Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Keystone XL Pipeline

I had no plans to write a blog about the Keystone project, but since the Republican Party seems to think that they must revisit this issue in order to repair their fragile and broken ego, I need to add my two cents. Please excuse the sarcasm, but I believe my two cents is worth a lot more than anything the politicians have to offer.

I will be honest, I'm opposed to the Keystone project. Why? Firstly, the United States does not need this type of high-risk project. One only needs to take a look at the proposed map to see that the United States would be taking all the risk and TransCanada would get most of the money. You can't argue this since the pipeline will mostly be in the US and TransCanada is the seller. The last time I knew if you were the only one selling a product, in this case tar sands oil flowing through a pipeline, you would get all the money. Simple?    

Secondly, there were 14 accidents in the first year of the project. That's an easily confirmed fact. We don't need that!  We don't need one accident that has the potential of environmental devastation. We have shown that we are quite capable of creating our own environment disasters. We don't need help from our Canadian friends, thank you very much. This is going through some very delicate ecosystems. And whether you like it or not, we all survive because of healthy ecosystems. Because of our technological prowess humans have the ego the size of a football stadium with an atom size understanding. If we destroy the environment . . . I don't care how many cars it will power, how many homes it will heat, how many jobs it will provide . . . if we destroy the environment we will die. I don't know about you, but I'd like to live, and I'd like to know that my grandchildren's grandchildren have a chance.  

Even the US State Department said there would only be 5-6000 jobs during the construction stage. That sounds like a lot, but it really isn't.  The Obama administration calculates that there will be only 50-150 full-time jobs after construction. I have no idea how they calculated it. It sounds a bit low, but not absurdly unreasonable. Think of it. What would you need? A few inspectors and some repair and maintenance crews. It won't take many. Texas Gas Transmission LLC has 6,100 miles of pipelines from the Gulf of Mexico well into Indiana. It has a grand total of 678 employees. The Keystone pipeline would only be 2,000 miles of pipeline. A third the distance.  If there is a mile to employee ratio, the Keystone pipeline would only need 226 employees. But I know there is probably no such ratio. So even if the Obama Administration is off by 500+, that isn't many jobs.  Is it worth the risk?  Is it worth your life?  

Those of you who have followed me on FaceBook know that I always encourage people to check out the facts for themselves. Just because it's on the internet doesn't make it true. Just because some television or radio talk-show host says it, doesn't make it true.  Just because your preacher says it, doesn't make it true. The truth can be hard to glean.  My father was a history professor with a penchant for digging for facts. It rubbed off on me.  I spent my work career as a psychotherapist who loves research . . . digging for facts. When someone posts something on FaceBook I will go looking for collaboration and won't be happy unless I have at least five reliable and trustworthy sources. Don't let someone tell you what to think.  Very honestly, and historically verifiable, the big three offenders of outright lying in order to control people are politicians, religions and big business.  I encourage you . . . I beg you . . . to check things out for yourself.  Be careful of your sources.  

On this particular subject I'd recommend starting by checking out The Guardian's article. http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/31/keystone-xl-oil-pipeline-everything-you-need-to-know.  The Guardian is an English periodical with an excellent reputation for being reliable, trustworthy and accurate. It is considered left and labor oriented but it has no vested or political interest in what happens in the US, so it's probably the most reliable source for unbiased information. Even they say we don't need the Keystone project because we're already "on track to becoming an energy superpower. Most of the tar sands oil would eventually be exported, though there are plans to develop new markets for tar sands crude in the north-east. Oil prices are down because there is a glut in getting product to refineries." But do give it a read.  There are other sources but always check them out for reliability, etc.  The facts are there but you have to be careful. 

I had no intention of going to this length, but it does seem that a wee bit of advice on gathering information, reliability, etc., is in order.  Even if you check out your sources and they are considered  reliable, trustworthy and accurate, they can inadvertently repeat false information. The Chicago Tribune is a highly respected newspaper.  In an effort to get a jump on the competition it accepted erroneous information and headlines read "Dewey defeats Truman."  But they were wrong!  This is why dedicated researchers look for multiple sources and then compare their results. 

This is where a technique which was originally used for ancient studies can be applied. I call it 'the rejection of the absurd'.  The best way to explain it is example. If you ask 100 people about me you are going to get a wide variety of answers but they will be clustered. If you happen to talk to someone who really hates me they might report "he's a waste of air". If my Mother were still alive, she'd probably tell you that I walk on water.The vast majority would be somewhere in the middle describing me as a balding, retired, tree-hugging, liberal, Buddhist, with a pony tail and ear-ring who loves to hike, bike, run, kayak and scuba dive. Who is most likely to correctly describe me?  Those clustered in the middle. Throw out the extremes.  Another example. Above I basically threw out both the Obama Administration's and Keystone backer's estimate of jobs. They were obviously the extremes. In that particular case I was familiar with Texas Gas Transmission (they own the property next to me) and checked out how many people they have to run their pipelines. 

Bottom line . . . . I don't think we want the Keystone project. It is too high risk with extremely limited returns. I don't know about you, but I don't want to risk my environment so that some Canadian (or American or anyone else) can get more wealthy.  I don't think we need the Keystone project. We have adequate oil and technology continues to find more and more ways to break our dependency on oil.  I really, really, really want you to throw off you political allegiance and think this through for yourself.  Don't just listen to birdbrained politicians who only worry about who's giving them money and how to stay in office or asinine TV/radio personalities who are just interested in ratings (which means money). Check it out for yourself. Don't let someone else do your thinking!!






1 comment:

  1. Thanks much. Nicely written, with good advice and information. Truth is an elusive animal.

    ReplyDelete