The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 246

Is NORD STREAM dangerous for Poland's natural enviroment?


VaFunkoolo 6 | 654
27 May 2008 #31
If we are going to discuss the possible dangers of toxic substances being realeased into the Baltic as a result of Nord Stream, shouldn't we also be discussing the toxic substances that Poland is currently pumping into the sea.

Afterall, if we only considered only one of these to be of importance and not the other then we would surely be guilty of gross hyprocracy. Wouldn't we.
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #32
If we are going to discuss the possible dangers of toxic substances being realeased into the Baltic as a result of Nord Stream, shouldn't we also be discussing the toxic substances that Poland is currently pumping into the sea.

Poland builds new sewage treatment plants make spearte discussion about that. We can discusse it there.

What???

I will ask in different way. Are you supporter of SPD CDU NPD .... ?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #33
A considerable amount of nutrients and toxic substances are discharged to the Baltic Sea from Poland.

Don't give us crap! You don't care about the environment of the Baltic Sea...you care only about the Nord Stream NOT being build!
djf 18 | 166
27 May 2008 #34
The long-term environmental threats can be considered as significantly lower as compared with the risks of lifting the corroded items, transportation and destruction

If the containers of these toxic chemicals are corroding they will certainly leak in the future and the toxins will get into the environment.
Wouldnt the better course of action be to attempt to prevent this by clearing the areas? As long as it is done with the correct procedure i would rather they attempt and fail than never attempt at all.
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #35
The long-term environmental threats can be considered as significantly lower as compared with the risks of lifting the corroded items, transportation and destruction according to the current workplace safety and environmental protection standards as required by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

It is experts opinion.

Don't give us crap! You don't care about the environment of the Baltic Sea...you care only about the Nord Stream NOT being build!

we build new sewage treatment plants and honestly polution form factory (every country polutes in some way rivers) isn't the same as polution form Chemical weapons.

Bratwurst talking about Shield when Germany support this poroject.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #36
Bratwurst talking about Shield when Germany support this poroject.

So Germany is being nice to Poland - could Poland give something back please?
(Oh and please stop your hypocritical whining about the environment!)

nord-stream.com/154.html

Nord Stream plans to do more FOR the environment of the Baltic Sea than Poland ever did!
celinski 31 | 1,258
27 May 2008 #37
A considerable amount of nutrients and toxic substances are discharged to the Baltic Sea from Poland.

For this I believe we must look to "Communist Poland's" upkeep,looks as if "Poland" is showing concern now that they are back in control.
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #38
Nord Stream plans to do more FOR the environment of the Baltic Sea than Poland ever did!

yes and later they will polute our Waters by Chemical Weapons.

We have enourmous income form tourists on baltic coast. It is very clean baltics coasts. Poland isn't big industrial power ...

so please stop posting such propaganda.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #39
Excuse me but parts of the Baltic Coast belong to Germany - we have
an interest in that too.
Stop being pretending you are the only one concerned!
(Of course only when the topic is the "demonic" Nord Stream...)
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #40
Excuse me but parts of the Baltic Coast belong to Germany - we have an interest in that too.Stop being pretending you are the only one concerned!

Of course ... that is why we want to sit down and discusse if this project has or not influence on our sea. Swedes want to do it as well. This project is controversial not only because of politics. You know we have tourists industry in Poland and we are concerned about this project.

Lets wait for new researches in this issue.

form German newspaper

Bratwurst we need to sit down and talk about it. Pollution form towns are not pollution form WMD.

And it's not just industrial waste. Following World War II, virtually the entire chemical arsenal of Nazi Germany was dumped (more...), with much of it -- at least 35,000 tons -- ending up on the floor of the Baltic Sea. Hundreds of thousands of tons of chemical weapons from the Soviet Union, Britain and the United States were also chucked overboard in the northern Atlantic, North Sea, and elsewhere, including the Baltic. The poisonous weapons -- including mustard gas, phosphorus, nerve gas, and other highly toxic chemicals -- were joined by hundreds of thousands of unused bombs, mines and grenades.

and experts opinion.

The long-term environmental threats can be considered as significantly lower as compared with the risks of lifting the corroded items, transportation and destruction according to the current workplace safety and environmental protection standards as required by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).

Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #41
That's why it's time to clear up those WMD's...I trust Germans to be able to do that!

What do you prefer?

Quietly rusting poison - waiting to leak (it's just a matter of time after all)

Or lifting and securing them by professionals with high-tech?
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #42
The fact is that it isn't only business between Germans and Russians.

We need to sit down take experts, make analises, check all possible technologies.

I am not expert and you are not expert.

I have seen different opinions about this weapons... it is serious issue and we need to discusse it. If something goes wrong ... you know what kind of money WE (Poles Swedes Germans, Estonians) are going to lose.

Who is going to pay for it ? What kind of money ? If we realy need to build it throught balitc ?
celinski 31 | 1,258
27 May 2008 #43
Or lifting and securing them by professionals with high-tech?

I take it you don't aggree with CWC experts?

The long-term environmental threats can be considered as significantly lower as compared with the risks of lifting the corroded items, transportation and destruction according to the current workplace safety and environmental protection standards as required by the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC).
plk123 8 | 4,150
27 May 2008 #44
That's why it's time to clear up those WMD's...I trust Germans to be able to do that!

assuming that is actually doable.

why was the overland route rejected?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #45
Who is going to pay for it ? What kind of money ? If we realy need to build it throught balitc ?

We could take the money Russia and Germany save since they don't have to pay Poland anymore for using their territory for the over-land-pipeline!

(It's alot)

:)

why was the overland route rejected?

Actually I think the nail in the coffin was the detoriated political and diplomatical relationships between Germany and Poland under the "terrible twins".

The scenario that Poland due a power struggle uses their position to manipulate and force Germany was not so unthinkable anymore...
We lost the trust in Poland to secure our energy!

There are other reasons for it though:

nord-stream/importance.html

Importance

Infrastructure for secure gas supplies in Europe

European gas consumption is constantly rising, but domestic production is declining. Nord Stream will meet nearly a quarter of Europe's additional gas import needs, so that the long-term security of natural gas supplies to Europe will be improved.

OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #46
We could take the money Russia and Germany saves since they don't have to pay Poland anymore for using their territory for the over-land-pipeline! (It's alot) :)

you talk like that on PF, but firstly we want to know everything. It is not about money

as to economical aspects we all know that this project is more expenisve than this build througth land.

russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Business+New+Europe&articleid=a1201166714]

According to many experts, the cost of the building the Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea would be about three times more expensive than an overland pipeline like Amber

However, experts like Alan Riley of the Centre for European Policy Studies in Brussels argue the cost of the pipeline will inevitably soar from the current estimates to €10 billion and even as high as €15 billion because the project was approved without basic issues like the condition of the seabed along which the pipe will run being examined. Experts say the Gulf of Finland is uneven and the costs of its levelling will be huge. "In order to earn back that €10 to 15 billion, the gas will have to be sold very expensively.

It's meeting particular resistance from Estonia and Sweden. Nord Stream submitted an application on December 21 to the Swedish government for the pipeline's route through Swedish waters, but a recent poll found that 70 percent of Swedish members of parliament oppose the project. In the same statement accompanying the application, Nord Stream admitted the date when the pipeline will start shipping gas from Russia to Germany has been pushed back to 2011, missing the original 2010 start date. Nord Stream still hopes to start building the 1,200-kilometre gas pipeline in mid-2009. With Finland's move, that date is almost certain now to be missed too.

AND IT IS DANGEROUS FOR NATURAL ENVIROMENT.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #47
According to many experts, the cost of the building the Nord Stream pipeline under the Baltic Sea would be about three times more expensive than an overland pipeline like Ambe

Well Russia and Germany are paying...so what!
If we think it's worth it - what's it to you?
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #48
Well Russia and Germany are paying...so what!

WHY German and Russia want to pay more ? Why you want to build project dangerous for enviroment. Why do you want to have more expenisve gas in Germany ?

Why it is woth it? what kind of profits are you going to have ?
celinski 31 | 1,258
27 May 2008 #49
Well Russia and Germany are paying...so what!

Bratwurst, do you think Putin may be doing this just to keep control over Poland?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #50
WHY German and Russia want to pay more ? Why you want to build project dangerous for enviroment. Why do you want to have more expenisve gas in Germany ?

They are firms who have to calculate...at one point they must have come to the conclusions that all the invested work and money will pay off - they are capitalists, they wouldn't do it if it wouldn't be a plus deal in the end.

And the environmental issues well be tackled!

Bratwurst, do you think Putin may be doing this just to keep control over Poland?

That would be a question for Putin...
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #51
I will end this discussion in this point:

Whether Russia is prepared to be persuaded by Poland let alone even listen to it remains in doubt.Nord Stream is strategic project by Moscow to marginalise troublesome transit states like Poland, Ukraine and Belarus, regardless of the economics or the environment. Poland and its Baltic and Scandinavian allies still have a lot of fighting left to do.

Russia is Russia ...

but Germany our ally form EU and NATO ?

We will see what will happen.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #52
but Germany our ally form EU ?

You are not very forthcoming yourself...only ever demanding!
Poland knows exactly the concerns of Russia and Germany about the US missile shield and still...so there!
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #53
Poland knows exactly the concerns of Russia and Germany about the US missile shield and still...so there!

Russia is not member of nato and Germany support this project.
(from link I have posted before)

Details of the 20-page CDU policy paper, to be voted on this week by the party, are still being developed, but main author Andreas Schockenhoff -- deputy chair of the party's parliamentary group -- gave a preview in the German foreign policy magazine Internationale Politik.

In the essay, Schockenhoff argues for Germany to take steps to better protect itself from the threat of a nuclear attack from rogue states, saying it must support "a missile defense shield over Europe."

So what is your problem ? Merkel supports this idea. You want shield but not in Poland ?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #54
Merkel support this idea.

And??? Even she supports it only if it's working together with the NATO and bringing the Russians in so that they don't feel threatened if Poland still demands it to be build - that does not mean Germany likes it!

Be glad Merkel is so friendly with the US, the next chancellor may be more of a Schröder!

And about Nord Stream: What's your problem!
You have nothing to do with it anymore....

When Poland decides to go her way regardless what neighbours may think it's a bit of a hypocrisis to demand to be asked everytime they do something Poland doesn't like...it's a give and take!

Poland gives a fyck either about the environment nor of the opinion of their neighbours - only if their interests are concerned! FACT!!!

Europeans opposed to US missile defence shield plan: poll

Saturday, March 29, 2008

PARIS: Europeans are heavily opposed to a US plan to site anti-missile defences in central Europe according to an opinion poll on Friday, ahead of next week's Nato summit in Bucharest.

The programme, which would see anti-missile installations in the Czech Republic and Poland, has already infuriated Russia but the survey found widespread civil opposition to the plan across all major EU countries. Concern about the scheme is strongest in Germany, with 71 per cent of people opposed, and 19 per cent in favour.

That is followed by Spain (61 per cent against, 19 per cent for), France (58 per cent against, 22 per cent for), Italy (49 per cent against, 35 per cent for) and Britain (44 per cent against, 30 per cent for).

Don't tell me Poland will be swayed in their decision even as most Europeans don't want that shield!
Be honest Lukasz....
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
27 May 2008 #55
Thank you Bratwurst for nice discussion. :)

It is all I wanted to know :)

afer your edit:

it is not about shield NATO (French gov German gov UK gov) supports this idea. We all know that problem is much different.
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,787
27 May 2008 #56
As I said...to be true allies you have to give and to take...

it is not about shield NATO (French gov German gov UK gov) supports this idea

Well...the german and the russian gov's support Nord Stream...so what?
Crnogorac 3 | 111
29 May 2008 #57
Bratwurst, do you think Putin may be doing this just to keep control over Poland?

Poland lost billions of US$ in annual tax revenues for transit of Russian gas through it's territory.

why was the overland route rejected?

Because of Polish-Russian disputes over the US missile shield, Germany naturally took full advantage of the situation for it's own national interests.

Try to think about it from the Russian perspective... if you are the CEO of Gazprom would you really want to pay 3 times more than the original price for the construction of the pipline through the Baltic just to bypass Poland? This is a political not an economically logical decision.
SuhasRao - | 3
29 May 2008 #58
yes.there was no doubt it.
SuhasRao
Anna_ 1 | 6
10 Jun 2008 #59
You see, europe sells you for small change , what will happen later ?
Gas will be more and more expensive and you have been already sold.

As long as Americans domniate europe you are more or less safe. Unfotunately you know direction europe has choosen.

Be European ! Be Russian ally !

Germans are not nice for you. Think what will happen when Americans will be gone.
OP Lukasz 49 | 1,749
29 Sep 2008 #60
It is sure why they build nord stream.

New Yalta


Home / News / Is NORD STREAM dangerous for Poland's natural enviroment?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.