Thanks to some complicated political maneuvering, the Keystone XL pipeline is back in the news. It’s an old issue, to be sure, and the particulars of the debate should be familiar now. But some of the coverage is as bad as ever—if not worse.
On NPR‘s Weekend Edition (11/15/14), Ron Elving laid out the debate this way:
The House approved it easily. This was the ninth time they’ve done so. Republicans see this as a great job creator and a boost for North American energy independence, but opponents see it as the encouraging development of remote and lower-grade sources, such as these Canadian oil sands.
So it’s jobs and “energy independence” vs. not encouraging “lower-grade” oil. Which side are you on?
On ABC‘s This Week (11/16/14), anchor Martha Raddatz told viewers:
Up next, the showdown over the Keystone pipeline. Will it really create thousands of American jobs and lower the price you pay at the pump?
ABC sought to tackle those questions first in a segment from reporter Jonathan Karl, who broke it down this way:
Supporters say it would create jobs and help bring energy prices down. Critics say the environmental costs are just too high.
(cc photo: Pete Williamson)
Like the NPR report, ABC isn’t doing a very good job of explaining what Keystone’s critics say, which is that burning the Canadian tar sands that the pipeline is designed to extract will be a catastrophe for the global climate. As climate scientist James Hansen (New York Times, 5/9/12) put it, if we fail to stop the exploitation of the tar sands, which “contain twice the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by global oil use in our entire history,” it will be “game over for the climate.”
But ABC wasn’t done with the subject; Raddatz introduced their next interview:
And joining us now, Russ Girling, CEO of TransCanada, the company developing the Keystone Pipeline.
Who better to give viewers the answers to these jobs-and-gas-prices questions than the CEO of the company looking to build the pipeline?
In fairness to Raddatz, she did try to push Girling on the job estimates he was touting. She noted, for example, that the State Department’s report “says that once the proposed project enters service, operations will require approximately 50 total employees in the US.”
But Girling objected, saying that there were 42,000 “ongoing, enduring” jobs as a result of Keystone—a claim that PolitiFact labeled “False” (11/16/14). Or as Raddatz put it: “I think there’s a lot of debate to come on this.”
Elsewhere on the Sunday chat show circuit, NBC‘s Meet the Press (11/16/14) turned the Keystone debate over to roundtable guests Chris Matthews and former Hewlett Packard CEO Carly Fiorina. Matthews said the pipeline is
going to happen. It will happen. It’ll happen now or next year or the year after. Because the country wants jobs, and energy is always a primary concern of the American people. And look who are the swing electorate? Working-class whites.
These are the people that Hillary Clinton will want, the Republicans will want. These people are going to be for jobs like this…. That’s the way the American people look at it. Not energy, jobs.
Fiorina agreed:
Perhaps the president will veto this. But on what basis would he do so? The American people support it by wide majorities. What we are doing today is actually worse for global greenhouse gas emissions than the Keystone Pipeline would be. It would create jobs despite his bizarre statement that it wouldn’t.
Keystone will create very few jobs. It is unlikely to have a substantial effect on gas prices. And it would most certainly be terrible for the planet. That reality-based assessment of Keystone is missing from this coverage. Meet the Press host Chuck Todd did tell viewers this:
We asked two experts to argue for and against the pipeline being built in our weekly Web series, Make the Case. That and more can be found on our website.
It’s good to know there’s a place on their website where you can hear the Keystone debate they didn’t put on the air.
Well, it’s definitely about being jobbed …
Now, Obama may very well nix Keystone, but that’s just one tentacle of the monster that he’s in bed with.
Should he do so, instead of celebrating, anyone truly committed to combatting climate change will need to see it for the transparent political maneuver it is, and focus their efforts on chopping off the other tentacles that comprise “All of the Above”.
I live in Nebraska and I agree that the recent coverage has been madening. People here are very concerned about the potential risk and have always weighed that against the minimal economic benefits to our state. But the media seems to be more interested in pushing the narratives of the loudest voices instead of actually analyzing the data around the issue. I don’t need propaganda — I need news.
It’s nearly impossible to get someone to see a particular point of view, when their paychecks depending on them not seeing that point of view. When you through in the Kochs amongst the Kochroaches and Koch Suckers it then does become impossible.
These people would stand and burn to death, rather than admit being wrong and asking for bucket of water if Supposed Liberals told them they were on fire.
On the level of basic logic, I simply don’t get the “energy independence” talking point, as cited above, and I also heard Sen. Landrieu use it.
How does transshipping *Canadian* oil (mostly for export, as it happens), contribute to U.S. energy independence?
We need to realize that the climate change threat just doesn’t seem to resonate with the US public. Partly because of all the smoke the deniers are able to throw up, but also because the threat is too vague and distant. It’s like telling a kid that cigarettes will kill them in 50 years.
In regard to Keyston Xtra Lethal, I think we’ve got to start stressing things like the certainty of spills and contamination of the largest aquifer in the US. The massive property rights violations that will be necessary to bulldoze it through unwilling landowners. And what seems to me most egregious, the unbelievable scale of destruction the mining of this crap is already causing, thousands of square miles of pristine forest and prairie land and clear pure streams giving sustenance to entire societies, turned into the largest parking lot in the history of mankind, and not a Walmart in sight.
I’m thinking a fixed number of jobs and pay rate written into the legislation with cola and a profit to wage ratio….might go a long way to cause pause to this environmental boondoggle & cause wake up of everyday folks….refine the sand in canada ….large import tax are both better.