Hacker News Reader

The point here is not absolute, it's a relative one. Of course we already rely on oil. But if a 7 billion pipeline makes us rely on oil for an extra year (simple economics since its cheaper to transport through a pipeline than on rail), the negative externalities caused by that extra year of fossil fuel would dwarf the fatalities of railway accidents any time.

View on HN

The cost inflicted by oil is measured in centuries. A year or two saved may not make a difference in terms of total lives lost:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/1...

Moving oil through the pipeline is bad, but it is less bad than moving by rail in light of the probabilities of human loss (though the spillage is likely to be bigger when there is an accident). At least there is an potential up of rail being freed up to move something else safer - like people.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com