• silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, they’re trying to extract a bunch of tar, which requires enormous energy inputs to turn into a useful fuel, and which is tough to transport by pipeline.

      • HSR🏴‍☠️@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        It really feels like SCOTUS noticed that environmentally-conscious people are advocating for expansion of rail, and will now rule in favour of this project just to spite them.

    • ZombiFrancis
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 months ago

      The bait was real. I knew there was a catch, i just knew it. But I let my guard down anyway.

  • TheEtherBunny@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    5 months ago

    Oh, the irony of these christofascist lickspittles using the SCOTUS to resurrect dead rulings for big oil payola, when they scream about “activist judges” ruling to preserve laws that preserve some person’s health or wellbeing…

  • skuzz@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    5 months ago

    The rail route they’re trying to enable starts in rural east Utah, then heads into Colorado and travels mere feet away from the the Colorado river. Contamination of that water source would only affect Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, California, and Mexico. What could possibly go wrong?

      • babeuh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        See, they get almost no sun there, the poor guys. Thank god there’s the oil industry and their bribed politicians pushing their 100% environmentally friendly solutions for their energy that definitely will not be obsolete the minute they are finished!

        /s if it isn’t clear enough

  • shalafi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    5 months ago

    The issue at the Supreme Court is whether the agency should have weighed the potential environmental harm of the railroad’s main cargo, both where the oil is drilled in Utah and refined on the Gulf Coast, when it has no regulatory authority over oil production.

    I’m not as down on SCOTUS as the rest of you, excepting Thomas and Alito. They’ve either ruled or refused a couple of dozen cases that could be seen as liberal wins. But this one sounds like a slam dunk for the railroad.

    Sounds like an agency regulating a thing they don’t have authority over. This Court will overrule them in a heartbeat.