The following is the opinion of the writer of this piece and not necessarily of Rise News.
The Keystone XL Pipeline is a divisive issue in American politics. Typically, Republicans favor it, stressing its economic benefits:
“This decision isn’t surprising, but it is sickening. By rejecting this pipeline, the president is rejecting tens of thousands of good-paying jobs.” – House Speaker Paul Ryan
While Democrats mostly oppose it, with an intense focus on its environmental impact:
“Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires a finding that doing so would be in our nation’s interest. And our national interest will be served only if this project does not significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.” – President Barack Obama
Given how difficult it has become for both sides to agree on anything, let’s just start out with some indisputable facts.
- The Athabasca oil sands in Alberta, Canada have a substantial amount of oil
- Around 48 companies have a stake in the oil sands, the majority of them not American-based
- A pipeline is one of a few different ways to transport oil
The Keystone XL Pipeline is commonly depicted by American politicians as the single determinant in whether this dirty oil is going to be extracted from the ground, but that is a narrow minded take on a large-scale problem.
Whether or not America decides to build one pipeline will not stop Canadian businesses and state and local governments from exploiting the economic windfall of this massive supply of energy. With no major pipeline to move this oil to one of its most logical destinations, many of these businesses have turned to a myriad of options.
America’s railroads have become a much more popular method to distribute their cargo, with western transportation spiking in this last quarter after President Obama vetoed the Keystone Pipeline.
“The environmental impact is negative either way, but when pipelines burst, they usually don’t present the immediate danger to life and property that derailed oil trains do.”
Transporting oil in a sealed compartment while speeding along metal rails is a much more dangerous option than pushing it through a pipeline.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration even says that “pipelines are currently still the safest means of transporting hazardous liquids and natural gas.”
If a train becomes derailed, multiple massive explosions are a possibility, as evidenced by the 2013 tragedy in Quebec that claimed 47 lives, the deadliest in the history of oil by rail.
WATCH: 2013 BBC report on the Quebec oil train tragedy
According to federal data, more oil was spilled from trains in 2013 than in the previous four decades combined. By creating a political football out of one project, we have avoided talking about the real consequences of action or inaction.
Inaction has led to a situation where oil that is especially combustible is being moved through cities and along rivers, and the problem is accelerating.
Nine railroad incidents spilled 4,900 gallons of oil throughout 2010; in 2014, 143 episodes released 57,600 gallons.
Even in the face of mounting calamities, the oil industry is dragging its feet on implementing new rail safety rules.
Granted, the rate of rail accidents has been declining since 2005, but the amount of oil being moved in the last five years isn’t even comparable to the ones preceding them. The issue has evolved into uncharted territory for the current model.
The Alberta tar sands oil industry is preparing to triple production by 2030. They are under immense pressure to find various methods to export this oil, especially since labor and materials have become more expensive.
Vetoing the creation of a pipeline into America will not keep this oil in the ground. There is plenty of demand for oil here, and any time we have the opportunity to lessen our dependence on Middle Eastern despots in order to become closer to our northern ally, we should take it.
Yes, a pipeline will have negative effects on the environment, but that oil is coming out regardless – the market has spoken. If we don’t buy it, someone else will. Saying no to a pipeline just means that more of this oil will be transported to the United States by alternative methods like rail, and there will continue to be tragedies that cost innocent lives.
The environmental impact is negative either way, but when pipelines burst, they usually don’t present the immediate danger to life and property that derailed oil trains do.
The United States should build a pipeline to the Canadian tar sands in order to alleviate the stress that is being placed on our railroads, and use the tax windfall to invest in an energy future where we don’t have to choose between a handful of lousy options.
Cover Photo Credit: Greg Gjerdingen/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Here’s The Ugly Truth About Conservative Talk Radio
This article was originally published on agconservative.wordpress.com and is republished below with permission from the author.
When I first got on Twitter, I was a big fan of conservative Talk Radio. I knew several people who became huge advocates for conservatism only after listening to Rush Limbaugh.
I doubt there were many converts from Hannity or Levin (despite L & T being one of my favorite books), but I assumed it was always a good thing to have people with large audiences promoting conservatism.
However, over time, I started to notice a theme: These hosts were often more dedicated to promoting outrage than conservatism.
Sometimes the outrage was justified and helped bring about necessary action, but it was the other times that started to bother me. Most importantly, it seemed the more victories conservatives won, the more these hosts preached despair.
The Republican Party was adopting conservatism to a greater extent than ever before, but these hosts constantly tried to make it seem like things were worse than ever.
Most importantly, they would create the impression that we were always losing by latching on to misinformation and spin.
I would see the same pattern play out constantly. Random blogger misinterprets something or reports a rumor that makes R’s look bad, radio hosts seizes on it and promotes it as proof of Republican betrayal, rumor turns our false or exaggerated, host moves on to the next cycle.
Even the liberal media, which these hosts would often attack as dishonest, would issue corrections, but these hosts seemed to have no interest in the truth.
At this point, I still believed these shows were a net positive, but I also recognized that these hosts were making millions from stoking unnecessary outrage.
This is when I personally gave up listening. These hosts were abusing the trust their audiences placed in them and treating their audience like they are dumb.
Before I go on, let me give a few examples of this phenomenon:
1) After the Boston bombing, Glenn Beck spent months accusing an innocent Saudi kid of being responsible and the Obama admin of covering it up. He based this on an early report about the kid being at the scene.
Every time Beck would provide some new bombshell piece of evidence to prove his theory, I would debunk it with some basic research.
However, every time I would post such a debunking, Beck fans would viciously attack me for questioning him. They weren’t interested in the truth.
As far as I know, Beck never apologized for this accusations. He simply moved on to the next story.
2) One example relevant to today is the “Gang of Eight” immigration bill. I wanted immigration reform, but was wary about this bill given what had happened under Reagan.
I ended up being one of the few people who actually read the whole bill, which made it easy to recognize when someone was saying something false.
There was a period of several months where on almost a daily basis some blogger would misinterpret something or some rumor would come out about the bill, Drudge would promote it, talk radio would seize on it and tell their audience to get outraged, it would be debunked in the days that followed, talk radio would move on to the next controversy without correcting, and their listeners would repeat the debunked rumor for months.
I found this particularly frustrating because there were plenty of real issues with the bill. I ended up opposing it, even though it wasn’t nearly as bad as it is currently perceived among most conservatives. It probably was the best we could have done with a Dem Senate and a Dem President, but I figured we would be better off waiting for a Republican to be in the WH.
There are hundreds more examples of this pattern. It has become fairly common. I still see it all the time. Breitbart, for example, has several reporters that consistently and purposefully print false things about Marco Rubio. Talk radio spreads them without even attempting to confirm.
It bothers me to see fellow conservatives who rely on and trust these sources being deceived in this way.
I was silent about all this, but these last 4-6 months were the final line for me and many other informed conservatives.
Talk radio actively started defending and advocating for someone that is the antithesis of everything conservatism stands for, Donald Trump.
It was one thing for these hosts to hinder conservative wins by saying they weren’t good enough, but now they were promoting the exact opposite of conservatism.
Trump is a con man. His con is aimed at a lot of different group, but the only way he could win conservatives is with assistance from people conservatives actually trust. These hosts chose to give it.
The two biggest issues for conservatives over the last few years were healthcare and the debt.
While these hosts attacked Republicans for not being aggressive enough on fighting Obamacare, they stay silent as Trump promotes single-payer.
While these hosts attacked Republicans for not fighting hard enough to limit Obama’s deficit spending, they stay silent as Trump opposes and demagogues entitlement reform.
These hosts were willing to completely abandon conservatism, and dragged their audiences with them. For me, that was the final straw.
I was silent about their previous dishonesty, but I won’t be as they make a mockery out of the beliefs they claim to represent.
It may not matter what I think, but conservatives shouldn’t be prone to group think. They shouldn’t define conservatism by what Rush, Levin, or Hannity say. Especially when those hosts keep saying things that are dishonest.
It’s time people who care about conservatism actually took a stand against the frauds in our midst. I know I am doing my part, and I hope you will too.
Read the original post on agconservative.wordpress.com
Cover Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
North Carolina Is On The Road To Theocracy
By Ziyi Mai
Since the embarrassing “bathroom bill”(House Bill 2), the state of North Carolina once again has received national attention as the dominating Republicans in the General Assembly called a special legislative session in December introducing bills that could significantly strip executive power from the incoming Democratic governor.
According to The New York Times, Republicans that dominate both chambers of the legislature hastily convened a special session passing bills that require State Senate confirmation of cabinet appointments; sharply cut the number of employees who report to the governor from 1,500 to 300; and shifting the appointing power of the Board of Elections from the governor to the legislature, aiming to keep Republicans in power even if they have lost the gubernatorial race.
Politics in North Carolina has degenerated into a trend of purer partisan battle than serving the public as the end goal.
As Karen L. Cox pointed out in a New York Times op-ed, politics in the state wasn’t always a fierce partisan war.
It used to have civility in both side of the ales and the two parties cooperated toward the same goal for the good of the public.
The rotunda in the North Carolina state capital in Raleigh. Photo Credit: Jim Bowen/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
The Old North State has been dubbed as the leading progressive force in the south, which is a blessing given the racial history in the south.
Slow but steady pace of progressive policies have been interrupted since 2010, when Republicans took control of the legislature, and two years later, the governorship.
It is not uncommon in a state that power shifts between parties from time to time.
But the performance of the NC Republicans from the past several years has clearly shown that they tried to move away from a secular government and establish rules of ideology and even religion.
The cumulative effect of all these changes is that our state is moving to a direction of theocracy.
The ideals of Republicans, to a large extent, are more driven by briefs rather than empirics that reflect the reality of the conflicts and problems in a society.
There’s no doubt that some of the ideals are beneficial to the society, such pro-business economic policy and limited the size of government.
Yet these policies are inevitably distorted when it comes to implementation. In social issues, the NC Republicans propose bills that are grounded on Christian beliefs in the name of protecting North Carolinians from liberal influence.
This is the reason that the NCGA has consistently passed eerie laws on which Americans out of the state might not get a clue.
Contrary to what liberals despise, many Christian principles are essentially good moral standards for a civil society, and the foundation of liberty to some extent.
Yet, these principles only work conditioned on individual believers. Christians usually wholeheartedly follow those principles without mandates.
However, any religious principles, no matter how good they are, would become tyrannical once a government implements them and require all citizens to follow.
From this standpoint, it is not difficult to understand why Republicans have a prolong resistance to issues such as gay marriage, abortion and gender equality.
The Republican government in North Carolina has already spent tremendous money and time in defending its effort changing the geopolitical environment and the state’s institutions.
In November, 2016, a three-judge panel of the District Court of North Carolina ruled that the Republican-drawn legislative map were unconstitutional, citing that it is racial gerrymanders that purposefully separated African-American and Hispanic voters into a few districts.
This is one of many examples that the state has been facing legal challenges from civil group and federal government as a result of its peculiar legislature serving not the public interest but the party’s.
The latest move of stripping the incoming governor’s power is the continuation of this direction, that NC Republicans are desperate to exert its religious influence on all North Carolinians.
Conservatives always scoff at liberals so called “overreaction” on such matters.
David French of National Review wrote “… bipartisan election boards and senate approval for gubernatorial appointments are hardly the stuff of which tyrannies are built. ”
It is true that these measures aren’t.
But the due process of making these changes should be questioned.
According to the state Constitution and the general principle of check and balances, the executive and legislature are both branches of state government in which their weight of power should be equal and separate.
Any rearrangement of power between branches is a matter of constitutionality and should proceed with the change of the state constitution.
If the legislation has become all-powerful to strip rights from the executive and the judiciary as lawmakers wish, a state would become a collective tyranny. And this is exactly the situation that the founding fathers want to avoid.
Putting bigotry pieces of legislation such as HB2 should be worrisome, but what is even more troubling is the damage that NC Republicans have done to our state’s democratic institutions that ensure stability and serve the public’s interest regardless of rule from either party.
Unfortunately, the deterioration of these institutions seems unstoppable as the NC Republicans continue to undermine all branches of the state government and the Board of Elections.
Ziyi Mai is a Teaching Assistant at North Carolina State University and a Young Leader columnist.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
Cover Photo Credit: Gerry Dincher/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)
What Do You Think?
-
Why Do We See Pop Culture As A Barometer For How The Country Is Doing?
Watching the Academy Awards a few weeks ago was a bit of a stressful experience.
I was obviously stressed about whether or not Emma Stone would finally win an Oscar, but the stakes were bigger than that.
From the very beginning of this awards season, the conversation was clouded by last year’s Oscar’s So White controversy, where the show’s 88th run was criticized for a lack of diversity among its nominees.
This year’s ceremony was definitely a test of the relevance and awareness of the Academy, but it represented something more.
The entire country watched this year’s Academy Awards with bated breath, with a sense the results of the ceremony said more about themselves than the actors.
Collectively, we tend to use pop culture as a barometer for how we’re doing as a country; is that really fair to either?
For the few (brief) moments La La Land was 2016’s Best Picture, I could almost see the furious typing of Buzzfeed opinion columnists, writing the think piece of the year about what La La Land’s defeat of Moonlight meant about race in America.
They appeared within minutes when Adele’s 25 beat Beyonce’s Lemonade for Album of the Year a few weeks earlier at another high-profile awards show.
It’s not an unfair criticism to make, it might even be a necessary one.
Commentary and discourse about the results of the biggest acknowledgement of excellence within the entertainment industry is what keeps it moving forward.
The problem occurs when we take it a step too far.
An interesting phenomenon has popped up in the discourse about Hollywood’s diversity: the application of that discussion for a wider purpose in the political sphere.
There looms a need to connect entertainment stories to more “important” stories, such as ones related to the political climate.
Everything that happens in the world of entertainment is played off to represent something bigger.
A perfect example of this was the inaccurate announcing of La La Land as Best Picture.
The unfortunate mistake saw Moonlight literally taking the most coveted award in the movie industry from La La Land’s hands.
The conflict between those two movies lasted all throughout awards season, and many saw it as a direct reflection of the political polarization taking place in America.
The trend of the underdog win has not gone unnoticed in the last several months, either.
From Donald Trump unexpectedly winning on election night to the Patriots’ fourth quarter comeback in the Super Bowl, many saw Moonlight as a reiteration of that same trend.
It provides an easy answer, and, in Moonlight’s case, it’s exactly the answer we want.
In a time of unprecedented political polarization, it feels good to think we can all be as accepting as Moonlight.
The reality is not that easy.
Pop culture isn’t really a direct reflection of our political climate.
In fact, it’s often the opposite.
One of the biggest reasons La La Land was so dominant this awards season was because of its sense of escapism – it was refreshing to see something so not important.
It wasn’t trying to reflect our current political climate, it wasn’t trying to teach the audience a lesson.
It was simply telling a story, which is what all pop culture really goes back to.
The age of Trump has turned everything on its head, however.
La La Land didn’t win Best Picture.
Moonlight did, and that’s whatever the opposite of what escapism is.
That detail may be indicative that people are looking for a more relevant pop culture.
Still, that doesn’t change the fact that it’s nothing more than wishful thinking.
Here’s what it comes down to: both entertainment and politics are a reflection of who we are.
Both take the struggles of real people and harness those emotions on a national stage.
There’s a fundamental difference between the two, however.
Politics is a direct reflection of who we are; politicians are elected by the people, after all.
On the other hand, entertainment is often a reflection of who we want to be.
The stories that are told, from Moonlight to La La Land and Lemonade to 25 represent where we want to be going, not necessarily where we are.
Using pop culture as a barometer is only somewhat effective.
Moonlight’s win at the Academy Awards does not mean racism in America is over, in fact it doesn’t even mean racism in Hollywood is over.
The Pop Culture Barometer as a construct is an oversimplification.
Hollywood’s failures are not America’s failures, their successes are not our successes, and vice versa.
Pop culture is a representation of everything we want to be, and it’s often a reflection of the very best of ourselves.
Using it to try to explain things like political polarization is where the comparison fails.
At the end of the day, understanding where we want to go is crucial to understanding ourselves, but it doesn’t do anything to describe where we are now.
So while it’s great to know we all want to be Emma Stone, it’s important to realize we’re not quite there yet.
RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.
This is an opinion piece. It is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of RISE NEWS.
Cover Photo Credit: La La Land/ Facebook
What Do You Think?