The Keystone XL Pipeline Expansion: Not going as smoothly as Keith Stone

In my last post, I discussed the struggle of deciding whether or not expansion of the Alberta Oil Sands (economic benefits v. environmental impacts) is a good idea or not. For that reason, I will not go into too much detail in this post about that topic. I will, instead, discuss a major issue in regards to that topic on this side of the border. The major argument about Canadian oil here America is in regards to the construction of the Keystone Pipeline XL expansion.

What is the Keystone Pipeline?

The Keystone Pipeline has been operating for around two years now and has moved countless barrels of crude oil from Alberta, Canada to refineries in the United States, most predominantly of which are in Illinois and Oklahoma. Even before the original pipeline was finished, propositions for expansion had already begun. This would add pipeline and more refineries in Montana and Texas. Though many different government organizations approved the project, the EPA and other environmental groups said that there needed to be more research done on the environmental impacts before construction could begin. From there, like with anything else in American politics, polarization began.

And so it begins…..

In late 2011, the Republicans in Congress began to demand that President Obama have a decision on the pipeline in 60 days. Almost entirely for that reason, he rejected the proposition. In an Fox Business Article written in January of 2012, they mention that part of Obama’s statement read “The rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment." As the argument over the pipeline continued, so did the attacks on the President for his decision. In a May 2012Fox New Article, journalist Grover Norquist pushes for Congress to bypass the President and approve the pipeline saying that Obama rejected to proposition to “Attempting to appease his insatiable base during this election cycle” while the Republicans in Congress are simply “Eager to approve the pipeline and enjoy the thousands of jobs, millions of barrels of crude oil, and billions in economic activity that are tethered to the project.” Clearly, he has a pretty strong opinion on the matter.

So what do we do?

In the last few months, Obama has “embraced the southern leg of the project,” to get oil to the Gulf, but it seems the controversy about the Keystone XL will continue for some time. Personally, I can see both sides of this argument. Times are still tough, and this pipeline will create jobs and help America feed some of their appetite for oil. But the reality is that we need to understand the environmental impacts of what we do before we undertake a project of this magnitude. While I understand that thorough investigation may take longer than some people would like, and theres always the fear of political bias when such things are done, we have to do something before we build anything this massive, let alone a pipeline for oil.

Economy vs. Environment: The Neverending Battle

In the constant debate over the use of the Alberta Tar Sands, the debate seems to simply come down to once overwhelming pro and one overwhelming con. The pro is that it’s good for both the U.S. and Canada’s economies, and the con is that it has the potential to devastate the environment in this region of the continent. In the report “The Alberta Oil Sands From BothSides of the Border”by Martin Pasqualetti, the benefits and problems with the projected expansion of oil production in the northeastern region of the country. Throughout the reading, I appreciate the fact that author doesn’t come out and take a stand on this touchy issue. Instead, he simply asks the questions and presents evidence for both sides. “Deciding on the proper role and contribution of the Alberta oil sands requires judging the economic benefits against its environmental costs. Will gaining the fruits of oil-sands development be later considered a devil’s bargain? More broadly, must the mere existence of this massive and enticing natural resource necessarily prompt its development?”

In the beginning, he discusses how it could be mutually beneficial to both countries. Simply put, Canada has more oil than they use, the U.S. is willing to buy it. Given the fact that Canada’s close proximity to the U.S. would cut down on transportation costs and the similar governments and cultures all but eliminate the possibility of political conflict, getting as much of our oil as reasonably possible from Canada seems like a good idea to many Americans and perhaps many in the Canadian government. However, once the environmental impacts are weighed, the question becomes much more difficult, the environment in Northern Canada is very fragile and has the potential to be thrown off on a devastating scale by the expansion of Oil Sand production. This could have a massive impact on the native wildlife, water supply, and native populations. With this negative impact comes potential high costs to the Canadian Government to fix the problems caused. Once this is taken into account, it certainly begs the question about whether or not the money made from the U.S. is worth the money that may need to be spent.

Another point worth looking at and mentioned throughout this debate is the idea that this expansion of oil production in Canada will be something of a “crutch” for both countries. As said by the “Global Edmonton” website, “Reserves are limited. In total, global reserves sit at around 1.3 trillion barrels, equivalent to about 40 years of reserves at current consumption rates.” To me, this seems like a quick fix, and one that could hinder the U.S.’s motivation to find other energy sources. The fact is we’re going to run out of oil at some point, and progress has to be made in way of other reliable sources. If we continue to scrap for oil anywhere we can, it feels like its nothing more than a Band-Aid on a bigger inevitable problem

.

Show you my papers? But I'm White!

In one of the readings for this week, the idea of bringing laws similar Arizona’s controversial immigrant laws into Ohio is discussed. The legal battle against illegals is now going on very close to my home town of Mason, OH. Like anything else, the advocates have their support in opposition. Those on the supporting side believe that this is necessary to combatting the influx of illegals into this area, while those in the other side believe morally wrong and racist law. While logical points are made on both sides to an extent, in the end I couldn’t find myself believing that this was a good law for Ohio. Upon looking at the facts objectively, I realized two major things that I believe make this law illogical. Also, I consider a, though maybe not ideal, perhaps useable compromise.

We’re Not Arizona

One major reason I feel States Rights exist is because two states in two entirely different regions of the country do not stand to benefit from the same type of laws in all situations. In Arizona, constant influxes of people just across the border, gang violence from immigrant gangs, and fights with the drug cartels are a daily reality of life. While I don’t agree with their new policies, I do understand that in an environment like that more drastic measures do need to be taken. In Ohio, these provisions come more from the fact that we’ve simply had an influx of Mexican Immigrants and there is speculation that they are taking jobs away from Ohioans who want them (speculation that I haven’t really seen any statistics to back up). While that’s still a problem that may need to be addressed, its hard for me to believe that in a comparatively mild situation like Ohio’s that new laws like Arizona’s wouldn’t do more harm than good.

The Race Question

I ask a very simple question about these new laws, one nobody can seem to answer. How DOES one present reasonable suspicion of being illegal if you aren’t racially profiling? Obviously, racial and ethnic profiling violates federal laws, but no one seems to be able to explain to me how officers get around that and form suspicion. Honestly, I feel like they don’t. I feel like if such laws were enacted they’d come up with some kind of an official vale for it, and then do just that. For that reason, one major revision I feel needs to be made.

The Solution

I realize it would cause problems all its own, but I feel the only way to be able to make this work effectively without profiling is to simply only check arrested persons and check everyone who is arrested. If every person who is arrested is checked, then you can still figure out who is illegal without having to use prejudice to do so. I realize this would take resources and cause some frustration logistically, but I feel it’s the only fair way. 

Greg Letiecq: Just a Small Town McCarthy

Upon watching the documentary "9500 Liberty" yesterday, I found myself fascinated with some of the Organizations and people discussed at length in the documentary. I became particularly fascinated with a man by the named of Greg Letiecq. His presence throughout the entire documentary, perhaps more than any other person in Prince William Country Virginia, kind of confused me. Early on, while I didn’t necessarily agree with his views, he seemed a far cry from a crazy person. He talked about how, though we need to deport illegals, we must do so with love and care. Quickly, things made a turn for the worst. He began discussing how a gang of violent Anarchists from Southern Mexico called the Zapatistas were invading the town. My professor, who is extremely educated in the Latin American studies, informed us that this group is very isolated to their region of Mexico and that any claim that they’re here is completely unfounded. Soon, they began showing the things said on his blog, his posts struck me as the paranoid ramblings of a mad man, and the comments…. Well, lets just say “racist filth” is an understatement.

What really blew me away about this guy was that, as insane as the things on his blog sounded, he was aligning himself with local politicians and appeared to have a great deal of influence in his community. I found him to be such a curious character that I figured it was time to some research. What I discovered amazed me. First off, the things this man says in his region of Virginia has made him enemies on a National level. The legendary anti-hate organization Southern Poverty Law Center has an entire profile on him (calling him a “Nativist”) and he has been openly criticized in several blogs and even in the nationally read Washington Post. In the article, written in 2007 even before the height of Mr. Letiecq’s popularity, begins by discussing some of his claims such as “Illegal immigrant ice cream vendors might be spreading leprosy in Manassas” and “Prince William County has been infiltrated by ‘unassimilated marxist radicals.” Upon doing my own reading of his blog, Black Velvet Bruce Li, I found his messages to be just as unfounded when discussing everything from the prison sentencing of illegals to his constant baseless accusations of, what a shock, "Marxism" against President Barack Obama.

Honestly, I don’t know whether or not Mr. Letiecq believes everything he says (I mean, calling another human being an “open air toilet” is pretty harsh by any decent human’s standards) and honestly that’s not the point. I believe that he is taking subjects that are already touchy and adding fuel to the fire by capitalizing on the fears of his fellow community members. He is leading witch hunts and fabricating everything he can at every turn. The worst part is, he is enabled by average people. Which makes me think, could another Greg Letiecq pop up anywhere? Including my back yard?

Idealism in a time of Realism

Anyone who’s ever been trying to pick a place to eat when they’re out knows how irritating it is when you have a person in your group that says “no” to every place you suggest, yet doesn’t seem to have any suggestions of their own. In many ways, the debate over immigration in towns like Farmingville, NY is reminiscent of this frustrating situation. Over the last several years, this small town outside New York City has been a point of much controversy around the issue of immigration. A large influx of undocumented immigrants into the town upset many people and the Sanchum Quality of Life Organization was created to combat the problem. What really happened was a slew of constant angry and polarizing protests, a rigid ideological division within the town, and out of it all an environment was created that got so out of control is resulted in violent attacks on the immigrants and even the deaths of two young men.

Eventually, local politicians and other human rights groups pushed to diffuse the problem by offering up the idea of a hiring cite. Instead of standing around in the streets of the community (something the SQO said was a major concern for their children’s safety) they would be required by law to all gather in one assigned place in town if they wanted to look for work. This made those who opposed the immigration to Farmingville furious and they went after the proposition in full force because they believed it did nothing more than encourage immigration to their area. It was struck down.

The fact is, I can understand people’s fear and frustration to an extent. A huge group of people show up in your town, they loiter on your street corners, and no one knows who they are or where they’ve been. Sure, that could be a little scary, I get that. But by the same token, it is the hand Farmingville has been dealt, and obviously someone is hiring these people or else they wouldn’t be here. So this is the situation they’re in, and when a situation is an unchanging reality, it’s hardly a good time to become idealistic. In the video, a man arguing on the side of hiring site said something to the extent of “their proposal is basically too send in the helicopters and deport everyone right now, but that’s just not going to happen.”

Basically, they don’t want them there at all, so anything that could be done for them or the situation is totally out of the question in their mind. So they will continue to fight and protest instead of suggest anything that could be done to remedy the situation. This is a problem that can be seen in many places in our political system and is something I feel needs to be stopped. Your position cannot simply be against something, you must be able to offer a realistic alternative.

Source: PBS “Farmingville POV” Documentary 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUDTtmpM6b8

The spread of disease

In this case, I’m not talking about actual disease; I’m talking about societal diseases. Poverty, crime, starvation, these are things that impact societies negatively overall. In parts of Mexico, these diseases run rampant. Drug cartels, gang violence, and starving citizens are huge problems throughout the country. The poverty is a huge reason why people pour into our country and cause some of the problems associated with it. In the documentary “The Other Side of Immigration,” many Mexicans who have migrated to the US say they do so out of the necessity, not out of a desire to do so. As far as criminals are concerned, much of that violence has already spilled on to US shores. The Southwest States near the Mexican borders many gangs have formed due to the drug trade with supplies coming from Mexico. There have been countless acts of violence against moth Mexicans and Americans on our soil as a result.

To me, even putting aside moral and ethical reasons (which, for the record, I do believe are valid), we have a duty to our neighbors to help them develop for our own benefit. Negative societal aspects rarely stay in one place, they move, and in this case they can and are moving into the US. The beast analogy I can come up with is that of Cincinnati circa the 1990’s and 2000’s. For the longest time, most the poverty and crime was extremely prevalent in only a few areas, Over the Rhine and Avondale and such. For the longest time the problem wasn’t dealt with, so it began to move other places, particularly west into areas such as West Wood, Price Hill, etc. Once they FINALLY started to revive Over the Rhine after the Cincinnati riots, it was too late, the issues were already spreading. I feel that there is a lot to be learned from this. If we deal with the problem at its source, ie: Mexico, then we can stop many of the other problems that arise as a result. If not, then the problems will continue and who knows if we’ll ever be able to stop them. Not to mention, if we help the country improve, then the massive migration tat so many seem worried about will hopefully become something of a moot point, since people will not need to come here to have a better life and feed their families. If it’s true that many only come here out of necessity, then the necessity will be gone and the influx will die down.

A simple objective look at the issue of helping Mexico shows that it’s something that the US must do to fix their own problems. When problems such as these are going on so close to home, you cannot ignore it or resist assistance forever. 

"The man's a genius; he could disprove gravity"- Aaron Eckhart, "Thank You For Smoking"

A mathematician, applied mathematician and a statistician all apply for the same job. At the interview they are asked the question, what is 1+1. The mathematician replies, "I can prove that it exists but not that it is unique." The applied mathematician after some thought replies, "the answer is approximately 1.99 with an error in the region of 0.01." The statistician steps outside the room, mulls it over for several minutes, and eventually in desperation returns and inquires, "so what do you want it to be?"

While this joke is amusing, it makes an excellent point about statistics, and it was one I couldn’t overlook when viewing the Pros and Cons of NAFTA. If manipulated or presented in a certain way, numbers can say whatever you want them to say. This seemed very apparent when talking about the Pro’s for NAFTA that I saw in the article about its effects on Canada. They talk about the trillions Canada sold to the United States, the millions of jobs being created, and the billions in surplus that is allegedly a direct result of NAFTA. What they do not mention in this discussion is, as the article says “the quality and stability of those jobs.” As mentioned, 40 percent of the jobs created are only part time jobs and 17 percent of job growth is credited to self-employment. That means that over half of the jobs NAFTA supporters claim that is has created are, quite frankly, flukes that do not reflect their viewpoint in a fair and balanced way. Also, while they claim that all this money is pouring into Canada, the country still seems to be struggling economically and making massive cuts, so where is exactly is this money going? That’s not an answer NAFTA supporters seem interested in answering. Do I think NAFTA is all bad and deserves the bum rap it gets? No, probably not. After all, there is a lot to be said for “With China’s new found economic power, these problems would have occurred anyway.” However, it bothers me when people just throw out numbers to prove their points without any sort of interpretation of that “facts.”  The fact is, numbers in the right context can prove whatever you want.

Intro and Whatnot

What an interesting world we live in. Last quarter, I set up a twitter account for a class. This quarter, I set up a blog. Anyway, this is my blog for my Geography 123 The Americas: NAFTA Nations Class. As you can imagine, taking a 4 hour long, twice a week class about Geography is a dream come true for me. But, with 4 people in the class, I'm sure it won't be too painful, and I appreciate that it won't be a 4 hour lecture. I'll be posting reflections about activities we do in class, films we watch, and various readings. I'll try to keep it interesting and insightful.