STUDY: The Press And The Pipeline
A Media Matters analysis shows that as a whole, news coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline between August 1 and December 31 favored pipeline proponents. Although the project would create few long-term employment opportunities, the pipeline was primarily portrayed as a jobs issue. Pro-pipeline voices were quoted more frequently than those opposed, and dubious industry estimates of job creation were uncritically repeated 5 times more often than they were questioned. Meanwhile, concerns about the State Department's review process and potential environmental consequences were often overlooked, particularly by television outlets.
Pro-Pipeline Voices Were Quoted More Frequently
All But Two Major News Outlets Quoted More Pipeline Supporters Than Opponents. With the exceptions of USA Today and the Los Angeles Times, every news outlet included in this study quoted or hosted more people in favor of the pipeline than opposed.
- BROADCAST: Among the broadcast networks, 79% of those quoted or interviewed were in favor of the pipeline. NBC and ABC did not quote anyone opposed.
- CABLE: On Fox News, 66% of those quoted or hosted were in favor and 13% were opposed. CNN featured 54% in favor and only 14% opposed. MSNBC was the most balanced, with 38% in favor and 31% opposed.
- PRINT: Of those quoted by the major newspapers, 45% were in favor of the pipeline and 31% were opposed. The New York Times was the most balanced, quoting 35% in favor and 27% opposed. The Wall Street Journal was the least balanced, with 52% in favor and 21% opposed.
Op-Eds/Editorials Supporting Keystone XL Outweighed Those Opposed. The editorial boards of the Washington Post, USA Today, and the Wall Street Journal have come out in favor of the Keystone XL pipeline. Those three newspapers published 16 op-eds or editorials supporting the pipeline and only one opposed. All together, the print outlets published 19 op-eds or editorials in favor of the project and 10 opposed. The New York Times editorial board took a stance against the pipeline.
TV News Coverage Mirrored Pipeline Proponents' Preferred Framing
Media Framed Pipeline As A Jobs Issue. Although the pipeline would lead to a small number of long-term jobs, the potential for job creation from the pipeline was mentioned in 68% of print coverage, 67% of broadcast coverage and 75% of cable coverage.
- BROADCAST: All three broadcast networks mentioned jobs more than any other issue we tracked in the Keystone XL debate. CBS topped the list, discussing jobs in 75% of its coverage.
- CABLE: Fox News mentioned jobs in 85% of its coverage -- more than any other television network. Both Fox and CNN covered jobs more than all the other issues we measured combined. Only MSNBC mentioned environmental factors more often than jobs.
- PRINT: USA Today, The Los Angeles Times, The Associated Press and The Wall Street Journal covered jobs more than any other issue we tracked. The Los Angeles Times mentioned jobs in 86% of its coverage, topping all other media outlets included in our analysis.
Media Repeated Industry's Inflated Job Numbers
Industry Job Estimates Have Been Widely Discredited. TransCanada, the Canadian company behind the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, has long pushed the message that the project would "directly create more than 20,000 high-wage manufacturing jobs and construction jobs in 2011-2012 across the U.S." as well as "118,000 spin-off jobs," and up to 553,000 jobs "stemming from a permanent increase in stable oil supplies." At times TransCanada used the term "jobs" to refer to what was actually an estimate of "person-years of employment," and the press rarely explained the difference. Some of TransCanada's figures come from a study that independent analysts have called "dead wrong," "meaningless," "flawed and poorly documented." A Bloomberg Government analysis found that TransCanada's estimate of direct job creation per mile is higher than what took place during construction of the pipeline TransCanada completed in 2010, indicating that the company either "intends to hire more workers [per mile] for shorter periods of time, or that the company's construction crew and jobs figures are overstated, compared with earlier stages of the Keystone project." The State Department estimated that "the construction work force would consist of approximately 5,000 to 6,000 workers," and said the project "would not have a significant impact on long-term employment."
Media
Uncritically Repeated Industry Job Estimates 76 Times. Every news outlet
included in our analysis uncritically repeated TransCanada's jobs
numbers at least once. The major print outlets did so 34 times - in 29% of the
Keystone XL articles mentioning jobs -- with the Associated Press accounting
for almost half of those instances. The broadcast networks repeated these
figures 4 times -- one third of the times jobs were mentioned. And the cable
networks did so 38 times -- 45% of the coverage mentioning jobs. Fox News
uncritically repeated these numbers more than all the other television networks
combined.
By Contrast, Criticisms Of These Figures Were Rarely Mentioned. Criticisms of the industry job estimates were included a total of 6 times in the print coverage, or 5% of the print coverage that mentioned jobs. The cable outlets covered the criticisms a total of 9 times, or 11% of cable coverage that mentioned jobs. All together, the outlets uncritically passed along TransCanada's numbers 5 times more often than they mentioned criticisms of those numbers.
TV Media Downplayed Environmental Risks
Keystone XL Prompted Serious Environmental Concerns. The original Keystone XL pipeline route would cross through the Sand Hills region of Nebraska, a "sensitive ecosystem" sitting atop the Ogallala Aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the region. Given that the existing Keystone pipeline has "experienced 14 spills since it began operation," including a major spill of 21,000 gallons, many are concerned about the potential for groundwater contamination if the oil were to spill. This concern is amplified by reports that PHMSA, the agency responsible for overseeing pipeline safety, is chronically understaffed and toothless. Before Congressional Republicans imposed a decision deadline on the Obama administration, TransCanada, the state of Nebraska, and the State Department had agreed to consider an alternative route around the Sand Hills. Others object to the pipeline because it signifies a long-term commitment to the unconventional production of fossil fuels that drive climate change. EPA initially criticized the State Department for not fully assessing the pipeline's impact on climate change, noting that developing tar sands oil is 82% more carbon intensive than the average crude refined in the U.S.
TV Coverage Often Overlooked Environmental Risks. While the Keystone XL pipeline debate was often framed as a 'jobs versus environment' issue, specific environmental concerns were only mentioned in 34% of cable coverage and 17% of broadcast coverage. Specifically, the threat posed by the pipeline to the Ogallala Aquifer was mentioned in 16% of cable coverage and 17% of the broadcast coverage, while climate change was mentioned in 10% of cable coverage and 6% of broadcast coverage.
- BROADCAST: Of the broadcast networks, ABC mentioned environmental concerns the most -- in a third (33%) of its coverage. NBC didn't mention specific environmental concerns at all. Climate change was only mentioned once, on CBS.
- CABLE: MSNBC was the only cable network to discuss environmental concerns more than any other issue -- in 50% of its coverage. CNN covered environmental concerns the least, in less than a quarter (22%) of its coverage. And while Fox News mentioned environmental factors in a third (33%) of its coverage, it was often to dismiss these concerns.
Media Failed To Report EPA's Criticism Of Environmental Review. The EPA repeatedly challenged the State Department's preliminary Environmental Impact Statement. Calling the State Department's draft review "inadequate," the EPA recommended a more thorough analysis of the pipeline's potential environmental impact. The State Department issued a Supplemental Draft EIS in April 2011 which addressed comments from EPA and other federal agencies, but again the EPA called the review "insufficient" and recommended further analysis. The State Department released its final EIS in August 2011 -- prior to postponing a decision on the project -- and the EPA has not commented on the document. Of the 9 television segments that mentioned the State Department's review, none mentioned EPA's earlier criticisms. Only 30% of print items mentioning the EIS noted EPA's criticisms. Excluding the New York Times, this number drops to 14%.
News Corp. Turned A Blind Eye To Pipeline Protests. A string of large demonstrations against the Keystone XL pipeline took place throughout the fall. These protests were mentioned in 29% of print coverage, 22% of broadcast coverage, and 21% of cable coverage. The Wall Street Journal and Fox News -- both owned by News Corporation -- covered the protests the least, in only 15% of their coverage.
Media Advanced Claims That The Pipeline Would Bolster Energy Security
Significance Of Pipeline To Energy Security Is Disputed. TransCanada has said that its pipeline would increase U.S. energy security by displacing imports from countries deemed less friendly to the U.S. According to the Congressional Research Service, "it may be possible for Canadian oil supplies to effectively 'push out' waterborne shipments from other countries, although this depends on a wide range of market conditions." CRS also noted that "Apart from Keystone XL, several other pipeline proposals could help carry growing Canadian crude oil supplies to the U.S. Gulf Coast," and pointed out that "even if Keystone XL is built, prices for the crude oil it carries" will "continue to be affected by international events." Indeed, the benefit to American consumers of any shift in U.S. import sources that could be attributed to the Keystone XL pipeline is far from clear. As the Council on Foreign Relations' Michael Levi has noted, "U.S. vulnerability to turmoil in the Middle East is linked to how much oil we consume, not where we buy it from." The pipeline would do very little to shield the U.S. economy from high and volatile prices.
Print Media Frequently Touted Keystone XL As A Step Towards U.S. Energy Security. The purported contribution from the Keystone XL pipeline to American energy security was mentioned in 52% of print coverage, 22% of broadcast coverage, and 28% of cable coverage. USA Today, whose editorial board supports the pipeline, mentioned energy security in 67% of its coverage, more than any other print outlet. Fox News mentioned it more than all the other television networks combined. Only items in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times questioned the energy security benefits of the pipeline.
Allegations Of Bias Garnered Small Amount Of Coverage
Questions Have Been Raised About State Department Impartiality. Concerns about the rigor of the State Department's approval process arose almost a year before the Environmental Impact Statement was completed, when Secretary Clinton said that her office was "inclined" to sign off on the pipeline. In addition, the State Department's EIS was prepared by consulting firm Cardno Entrix, which lists TransCanada as a client, raising concerns among legal experts. A series of documents obtained by Wikileaks and Friends of the Earth also revealed a cozy and collaborative relationship between some State Department officials and TransCanada, including examples of agency officials coaching the corporation on how to make the strongest case for its pipeline. The inspector general is currently investigating the State Department's handling of the Keystone XL review.
Media Rarely Mentioned Concerns About Bias, Conflict Of Interest. These issues were mentioned in 20% of print coverage, 7% of cable coverage and 6% of broadcast coverage. Among print outlets, the Wall Street Journal covered these issues the least (11%). Among the cable outlets, CNN mentioned them the least (5%), with Fox News not far behind (6%). NBC and ABC did not cover them at all.
Methodology
This report analyzes print and television coverage of the Keystone XL pipeline between August 1, 2011 and December 31, 2011. Our results are based on a Nexis or Factiva search of six major print outlets (New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Los Angeles Times, Associated Press and Wall Street Journal), the major broadcast networks (ABC, NBC and CBS), CNN and the primetime shows on MSNBC and Fox (daytime shows for these networks are not available in Nexis).
For print outlets, we searched Nexis for "Keystone XL" and included both news and opinion items, but excluded web-only content. For television networks, we searched for "Keystone and pipeline." Our analysis includes any article or segment devoted to the pipeline, as well as any substantial mention (more than one paragraph of an article or news transcript.) The following chart displays the coverage included in our study:
On the issue of energy security, I would like to have known how many time it was mentioned that:
1. Canada is actually a foreign country and is not a part of Montana.
2. Once the Alberta tar sands crude is refined in the U.S., nothing prevents U.S. refiners from selling it abroad, say to higher paying markets in foreign oil-dependent Europe.
On the environment, I would like to have known how many time it was mentioned that:
1. TransCanada's tar sands oil is far more viscous than, e.g., Texas or Oklahoma crude. Because of this, it requires chemical dilutants in order to push it through the pipeline. A pipeline rupture tar sands oil therefore carries high environmental consequences, both because of the viscosity and dilutants issue.
2. It's 'tar sands' oil (dirty crude) and not just crude.
3. Because TransCanada is, of course, located in Canada, any spill on U.S. soil would not be governed by EPA standards, but by NAFTA.
Fair and balanced.
Just because someone proposes a big project on the taxpayer dime that will create some temporary jobs doesn't make it a good idea.
We have plenty of crumbling infrastructure issues that we could use the funding for that put those same people to work on something that benefits ALL of us, not just a few wealthy oil executives. However, Congressional republicans HATE public works projects. Why spend money on fixing something when they can wait for it to collapse, declare an emergency, and then hire their cronies to fix it for an inflated price.
If we're going to frame it the way YOU want to frame it, let me ask you this:
Why won't congress fund my project to build a 300 foot tall statue of a human nose that leaks green pudding from the nostrils? It will create a bunch of jobs while it's being built, right?
The pipeline is to be built by TransCanada Pipeline, a company that builds pipelines. This will be done without money diverted from Solyndra, but their capital.
As far as creating jobs, a 1600 mile pipeline built by union jobs would be providing temp jobs for @8 years. I'm sure they would be glad for the work, temporary or not.
The good news is that the pipeline can be built in segments right now because it's approved, except for the part to cross the border. So moving oil from Montana and parts south can still move ahead until an administration is in place that values energy security.
Your nose statue, built with government largess is about as good as anything proposed to this point by obama.
So you're admitting that, even if there is ever any positive impact on the price of energy in the US (which is a highly dubious claim, at best), it's nearly a decade off? If so, why was a decision absolutely totally needed ASAP instead of by the end of the year when all the permit work and local impact studies were done and it could have been used as a campaign issue (by both sides).
You know. Done 100% to completion after absolutely everything was on the table.
Oh, and these could/may likely be 100% Canadian jobs, Canadian company and all. They could use the jobs, too, you know.
We know Obama the Buffoon just makes stuff up as he goes, but there are some people who make long-term plans for the future of our country.
Obama's last two snap decisions to throw money at Solyndra & Ener1 Electric cars resulted in two bankrupt companies and $650 million dollars down the toilet. Beacon cost $43 million last year.
Wow! Obama the genius and his gang of morons have wasted $700 million on only three investments!
Let's not forget the Chicago goon's $500 million dollar payoff to his big donor Ron Perlman and ex-SEIU Union Boss Andy Stern for an untested anthrax vaccine that was supposed to be open for bids. Obama the Chicago Gangster torpedoed the bid scheme and just handed the whole thing to his billionaire buddy.
So, that's about 1.3 billion dollars in failed investments and corrupt political payoffs.
Meanwhile, home sales are at a record low, foreclosures are up, gas has doubled in price, meat is up 25%, bacon is up 35%, black unemployment is at a record high, food stamps are at record highs and the country has added 4.5 trillion dollars to our debt. All this under Obama's glorious administration.
That didn't stop Barry & Michelle from taking luxury vacations all over the world and throwing party after party at the White House.
Barry the Gangster's 94 rounds of golf is another kicker. Say with prep time each round of 18 holes takes 5 hours. That's 470 hours playing golf. Using a standard 40 hour work week that equals almost 3 months spent playing golf. With the Secret Service support you can easily estimate $1,500 an hour to come up with $700,000 dollars spent and 3 months wasted so Barry to Buffoon can knock his little white ball around.
This is our President Failure. The most amazing thing is how the liberal-socialist zombies fall all over themselves to lick the feet of this miserable excuse and failure of a President.
The tripe you posted isn't worth commenting on.
It's just a laundry list of recent talking points.
I think I lost the ability to take it seriously and care around the mention of Solyndra.
The reason people support the pipeline (and the idiotic mantra of "drill, baby, drill" is because they are expecting instant results. There is no long term or rational thought in that.
I love how Obama is responsible for thing she has absolutely no control off and/or that happened before he was even president.
What the $#!T?
Seriously stop making $#!T up. If you had an argument you would be able to support it with truth.
You are a childish idiot who doesn't understand the reason behind the trips Obama does. BTW, Obama has had less vacations than Reagan or Bush had by this point in their Presidency.
Who the hell cares?
Clearly your problem with him has little to with his ability to make decsions as President, but in the simple fact that he is your President in the irst place.
Anyone who goes to the extent you have to find fault in another is someone with issues having little to do politics.
Are you now, or were you in aggreement with the "birther" phenomenon that gave psychologists such a thrill due it's almost perfect symbolism of the way some among us deal with a reality they are unable to acknowledge without overturning some presently-held beliefs they hold dear.
For instance you claim the failure of Solyndra or another there means those many millions spent trying to get them up was wasted and lost taxpayers funds simply because the principals weren't able to use it to their own maximum benefit.
But it was never lost, never wasted, and in fact did many people a lot of good simply by having it pass through various hands, pay various bills, buy different products or goods for other people it never would have had it stayed a simple number on a Fed accounting board.
Again, acquiring debt and paying off loans as an economy is nothing like doing the same when your a wage-earning household budget. My point is your pained howls over debt levels is misinformed at best...
However, it also appears the main reason for not approving the project was the 60 day time limit demanding an up or down vote. This was not adequate time to complete environmental studies, especially when you consider the track record of the Keystone I pipeline.
I don't blame them for not rushing to approve a project to allow a foreign firm to benefit from American resources, especially without allowing adequate time to conduct the proper studies and evaluate the larger real land value and environmental costs.
Not only that, but based on statements from the Whitehouse, the parties involved may re-apply and propose this or a similar project again in the near future. They were more or less given an open invitation to try again with a new proposal.
Now we've both learned something today, haven't we?
The study was already done.
Canada-U.S. Oil Pipeline Poses Few Environmental Risks -- State Dept
Energy security, you say. So, you are appalled that we import about half the oil we burn, and you're eager and excited about higher fuel economy standards, an increase in all electric vehicle production, and large government investments in all forms of alternative energy, mmfvl? Because that's the only road to actual energy security.
All oil, no matter where it is drilled or where it is piped is sold as a commodity on the world market. So, no amount of drilling will fix our problem. Only by finding and developing new sources of alternative energy can we end our addiction to petroleum and finally be truly energy independent.
"The environmental impact statement (EIS) on the pipeline -- which would nearly double U.S. imports of Canadian oil sands crude if constructed -- is but "one piece of the information that will be considered" alongside foreign policy, economic and other concerns."
Though I admit that "other" might suit your talking point, there are a whole lot of 'other other' matters you seem keen to ignore.
Yeah, you totally didn't read it.
"That fresh access point for Canadian crude, however, has driven politically volatile debate over whether gas prices in the Midwest -- the current destination of most oil-sands crude -- would rise as a result of Keystone XL"
Right. So the decision was entirely political despite at least this one valid economic issue.
Remember, there is still a silver lining....
First sentence. The EIS was already completed! That's why the State Department ruled as it did. Oh yeah...way back in August...of 2011. The obama administration had been looking for a way to avoid making a decision to shut this project down since then.
So what 'other-other' have I ignored?
Corporate greed!
The trans Alaska pipeline was supposed to be inspected and scanned on a regular basis. BP made a "corporate" decision to suspend the inspections and scanning in order to reduce costs. The pipeline ruptured and the rest is history.
What's to stop the greedy bastards from doing it on this pipeline?
Too bad the piece was published on Dec. 31st and consequently got buried.
Let me add that the Dept. of State environmental impact statement (Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project) does not look at worst case. It considers only (historical) average case. Compare to: "Analysis of Frequency, Magnitude and Consequence of Worst-Case Spills From the Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline", John Stanbury. Click for Stanbury report.
So why should we have it here? Somebody tell me!
It does not reduce our dependence on foreign oil!
The US government and the states involved are compensated for the use of the right of ways.
The GOP is always complaining that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. The used that as an excuse to drill more in the gulf and they are using it to push through this pipeline.
So in addition to being environmentally safe I insist that the oil be used for domestic use rather than to the highest bidder.
If we take the risk we deserve the benefits!
Not so much anymore.
As the divide in America is driven deeper between the informed and the hate-fueled ignorant, the republicans don't seem to care about dependence on foreign oil that much anymore.
Most of that talk was just preamble to fire up the base to support a series of middle eastern wars anyway. Now they have enough animosity and hatred for all things Islamic built up within their base, they don't need to worry about contradicting themselves by talking about reducing dependence on foreign oil.
1) You don't hear republicans talk that much about dependence on foreign oil like they used to.
2) They traditionally used that sort of rhetoric to drive discussions about adventurism and wars in the middle east that would greatly profit the oil industry that more or less owns the republican party.
3) As evidenced by the Iraq war, republicans were able to channel hatred of Islam and Muslims into an atmosphere that allowed such a war to take place.
4) None of the reasons given by the Bush Administration for going into Iraq panned out, but the multinational oil conglomerates have gotten some sweet contracts out of the affair.
there ya' go!
As for the other 3, I'm not sure I want to climb in with you under your tinfoil hat.
Hell the article you posted is not on how any of that would be positive but just Santorum running his mouth on something he very likely knows jack about. What you omitted:
At some point can we just stop pretending?
We all know a second invasion of Iraq was a long time goal of influential American conservatives(PNAC), many of whom held high ranking positions in the Bush administration including the Vice Presidency. This was made plain in documents anyone could download and research. No tinfoil hat needed when people are proudly saying things out in the open.
Most of us are old enough to remember that they used the events of 9/11/2001 to rally support for their Iraq war of choice once the Afghanistan invasion began.
Many of us remember falsified reports, yellowcake hysteria, "curveball", the ever shifting rationales, conflating of the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts, the warning to weapons inspectors to pull out before the imminent air strikes began, the Whitehouse compromising CIA operatives for political reasons, and then the failure to turn up any evidence to support any of the premises used to rile up domestic support in the first place.
They even lied to us about the role of Jessica Lynch, the death of Pat Tillman, and claimed the destruction of the Saddam statue was a spontaneous act of liberated Iraqi citizens.
Now, look at who paid for the war(taxpayers) and who has profited(multi-national oil conglomerates)from the contracts dividing up the Iraqi oil fields. That war was supposed to pay for itself like your little keystone XL II pipeline you want so badly.
Tin foil hat you say!
At least I'm not myopically pretending the years 2002-2008 never existed!
The issue is that it's being promoted by rightwingers on that basis - that it'll help us with our need for oil, as though it's going to put us in some special, preferred position to get that refined oil at a lower cost or some such nonsense.
Somehow, the 'believers' never make the connection that the more oil costs...the more profitable American oil companies are...and maybe its in the interest of ALL oil companies to keep the price as high as possible.
You want to attain energy independence from foreign oil, buy a bike.
Of course its in the interest of oil companies to keep the price as high as possible, possible being the operative word. Thats what we call a free market, market prices determine the distribution of finite resources. Do you think oil companies are any different than lets say Apple, McDonalds, Starbucks, Intel, they all charge as much as possible for their product, oil companies don't have a corner on that market.
If you really want energy independence you have two options, we need a much bigger army or you need to get a physics/engineering degree and invent a mobile fusion reactor that can fit under the hood of a Ford Explorer.
I'm so glad you're here to remind us how America is a country of stagnation, and unsustainable gluttony, and that the American people lack insight and the ability to be innovative because everything is now as it always has been and always will be.
Are you out of your mind? That's our choices? Continue to borrow money and foment endless wars, or live in the dark ages?
This is what you believe in 2012? I'm glad not all Americans have your lack of creativity and faith in our best and brightest!
Please explain how increasing the supply of oil to refineries operating below capacity wouldn't decrease the cost of oil.
Oil is obviously a global commodity, so increasing the global supply should also decrease the global price.
Independent of the long-term benefits, the short-term psyche of the markets would benefit from a pro-energy decision by the administration. Much like the threat to close the shipping lanes off the coast of Iran has caused prices to rise recently.
That part isn't always so well defined. When it does happen and lives, livelihoods and ecosystems are left devastated, those reaping the profits skate away with a wrist slap after years of wearing down the victims with litigation and appeals.
I want, at the very least, an iron-clad provision agreed to by the profit takers that clearly lays out stiff fines, penalties and compensation that cannot be challenged and overturned in the pro-business SCOTUS.
Agreed, there ought to be contractual agreements to manage the long list of liabilities present insucha deal. I have no doubt those caveats were in place.
The oil spill fund is actually $20 billion.
Just about one quarter's profit for the company!
And the damages they created will extend for at least another 20 years.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday gutted punitive damages awarded to victims of the Exxon Valdez spill, devastating West Coast fishermen.
There were fears that after so many years in court the oil behemoth would see its penalty reduced. But the decision ending the legal saga -- slashing the award from $2.5 billion to $500 million -- triggered emotional shock waves.
Conservatives reading this need to give that a moment to sink in...the NEW YORK TIMES, the supposed bastion of UBER LEFTIST SOCIALISM was the MOST BALANCED, in apparently giving CONSERVATIVE XL pipeline proponents only EIGHT PERCENT more FAVORABLE COVERAGE.
I thought they were "IN THE TANK" for OBAMA who OPPOSED the pipeline?
Where is your LIBERAL MAINSTREAM MEDIA now?
My guess is that by 3075 we'd have figured out what to do to live without it.
But you always, without fail, make failed arguments.
How about the oil off of the coast of Brazil that has significant amounts of product that obama pledged 3 billion to help bring to market?
Erlich is still out there just saying his calculations were off, but refusing to account for any future human innovation or resource discovery.
Ouch! Quit beating up that Strawman! Is Erlich the new Saul Alinsky? Is he the new guy that liberals have never heard of and don't agree with, yet somehow support and defend his positions that you assign to us?
Just an aside to your comments about finding those new large deposits: That's really great, because we're going to need them to keep up with the demand from expanding population along with the modernization of many population- dense Asian markets.
Again, I think reality lies somewhere between the apocalyptic and the apathetic.
As far as Erlich, he's all about the econut movement, still active and saying the same nonsense now as he did then.
How about instead of just drilling every well that pops up we start funding and researching alternatives instead? WE SHOULD be supporting renewable, American-made energy sources and not act completely impulsive or keep selling our very precious resources. Just because they find more wells does not mean that we should be tapping them.
Yep, the new right wing strawman to beat up on.
I never heard of him, but then I'm not an "econut". I'm a fairly moderate minded progressive who believes in...*gasp* moderation rather then these extreme positions that get floated around by a conflict and controversy driven corporate media.
- Do I want to stop all use of oil now!!!!
No, of course not, that's silly and impossible.
- Do I believe all civilization will end in the next decade if we don't stop drilling for oil now!!!
No, of course not, there's no evidence to support such drastic conclusions.
- Do I believe that fossil fuels are ultimately a finite resource? Do I believe that as they slowly deplete and overseas markets increase demand, we could see serious problems including resource conflicts, global shortages, and cartels like OPEC instigating politically motivated price gouging?
Yes, and although these are not certainties, these are real possibilities we should be preparing for.
- Do I believe that it makes sense on a personal ethical level and for our long term national security outlook to conserve fossil fuel energy when possible, at the same time creating incentives for the development of alternative energy sources?
Yes...it's common sense.
I really get frustrated when any talk of energy policy with right wing media consumers is stifled and cumbersome because they are too saturated with misinformation and misconceptions about what "mainstream" liberals and progressives believe.
Rest easy, no one is going to insist you grow a beard, wear Birkenstocks, eat granola, hug trees, and live in a cave. We like our I-pods too.
It was refreshing to read a rational post on this website. So, I would really be interested in hearing a rational response from someone who doesn't agree with me on environmental issues. I don't hate the environment, but I really don't hate people. Our government (both parties) has regulated the oil industry and our foreign relations for my entire life - despite the promises from both parties for decades, we have no domestic energy plan in place to replace the coal and oil that we rely on every day. How are we expected to appreciate the argument of protecting the environment by not tapping into oil resources because we need to protect this resource, while arguing that we shouldn't be relying on oil because we're going to replace it? What in the heck are we saving all of this oil for?
For the nth time, DOMESTIC DRILLING DOES NOTHING TO LOWER THE PRICE! Unless we nationalize at least part of the oil industry, our oil is sold back to us. The only regulation preventing drilling right now is the moratorium on off shore drilling, which came up for good reason.
Those are not two parallels. You don't have to be a misanthropist to really care for the environment (if anything the opposite is more true).
Many progressives on both parties have tried for decades (going all the way back to the 70s, even further if you consider atomic energy viable) to start funding and support for the development of alternative energies. But lobbyists and corporate candidates always cripple and belittle any attempt for development. Hell Reagan made a spectacle of destroying the solar panels Carter put on the White House.
The argument comes form the fact that we keep drilling for oil because its cheaper and easier. We are like a junkie who doesn't want to do anything to get off the juice.
Oil is necessary for more than fueling stuff, you know? Look around you and try to find me something that was not made, grown or has a petrol product or derivative.
That same article shows how U.S. oil production has been going up in recent years--even with those "ongoing environmental regulations preventing drilling in the US."
It does get frustrating to keep explaining this stuff over and over and over.
The republicans really really really want to believe there is this cabal of powerful environmentalists led by AL Gore or....somebody....and that if we could just get liberals to stop wanting us to live in caves and hug trees, we could solve all our energy problems by letting these patriotic oil companies drill domestically.
It reads like a tired old bunch of gibberish, and the goal is to stifle honest debate and keep people misinformed.
Hence they remain in self-imposed suspended animation, refusing to even change their own beliefs, refusing to believe a science professor if what he says will undermine their view that God and Creation are true, AGW is an elaborate hoax by scientists whose true purpose in life is to study every detail of something for 10-15 years so they can use their scholarship as a cover for the lies they want to tell conservatives, innocent school-children, and their fellows in the news media who also infiltrated an area where an assumption of objectivity lets them get away with telling lies about conservatives while covering up for liberals, commies, terrorists, homosexuals and anyone else who hates America because they criticise patriotic Muslim-bashers and border watchers like him.
With no professors able to tell them their wrong, and no journalist able to tell them that's the way it did/did not happen, no one is left with any credibility who can tell them they're wrong about blaming Mexicans for stealing their jobs, blacks for the lack of education they have (quota being filled, not SAT-score less than IQ level being why they're not brain surgeons today).
All that is needed to whip them into self-righteous frenzy willing to attack, even kill all those LGBQ types who ruined the sanctity of marriage, and blacks for the preferential treatment they got getting into college, and of course those drug-crazed liberals whose imprisonment and constant surveillance also costs them a lot in taxes too!
Ah yes. Conservatives believing they alone carry the white man's burden, which they humbly do...in spite of tests done to measure how high they would score on measures of self-righteousness in individuals, of which equal numbers of conservative and liberals given it showed cons to be MUCH more self-righteous in attitudes over why they do and believe things. Not surprisingly, most refused to believe the scores were accurate.
So a few years later with another group of students divided into equal numbers of libs and cons were this time asked to simply score themselves 1 to 10 on S-R attitudes. True to form, this time the cons scored the lowest by claiming they weren't S-R at all about most things. Which of course is what you'd expect highly S-R people to feel and say about themselves!
(Loved that one myself!)
Innovation is certain to extend the life of fossil fuels as long as possible. However, unless innovation uncovers a source of di-lithium a lot closer to home than Rigel V, its unlikely we'll be enjoying the benefit of cheap oil energy 75 years from now. Most forms of energy we enjoy today are decades if not centuries old. There have been very few "innovations", only increases in efficiency.
The complete integration of fossil fuels in EVERYTHING we do and consume makes it hard for me to imagine an alternative. Certainly solar, wind, and excrement aren't up to the task yet. But I'm hopeful.
> funding ≠ more ingenuity
≠ = does not equal sign
Maybe you heard of this little institution we have called NASA...I hear they developed a lot of really neat stuff we use and take for granted everyday in pursuit of lofty forward thinking projects.
When did you conservatives decide to just give up on America?
I really don't have a problem with that...it's worked fine in the past, so long as we recognize who is contributing to the overall development of these technologies, and we support those people rather then demonize them as the right wing has taken to do.
You right wingers don't understand how reality works. You've let a bunch of corporatist K-street feeders convince you of an alternate reality where their donors and masters are the great heroes who innovate everything. You trip over each other to bite the hand that feeds you and break the paddle of the guy that's rowing you to shore.
But, let the free market, rather than the force of government bureaucracy, bring the kind of products that are as productive in energy creation as the great sources of energy readily available to us now. Think of all the technological advances we've made just in the last few decades!
Trying to force or demand something that won't work or pay for itself only hurts the economy by high costs and inability to deliver the energy we need now to power economic growth.
Most of the advances we have made in the last few decades have had government involvement in them (when they weren't made for/by the government).
Government ought not subsidize oil, it would bring the true price of gasoline to market. That single action would spur innovation faster than any additional government spending.
Um, poproxx77, have you ever heard of the rural electrification project? Because it was government subsidizing utilities so they could wire rural areas for the transmission and distribution of electricity.
The internal combustion engine might not have been subsidized by the government, but all the roads that cars run on ARE subsidized by the government.
As for government subsidizing oil, not only are we granting oil companies billions of dollars a year directly with taxpayer money, but you also have to consider the cost of the oil wars we have fought in the last 20 years. The true price of gasoline, if it is ever visited upon the American consumer, will cause more and quicker innovation than almost anything I can think of, so that part I agree with you on.
That being said, petroleum is a dead technology, and the government should not be funding it in any way. Rather, that money would be far better spent on R&D into bringing alternative energies to the market. R&D, when looked at broadly, has ALWAYS paid dividends.
Roads are a public service, not a subsidy. Again they have more than paid for themselves.
How is petroleum a dead technology?
For one thing, the technology is about 200 years old. We are not still using whale oil lamps to light our homes, are we? We are not still using quill pens to write with, are we? We are not still riding around in horse and buggies are we?
So, the first reason it's dead is because it's old.
The second reason its dead is because there is a finite supply of recoverable petroleum in the world. When this runs out, there is no easy replacement for it. So, knowing that it only has a limited quantity, it's dead from the standpoint that it's a dead end. Once the oil is gone we are basically S.O.L.
The third reason it's a dead technology has to do with the Carnot cycle. It's very well to remember that even the most advanced and efficient internal combustion engine in the world will never achieve more than 35% efficiency.
So, it's an amazingly old and inefficient technology that uses unrenewable resources. I'd say that's about as dead as the 8-track.
Somebody, sometime, somewhere, MUST start planning for a world without petroleum. That is simply the future that will happen, whether we want it to or not. If we plan ahead, and discard any and all aid to petroleum (and coal, and natural gas) we might get lucky and only have 5-10 years of struggle while we adapt to new lifestyles. If we wait until the oil is almost gone before figuring out how to live without it, we may cease to exist as a nation.
Last, I said nothing about the discovery of electricity. My point was that it took government investment to make that electricity available to everyone in the country. Left to its own devices, the private utilities would likely not yet have gotten around to wiring up rural areas: Too much up front cost with not enough return on investment. Same thing is happening with cable and internet, by the way. So, yes, sometimes government intervention is necessary, reasonable, and laudable.
Got to love liberal logic how does tax breaks for oil exploration equal direct money from the taxpayer?
There are tax breaks for oil companies, reduced royalty fees for oil companies, and direct taxpayer funded R&D for oil companies.
With oil companies setting record profits every year for the last 20 years or so, why again do they need ANY of this money?
And, tax breaks given to the oil companies must be paid for by raising taxes in other areas, or by deficit spending. In either case, the oil companies are not paying taxes on record profits. They need to start.
That's great, but what about nuclear energy, plastics, polio vaccines, radar, and freeze dried foods?
There are some things I don't want the government doing, and there some things I don't want private industry put in charge of. That's reasonable, isn't it? Besides, the idea that private industry can do everything cheaper and better is proving to be largely false, almost the opposite is proving to be true.
The opposite is proving true??? Really??? There may be some cases where that is the case, but only because they can borrow, print, and inflate the true costs into hiding.
As with most issues, the most extreme opposing positions are not where the majority of Americans actually stand, despite what the corporate media says in order to create controversy and distraction.
Jesus will make more because:
"Blessed are those who pollute and fracture God's creation in the pursuit of gluttonous wealth that leaves war and impoverished cruelty in it's wake."
Right?
But, after being bombarded with what was apparently one-sided coverage, I ultimately came away with what was a surprisingly well balanced knowledge base. I had heard or read every single one of the "opposed" opinions - the inflated jobs estimates, the temporary nature of jobs, the environmental concerns, the spills, etc. There wasn't anything in the MMFA article that was new to me. So, even though the word count or mentions might not be balanced, a balanced message seems to be getting out.
In interviews and the last debate Newt claimed that he wasn't forced out of his position as Speaker. That's a flat out lie but no one in the "librul media" even batted an eye much less called him on it. His ethical violations weren't an opinion or a political attack. They are a absolute fact. But? The media, with their false equivalency game, have reduced all things to personal arguments with no regard for absolute facts. And that's a big reason why so many people in this country wouldn't recognize a absolute fact if it burrowed into their brains and laid eggs.
Hmmm... minimal impact on permanent job numbers and only for a few years versus chemical, hazardous waste and energy pollution from the refineries for decades, not to mention most of the oil will be sold overseas.
Thank you MMFA for once again showing the corporate controlled media doing what they do best.
ALL oil is sold on a WORLD commodity exchange.
If we pump it here, it goes to the world market and is sold to the highest bidder. The quantity of oil promised by the KXL pipeline won't move the price of a gallon of gas a single penny.
It's like tossing pebbles in the ocean and waiting for the water to rise. Except the environmental impact potential won't be pebbles but a billion dollar disaster left to the US government to clean up.
Randy
Currently, since the oil is landlocked the US gets a discount due to oversuppply in the Midwest at times.
Once the extension to the Gulf is in place they have committments for 910,000 barrels a day from Latin America and Europe.
They have 6 big companies ready to refine and export their product from the Gulf (Port Arthur) They all make a fortune, TRANSCANADA makes a fortune. We get some temporary jobs and a huge environmental risk. We don't even get any tax revenue from the exporters.....What a deal!
Don't here that on FUX news, do we?
Now this is an article straight out of the OLD MMFA.
Great article.
John