As soon as the news broke, I texted the friend mentioned below. "Delay = victory?"
His response? Nope, just politicking. But I think it's a victory on the call-to-action I give below. More time means opportunity for the real people who will be affected by this process to take control of it.
A friend of mine went to a protest against the Keystone XL project this week in Washington, D.C. He also went to Occupy Wall Street - you know, the real one, actually on Wall Street.
I got into an extensive text message exchange with him last night but after about an hour, I realized even I was unfairly lumping the two groups together. And I had the great sinking feeling of "goodness, I don't actually know what I'm talking about." I felt silly, but that got me thinking - why don't I know more about this?
Our debate was effectively about the efficacy - or lack thereof - of the Keystone XL protest.
The human chain formed around the White House was, as my friend confirmed, an emotional appeal to the president to deny TransCanada's application for a building permit by executive order. It was organized, had leadership and clear goals. It was, in short, a highly successful protest. And it will likely do nothing.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
If "tar sands" sounds dirty, that's because it is. Anti-Keystone XL bloggers cite 14 spillsthroughout the existing pipeline since June 2010. The extension project would go through the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides the drinking water for more than 2 million people in the midwest. Just today, NPR ran a story on Nebraskans and their opposition to the project.
The truth is, I don't know where I stand in this debate. Both sides make very valid points - the risks of great environmental harm with little payoff on one side, job-creation and a lowering of foreign dependence on oil on the other.
What I do know, with great frustration, is that it's not actually a true debate here in Kansas. We simply aren't talking about it and we should be. The final approval will come from executive order, but the Nebraskan senators show this is a state-by-state issue, with influence to sway a no vote, should that be what state citizens want, lies really only with these state politicians. But with the exception of a few protests in the capitol in September, the conversation just doesn't seem to be happening here in Kansas. Perhaps I'm blind to it, being as I am in the "bubble" of Northeast Kansas, so unlike the great majority of the state. But as our national and hyperlocal discussion continues to include so many references to #occupy whatever, the truly local - the state-level issues, whatever they may be - need to take precedence.
As shown in the video above, opposition to the project here seems extremely unlikely. Gov. Sam Brownback is a supporter, and Reuters reported in February that Wichita-based Koch Industries stands to be a huge financial winner. Arguments against may be increasing, but it's unlikely they'll ever compete.
Regardless of your stance, though, mine remains this: All sides deserve for this to be an issue all Kansans understand and openly and frequently discuss.
Why aren't we talking about Keystone? We should be. That we aren't is a real disgrace.
A friend of mine went to a protest against the Keystone XL project this week in Washington, D.C. He also went to Occupy Wall Street - you know, the real one, actually on Wall Street.
I got into an extensive text message exchange with him last night but after about an hour, I realized even I was unfairly lumping the two groups together. And I had the great sinking feeling of "goodness, I don't actually know what I'm talking about." I felt silly, but that got me thinking - why don't I know more about this?
Our debate was effectively about the efficacy - or lack thereof - of the Keystone XL protest.
The human chain formed around the White House was, as my friend confirmed, an emotional appeal to the president to deny TransCanada's application for a building permit by executive order. It was organized, had leadership and clear goals. It was, in short, a highly successful protest. And it will likely do nothing.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
TransCanada, the oil/logistics powerhouse that owns the pipeline, has a great explanatory, interactive map on its site. The pipeline already goes through Kansas, carrying tar sands oil to the refining Gulf ports of the south. A proposal to extend and enlarge the pipeline - the "XL" of discussion - has been up for review for more than a year at the Department of State, which has the final say to approve or not because of it crosses an international border.
If "tar sands" sounds dirty, that's because it is. Anti-Keystone XL bloggers cite 14 spillsthroughout the existing pipeline since June 2010. The extension project would go through the Ogallala Aquifer, which provides the drinking water for more than 2 million people in the midwest. Just today, NPR ran a story on Nebraskans and their opposition to the project.
The truth is, I don't know where I stand in this debate. Both sides make very valid points - the risks of great environmental harm with little payoff on one side, job-creation and a lowering of foreign dependence on oil on the other.
What I do know, with great frustration, is that it's not actually a true debate here in Kansas. We simply aren't talking about it and we should be. The final approval will come from executive order, but the Nebraskan senators show this is a state-by-state issue, with influence to sway a no vote, should that be what state citizens want, lies really only with these state politicians. But with the exception of a few protests in the capitol in September, the conversation just doesn't seem to be happening here in Kansas. Perhaps I'm blind to it, being as I am in the "bubble" of Northeast Kansas, so unlike the great majority of the state. But as our national and hyperlocal discussion continues to include so many references to #occupy whatever, the truly local - the state-level issues, whatever they may be - need to take precedence.
As shown in the video above, opposition to the project here seems extremely unlikely. Gov. Sam Brownback is a supporter, and Reuters reported in February that Wichita-based Koch Industries stands to be a huge financial winner. Arguments against may be increasing, but it's unlikely they'll ever compete.
Regardless of your stance, though, mine remains this: All sides deserve for this to be an issue all Kansans understand and openly and frequently discuss.
Why aren't we talking about Keystone? We should be. That we aren't is a real disgrace.
I've been following this story a little bit and the interesting part to me is how it is pitting parts of liberal coalition against one another: unions in favor of the pipeline and environmentalists against it (and some foreign policy liberals supporting the decreased dependence on foreign oil part). It also seems like a similar split is erupting on the Republican side, with farmers and private-property/anti-domain/libertarians on one side and big business Republicans on the other. However, it seems like business Republicans hold more sway in their party and its not as big a divide as it is for Liberals.
ReplyDelete