharmaceutical corps is another factor too

4
Gr4ck3L 4 points ago +4 / -0

If the rankand file military knew this and there was conscientious objection.. Well that would be interesting. The plot is exposed, there only needs to be action.

10
Isolated_Patriot 10 points ago +10 / -0

And after all the reveals of the last four years, these corrupt millionaire politicians will successfully get their seats at the little billionaires table.

8
ClaytonMagnet 8 points ago +8 / -0

Along with it will come all the same Dubya/Obama era bullshit like proxy wars, terrorism, refugee crises, etc.

3
D0NNIE_DARK0 3 points ago +3 / -0

Duh but don’t say that around Smurfection. He’s waiting for war to be announced in Army magazine. Pointing out the obvious is crying wolf.

25
BallsackPaneer 25 points ago +25 / -0

In the industry. The statement about Warren Buffet is 1000% accurate.

Follow Warren's involvement with OXY and their purchase of Anadarko petroleum and you'll find that it's in his best interest to limit competition to OXY's Permian Basin production.

The pipeline vs. rail transport battle has been going on since the days of Rockefeller vs. Vanderbilt. Nothing has changed.

6
SOL170 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yup, shutting down fracking on Fed land directly impacts the Bakken, Williston Niobrara and Powder River production Basins.

8
thisguy883 8 points ago +8 / -0

Bingo.

Has nothing to do with pollution.

Has everything to do with crony crooked corporate types.

1
trump_2077 1 point ago +1 / -0

THIS RITE HERE FUCK THAT CRONY BULL . SHIT

-1
deleted -1 points ago +1 / -2
6
Neil_Patrick_Covfefe 6 points ago +6 / -0

Also the politics of revenge. It creates a lot of jobs in red states.

67
Liberty_Prime 67 points ago +67 / -0

They hate America.

44
BabbleRabble 44 points ago +45 / -1

Because "muh Climate Change" only applies to the degredation of the USA via paralyzing our industries while those in China remain uneffected.

18
TheSkip61 18 points ago +18 / -0

It's not about Green, it's about energy independence. If we have it why would we start wars in the Middle East ?

12
Isolated_Patriot 12 points ago +12 / -0

It's soooo much easier to run bribery and money laundering schemes through foreign soil. Energy independence would require them to run the schemes here and risk actually getting caught. They can get caught as much as they want on foreign soil and nothing will happen to them.

4
Whatyougotson 4 points ago +4 / -0

Ya the energy sector us a multii trillion dollar business. Right up there with the banks

5
Ithrowawaay 5 points ago +5 / -0

Sprinkle in some military industrial complex war bucks and you got yourself a stew going.

10
Dimensia89 10 points ago +10 / -0

That and they're stupid.

5
j2daeww 5 points ago +5 / -0

*North America. This effects Canada maybe more than the US.

13
Ithrowawaay 13 points ago +13 / -0

Even cucked Trudeau was “disappointed”.

If that isn’t a clown world measuring stick, I don’t know what is.

3
j2daeww 3 points ago +3 / -0

Facts

49
deleted 49 points ago +49 / -0
13
Hshsvsvsvsv 13 points ago +13 / -0

The base are literal puppets. Never had an original thoug

They are useful idiots

1
KarpLykov 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because China wants Canada’s oil

2
bobobob 2 points ago +2 / -0

Canceling the pipeline actually makes that more difficult. The pipeline was going to connect Canada to the Gulf of Mexico to make it easier to refine and export to other countries. Now they're stuck with Warren Buffet's trains to transport it.

Here's a map of the pipelines https://www.capp.ca/explore/oil-and-natural-gas-pipelines/ . I guess they do have one in the Washington/BC area

2
LibertarianXian 2 points ago +2 / -0

Wow, nice map, thanks!

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
32
senseiturtle 32 points ago +32 / -0

Because high value leftist donors are heavily invested in other means of moving the oil, such as trains/tankers/trucking.

It has nothing to do with the environment, and everything to do with manipulation of the energy economy.

14
C00gsHouse281 14 points ago +14 / -0

Ding ding ding...and the fake environmentalist useful idiots cheer it on.

And they hate this country.

1
TwelveMoreYears 1 point ago +1 / -0

Devil's Canyon power plant goes down in round 2023!!

4
Isolated_Patriot 4 points ago +4 / -0

Energy independence is the biggest threat to their Ukrainian energy schemes. They need that pipeline in Syria to get to the little billionaires table.

25
CSIS_CIA_pure-evil 25 points ago +25 / -0

The oil will travel by train. Look for headlines like:

America's favorite investor (Warren Buffet) has invested heavily in moving oil by rail, but he hasn't done enough to address the inherent safety issues.

Oil by rail is a crime.

Problem is that towns were built around railway stops, and expanded from there. When a train full of oil derails in a town, it gets incinerated.

Search Lac-Mégantic to see what happens.

5
elvisbird 5 points ago +5 / -0

💥 boom

3
FLYWHEEL_PRIME 3 points ago +4 / -1

Oil by rail is not a crime, what a stupid fucking statement. You've got entire companies like Kinder Morgan built around distribution by rail and storage. You can move ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more oil on rail than you can by OTR.

If you want to bitch about something, bitch about poor distribution networks and lack of infrastructure investment over the last 50 years.

The fewer semi trucks on the road, the better, for a huge number of reasons.

1
Mashiki 1 point ago +1 / -0

You can move ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more oil on rail than you can by OTR.

That only works if there is capacity on the rail network itself. The fact that prior to Trudeau, CP and CN(the big rail networks in Canada), were starting to build new links to transport oil and then stopped should tell you what happened.

1
FLYWHEEL_PRIME 1 point ago +1 / -0

I get that, which is why I had another qualifier in there specifically about companies like Kinder Morgan. I used to do pressure vessel work out west at their railyards, and taking to some of their management about capacities was just mind boggling.

1
Mashiki 1 point ago +1 / -0

Search Lac-Mégantic to see what happens.

That was rather interesting, since the derailment did what normally happens in a diesel engine. The crude was put into a highly combustible state(partial vaporization) by the force of the derailment, round out that it was contaminated with benzene due to the derailment as well you basically had a one in a million case of shit going bad. All preventable of course, the railway didn't even do the most basic repair work like fixing the turbochargers properly.

Crude explosions like that are very rare. It's why you can dump a gallon of diesel on the ground, and struggle to light it on fire.

20
deleted 20 points ago +20 / -0
20
Darkheartisland 20 points ago +20 / -0

Nah, they just want Saudi Arabia to live like kings while we don't

19
okayokay 19 points ago +19 / -0

All of the above??

13
GabeC1997 13 points ago +13 / -0

That's dumb, don't they realize we still need the oil for plastics?

14
TexasPiper 14 points ago +14 / -0

No the common person literally understands nothing about the O&G industry, how things are made, or really just how the world works in general.

6
LandOfLiberty 6 points ago +6 / -0

Looks like we're going back to the age of whalebone, pigskin and horsehide.

3
Anon1970 3 points ago +3 / -0

Chicharrónes are ageless! Mmmmmm...

4
deleted 4 points ago +6 / -2
5
GabeC1997 5 points ago +5 / -0

But there's no reason to not use resources we already have at hand? And what you're suggesting would be better handled with government research grants or private investing.

3
deleted 3 points ago +3 / -0
1
TwelveMoreYears 1 point ago +1 / -0

What are renewables?

Solar panels last for 25-years and there is no set recycling method for them.

Wind turbines need consistent maintenance and blade replacement. Old blades go to the trash heap. Still only 12% efficient when they're working.

Biogas essentially creates CO2 in the process, and even more when its methane constituent is burned. And the process usually requires more energy than burning CH4 yields... aka non-renewable.

Geothermal... for now, I guess. Entropy will inevitably win that race, however, and our unifying, warm little rock will freeze.

Hydrothermal... for now as well.

Even thorium, with its large abundance, is finite in availability.

So what is a renewable energy source in a grandeur scheme?

3
PraiseBeToScience 3 points ago +3 / -0

Uranium isn't infinite either, however we can build reactors that basically use nuclear fuel to create even more new fuel. It's not perpetual energy but it's about the closest thing.

1
mulejuicemcquaid 1 point ago +1 / -0

Fusion would run on the most abundant atoms in the universe. It's a technology that's "just 20 years away" and has been since the 70s, but it should become viable sometime this century.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
TwelveMoreYears 1 point ago +1 / -0

The point I'm making is your "urgency to optimize renewable technology" shock and awe is well-scripted and hasn't been the answer for over a decade now. It's time we allow nuclear fission to be the answer, as a society. Can we decide on that?

1
fredinno 1 point ago +1 / -0

Except we've already reached 'peak oil' in terms of usage due to the advent of electric/hydrogen transportation. The pipeline is being funded by the private sector, and will increases the efficiency/reduces ghg emissions from the transport of the fuel.

Renewables are not going to be able to replace fossil fuels until we have good storage options. They're already cheaper than fossil fuels, and we'd be shutting all of our coal plants down if renewables were reliable enough.

6
JimmyJam 6 points ago +6 / -0

How do you store wind and solar energy on a large scale without massive batteries? What is the ecological impact on that? Serious question.

5
PraiseBeToScience 5 points ago +5 / -0

One method was to use gravity batteries. Basically you use solar/wind energy to pump water upwards and when you need the power, you release the water and gravity turns a turbine.

Obviously this becomes impossible if your grid is at capacity.

4
AussieTrumpFan 4 points ago +4 / -0

Plus, all the hippies tend to forget what needs to happen to make hydro power in the first place. You need to skullfuck an entire ecosystem to build a massive fuckoff dam.

I mean, once you've utterly destroyed an entire region sure, the energy it produces is pretty green. Not as green as the valleys and forests you destroyed to make it.

4
deleted 4 points ago +5 / -1
12
FreeNow 12 points ago +12 / -0

Liberals are useful idiots. Remember Sandman and the Native American guy? He was at pipeline protests too. They get their actors, create false issues and their friends run it in the media. Liberals respond emotionally to the propaganda and that gives the politicians cover to sell us out. Nobody is actually considering the issues, it is theater.

12
deleted 12 points ago +12 / -0
10
afro54 10 points ago +10 / -0

They hate clean air, efficiency, oil-independence, american independence.

Need more?

8
sustainable_saltmine 8 points ago +8 / -0

They don't. They want trucks, trains and boats gone unless they all go electric. (Never mind how the electricity gets generated)

7
Thomas1963-1967 7 points ago +7 / -0

Follow the money.
Soros ran the trains that used to haul the oil.
Soros does not own the pipeline.
Soros made a lot of money from the trains.
Soros doesn't make money from pipeline.
Soros needs more money. Understand now?

7
TrumpWin 7 points ago +7 / -0

Common core

1
DarkDrai 1 point ago +1 / -0

I keep seeing people say this. What is this?

4
WarViper1337 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's a jab at common core math that was introduced into public schools. Just look up some videos on how bad it is.

2
DarkDrai 2 points ago +2 / -0

Ah, gotcha. I've heard of that. Thank you.

2
T_DforTrump2020 2 points ago +2 / -0

Short version of common core. (7+6=?) Add 3 to the 7 to make it 10. Subtract the 3 you added from the 6. Therefore (10+3=13). Instead of, oh I don't know, just remembering that 7+6=13. It's a ridiculous system.

3
DarkDrai 3 points ago +4 / -1

"Show your work" on steroids...

And it looks like they want you to subtract things from left to right, instead of from right to left???? Why??? How does that even help anyone??? >:(

2
mulejuicemcquaid 2 points ago +2 / -0

I use some pretty convoluted methods to do math, so I can see teaching different ways so kids can find a method that clicks for them. But why would you give homework and tests that REQUIRE everyone to follow the same fucked up methods or get punished? It makes no sense. Have them show their work and if it checks out, whatever method it is, then good.

1
T_DforTrump2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

I hear ya. All I'm saying is just give them flash cards for that stuff. It's worked for decades. No sense in trying to reinvent the wheel.

6
LiskaEman 6 points ago +6 / -0

Because they always vote with their heart, since they don't have much of a Brain that can understand economics.

5
SqueekyCleanBurisma 5 points ago +5 / -0

Oh this is easy to answer; they’re retarded

5
niconicoreeee 5 points ago +5 / -0

Because muh concern for other countries other than my own

america last

4
tombombadil86 4 points ago +4 / -0

It's about two things: Giving business to the trains. Increasing the cost of oil.

3
WienerDogRanch 3 points ago +3 / -0

I think the libs just dont want any oil moving at all, be it by clean, efficient, safe pipeline or by diesel hauler.

They also have their iphone 15 XL 9000 preordered, because they need the all new super slo mo ultra sonic HD wide picture studio instagram ad for some vegan bacon.

3
fu3l3dByRag3 3 points ago +3 / -0

and ships, really BIG ones

2
ViagraFalls 2 points ago +2 / -0

Pipelines are a like a giant male phallus. Building one would be supporting the patriarchy.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
Mark-McAwesome 2 points ago +2 / -0

More pollution they produce, the more they can bitch about pollution, basic pollutiononomy

2
Burchoid 2 points ago +2 / -0

They think that by prematurely forcing oil out of the market, it will help alternative energy become more necessary. The problem is, there aren't good replacements for oil and coal without perfecting fusion. Perfect fusion, and we may have something better than fossil energy!

2
JonBonMuthafuknJovi 2 points ago +2 / -0

They are the party of science denialism.

2
Bronski 2 points ago +2 / -0

Why are we not burning garbage like the socialist Dutch?

2
klmd 2 points ago +2 / -0

To make us pay more at the pump and less to spend on food.

2
Fartist69 2 points ago +2 / -0

you are ignorant of pipleline leaks and sabotage

1
T_DforTrump2020 1 point ago +1 / -0

Huh?

2
Eric-CIA-ramella 2 points ago +2 / -0

Not even that pede, SHIPS is what will transport it, and then spills increase in frequency again and then globohomo carbon tax environmental self-terrorism is back underway by the elite

2
Kmicanakreku 2 points ago +2 / -0

They dont want anyone to use oil or any other form of energy.

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
SideOBeef2016 2 points ago +2 / -0

If libtards hate carbon dioxide, why do they wear masks?

1
CraftyBarnardo 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because that’s why they’re told to think

1
Bundleshee 1 point ago +1 / -0

100% fucking this. It drives me bonkers when people I know who used to research environmental shit just fucking ignore this.

1
WVboi 1 point ago +1 / -0

I work in the marine industry...river boat. We push oil & gas. These boats churn out a ton of pollutants lol!

1
MocksFordComma 1 point ago +1 / -0

Ummm, they don't plan to "get the oil there."

1
Tookens 1 point ago +1 / -0

Critical thinking and logic aren't exactly strengths of most leftards.

1
TrumpSmashLibtards 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because the left is devoid of common sense. They never go outside, yet remain convinced the sea level is rising. The high tide is no higher than it was in 1976.

1
Rocks_vs_Uzis 1 point ago +1 / -0

Money.

1
Ronnan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Biden’s actions destroys American’s energy independence. Buying foreign oil bad for energy industries.

1
NotMyGovernor 1 point ago +1 / -0

Election was rigged please stop blaming it on the liberals. We need to get over this line of thought.

1
RexButt1776 1 point ago +1 / -0

Gates and buffet own 68% of all North American rail infrastructure

1
UncleSteve_PedeHere 1 point ago +1 / -0

Because Warren Buffet says it's ok.

1
Ironlabel1 1 point ago +1 / -0

And the oceans! They love to pollute the oceans! Think of the fish!

1
ChuckedIntoAVan 1 point ago +1 / -0

Follow the money, it leads right to Warren Buffet.

1
Roadpower 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's never about facts or logic. It is always about political messaging no matter how harmful or wrong it is. If they can get people wound up around their talking point, they will exploit it.

1
h4yw1r3_ 1 point ago +1 / -0

they dont want any oil

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Okie_Life 1 point ago +1 / -0

BeCaUsE iT dEsTrOyS iNdIaN bUrIals.

1
PhD_in_everything 1 point ago +1 / -0

It took me a while to figure out but now I know. The reason Dems and everyone on the left care about the environment is that it’s an easy way to restrict everyone’s standards of living.

1
Pederella 1 point ago +1 / -0

Silly Pepe....they want all fossil fuels gone. You will be blowing through your mask onto the little spinner attached to the back of your clown car. Honk, Honk...Or...just take the Bill Gates vaccine and die already.

1
deleted 1 point ago +2 / -1
3
Anon1970 3 points ago +3 / -0

Nazism is a LEFTIST ideology. Their actions and policies proved it. Don't be fooled by labels that leftists purposely place on their own evil ideologies to blame on the Right.