President Obama Vetoes the Keystone XL Pipeline

Image from source, AOL

Good.

Not only is this a project with no particularly obvious benefit to the US economy for its out-of-scale push from Right Wing World. Not only is it bizarre that conservatives (allegedly the careful, considerate, deliberate party) squelched environmental and scientific studies in order to full-steam-ahead this sucker. Not only could an environmental disaster with this pipeline cause utter devastation to the country. Not only would it produce a bare handful of permanent jobs. Not only have oil and energy politics changed drastically since the right started flogging this issue. It is also a bill that the President has already said he'd veto. An issue that the Democratic/progressive base has been convulsing over more than virtually any other. Politically, there is no downside for the President, who has proffered very, very few vetoes in his terms in office, and is not up for any future election.  Good.

Let Right Wing World blow a fuse. At this point, who cares?

[Excerpt]

Defying GOP, Obama vetoes Keystone XL pipeline bill
 
Defying the Republican-run Congress, President Barack Obama rejected a bill Tuesday to approve construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline, wielding his veto power for only the third time in his presidency. Obama offered no indication of whether he'll eventually issue a permit for the pipeline, whose construction has become a flashpoint in the U.S. debate about environmental policy and climate change. Instead, Obama sought to reassert his authority to make the decision himself, rebuffing GOP lawmakers who will control both the House and Senate for the remainder of the president's term. . .

Read more at: AOL

Keystone XL Pipeline to be Fast-Tracked by Congress - Both Sides Seeking Credit

I really wish somebody could explain this to me. The Keystone XL pipeline is loathed by environmentalists, and some climatologists. If successful, the oil extracted from the sands it will move is allegedly "game over" for the environment. And if it should leak, it could endanger a major aquifer that supplies water to a huge portion of the American populace. It will move oil that isn't ours, and will not be ours when it is sold either. It will employ lots of people for the time it takes to build it, but won't have many long-term jobs at all.

So, why does Right Wing World have a hard on for it, exactly? I know this is a major political football, so much so that both sides of Congress--particularly Louisiana Senate candidates looking at a runoff--are seeking to fast-track it, and try to take credit for it. But why? Why is this priority #1?

[Excerpt]

Keystone XL Pipeline: Lame-Duck Congress Fast-Tracks Legislation

The tortuous six-year fight over a controversial proposal to funnel oil from Canada to the Gulf Coast took another turn this week after both houses of the lame-duck Congress moved to vote on the Keystone XL pipeline. As the legislation barrels through Congress and heads to the Oval Office, President Barack Obama may soon settle one of the most politically charged debates of the decade. The White House appeared to downplay the congressional maneuvering Wednesday, saying it takes a "dim view of these kinds of legislative proposals. . ."

Read more at: NBC News

Fracking Runs Texas Towns Out of Water

Image from AmericaBlog

Here's the thing: I can understand that we need new sources of energy, or at least new ways to get at energy. The stuff we have is finite, and before it is tapped out, we've got to figure out what to do. And we're torn between new technology that is still working out the kinks and expensive; or fossil fuels that are harder to get at than the stuff we're using. Short term, it makes sense to try to extract the stuff we already know how to use. But long-term, renewable energy makes a lot more sense, and doesn't damage the environment.

It's a tough question, and there's no denying that. But what floors me is the absolute rejection of science by conservatives. Or rather, the complete denial of any science contrary to their ideas. Global warming can't be real, because man couldn't possibly affect the climate. Really? Not even after pumping pollution into the air for 130 years, at ever increasing amounts? Fracking can't cause any damage to water sources, or cause earthquakes. Why the hell not? It seems to be happening! I don't understand how the conservative brain works.

[Excerpt]

Texas towns run out of water due to fracking

Put simply, there are towns in Texas where you turn on the tap, and nothing comes out for days. Why? Fracking. You knew this was going to happen, and you knew it was going to happen in the desert-like South and Southwest. And whether the God-fearing folks in rural Texas knew it or not, when they voted for all those Drill-Baby-Drill Republicans (and Democrats who seek power by imitating them), they voted themselves out of water. . .

Read more at: AmericaBlog

Fracking Responsible for Earthquakes in Ohio?

Image from Treehugger.

Fracking is the practice of pumping fluids deep into the earth to break loose trapped natural gas. Many of the problems resulting from the practice--such as flammable tap water--were chronicled in the documentary Gasland. But even that movie didn't tell us about the possibility of earthquakes generated by the process.

The politics of fracking are predictable: liberals are against it, and conservatives are really, really, really for it. I don't know why. When big corporations want to do something, conservatives say, "yes sir!" apparently. But will they still feel that way if fracking causes a really big quake? What if Opryland or the Indy track get sucked into the earth? What then?


[Excerpt]


Ohio Earthquake Linked To Fracking Injection Wells


On New Year’s Eve, a magnitude 4.0 earthquake struck northeastern Ohio, the second quake to strike the region in a week. Saturday’s earthquake, which occurred in an area not typically known for this type of natural disaster, is being traced back to fluid injection wells at a Youngstown fracking site. . .


Read more at: Think Progress

Conservatives Mock Conservation on Earth Day

"Trashcan Man" from Stephen King's
The Stand, would probably be considered
a "conservative" today.

I'm posting this not because I have some sort of particular interest in Earth Day, but because I'm genuinely curious as to what "conservatism" actually means. If you were going to be literal about it, conservative ought to denote a person interested in conservation, right? Conserving things ought to be conservative. And if you get a little more esoteric about it, it could mean keeping things the way they are, or conserving them. Or, it could even mean "tighter" or "more restrictive." So how does this relate to wasting energy? Why do arch-conservatives think it might be funny to waste energy on Earth Day? Yeah, I know that "punching the hippie" can be fun, even for the left, but how does wasting energy = conservatism? Somebody help me out here.

[Excerpt]

Right-Wing Media Celebrate Earth Day By Mocking Conservation



In the lead-up to Earth Day, members of the right-wing media have ridiculed conservation efforts and downplayed the concerns of environmentalists. This is nothing new for conservative media figures who have, in the past, used the Earth Day to attack conservationists by urging audiences to cut down trees and increase their energy consumption. . .
 
Read more at: Media Matters

Sharron Angle: Still Obtuse, Not Right

The only flattering image
of Sharron Angle in existence
from source, Think Progress

I need some new "angle" jokes, I'm running out of them. But she isn't! Wow, wouldn't you think that after mining disasters and a massive oil disasters that showed fairly conclusively that these industries are not regulated enough that politicians might notice that too? Not Sharron Angle! Less regulation is the answer!

[Excerpt]

Sharron Angle’s energy plan: Deregulate the ‘mining industry,’ as well as the ‘oil and petroleum industry.’

On May 26, a few weeks after BP’s oil disaster began, U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle (R-NV) told a local media outlet that her solution to America’s energy policy would be to “deregulate” the oil industry. While both conservatives and liberals agree that this catastrophe could have been prevented if BP had invested more in safety and if regulators had been more attentive, few, if any, have taken the extreme view at there is actually too much regulation on the oil industry. However, last Wednesday, while appearing on the hate-filled website ResistNet’s Internet radio station, Angle reiterated her position and explained that if elected, she would ensure that “government isn’t over-regulating” the “oil and petroleum industry,” as well as the “mining industry.” Angle appeared to attack her opponent, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV), for supporting the Mining in the Parks Act, a law that prohibits mining in National Parks. . .

Read more at: Think Progress

EDITOR'S NOTE: Is my caption to the photo mean-spirited? Perhaps. But as a fellow unphotogenic human, I feel I have some wiggle room. For a person who sees a normal person in the mirror, and a Lord of the Rings character in photos, I can sympathize with Angle's plight. As one who has searched the Googles for pictures of her for previous posts, I've found almost exclusively scary/crazy pictures of Ms. Angle. Not that I'm complaining.

Gasland on HBO: Provocative Documentary Under Fire

Image from Faster Times

Everything in this country now seems to be political.  Health care? Evolution?  Global warming/climate change? Energy? Every single issue seems to have become as heated, as divided down the middle as gay rights, guns and abortion.  You can't help but wonder why that is.  I think I know, but I'm "liberally biased." But I'll come right out and say it: Republicans and conservatives are really good at riling their base, and getting them to vote against their best interests. And they'll do it to further their main interest, which is making rich people richer, to let corporations make more and more profits.  The whole philosophy of lassez-faire capitalism has been proven in the past to be detrimental to the public, and the flaws in deregulation are epically clear in the Gulf of Mexico today.

So, you can expect that when a documentary filmmaker sets out to expose the energy industry for fouling the air and drinking water in the interest of more and more profits, he's going to be derided as partisan.  Maybe he is partisan, but in the case of Gasland, very little about the narrative is politically overt.  Yes, Halliburton and Dick Cheney are mentioned, but they'd be villains if you plopped them into a screwball comedy.  What Gasland does is follow Josh Fox across the country as he documents the conditions of the land, water and air of communities surrounding natural gas "hydraulic fracture" drilling.  We're talking flammable tap water here. 

The film is engaging and depressing.  It has its humorous moments, but they are of the gallows variety. Calls to authority are almost unanimously distressing, and the future seems bleak.  But is it all really that bad? Or does Fox have sinister liberal motives?  Well, like Michael Moore, Fox has formed a narrative out of real events and interviews. As such, he is likely driving the story into something like a plot, and in doing so may have featured the most dire scenarios, maybe not enough counter-point to be considered "balanced."  But when the chief counterpoints being made in reaction to the film are either a) Energy industry reps or b) Hard-right bloggers, I'm going to side with Josh Fox for now.  Tap water should not be flammable.

I'd also like to note that whenever a documentary like this becomes a left vs. right struggle, the argument seems to go something like this:  Well, here are five errors (or "lies") made in the film. Therefore, the whole film is untrue.  So, I guess that water's safe to drink?  Go ahead, you try it then.

Gasland is airing this month on HBO.

[Excerpt]

The Gasland Controversy



Since winning the Special Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival, Josh Fox’s Gasland has been getting a lot of attention, good and bad. I saw the movie last night on HBO, and while I was watching it, I found myself thinking, “This is an example of a good political narrative.” Good in the sense that is well made and presents information in a concise but powerful way. Good in the sense that it was bi-partisan, and put controversial subjects into a well crafted story. But as I started to research the documentary this morning in order to write this post, I found a much more complicated story. In fact, Gasland is practically a 101 crash course in the complex nature of political narratives. . .

Read more at: The Faster Times

Another Oil Spill, This Time Chevron in Utah

Image from source, Salt Lake Tribune

Are they getting any actual oil to the refineries any more?  Oil companies should be required to put a percentage of their profits into cleanup research, development and of course deployment.  Thanks to Stupid Monkey Planet for the link.

[Excerpt]

Residents to Chevron: Clean up the mess

A leak from Chevron's underground oil pipeline may have gone undetected for hours as it spilled 50 gallons of crude a minute Saturday into Salt Lake City's Red Butte Creek.



The oil blackened the east-side creek, stained scores of birds, prompted the closure of Liberty Park and sent oil as far west as the Jordan River.


"This is extremely harmful," said disgusted resident Peter G. Hayes, a biology teacher who showed oily rocks from his creek-side home to Chevron officials at Liberty Park. "I want to know when are you going to send someone to my backyard and clean up my mess because I can't even live in my house because of the smell."


Chevron pledged to clean up the 6-mile mess, but the company could not quantify the damage. . .

Rread more at: Salt Lake Tribune

New Barack Obama Ad: McCain on Energy "Alternative"

The hits keep coming. . .

"Alternative"

Thomas Friedman and the Folly of "Drill, Baby Drill"

As I said earlier, I opted out of watching Sunday's Meet the Press, in exchange for a few more ZZZs. But I'm glad I found this clip of Thomas Friedman talking to Tom Brokaw about the chant (often heard--even at oddly timed moments) of "Drill, Baby Drill!" The crowd of Kool-Aid drinkers at the Republican National Convention were fully on board with Big Oil when it came to the drilling issue. Here, Friedman explains--in pretty easy to understand terms--why that refrain is not the answer.

Conservatives Stage "Carbon Belch Day"

Image from source, Inside America

Somehow, the prospect of global warming, and energy conservation long ago became a political issue. If you're a liberal, you're for conserving energy (how's that for irony?), and for doing whatever can be done to stave off or reverse climate change. If you're conservative, you are for using liberal amounts of energy (irony again), and you believe--because Rush Limbaugh told you so--that global climate change is a myth.

So now--even though presumptive Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain is a believer in climate change--conservatives are flipping the ultimate bird toward the very idea. They've staged an event today called "Carbon Belch Day." The aim is to increase one's carbon footprint by as much as possible, which means wasting more energy than usual. It's quite a sacrifice at today's gas prices, but hey, they have a point to prove! Whatever. . .

[Excerpt]

Carbon Belch Day

No, that’s not a joke as I first thought it was when listening to the news this morning. The guy - Steve Eliott is his name - got interviewed for 2 or 3 long minutes at the morning radio news for his organization’s initiative to invite American citizens releasing the more carbon dioxide they can on June 12. “Let’s make it a great big belch!“. Not only is the objective to protest against carbon restriction measures - that endanger our “good old American way of life” -, but according to Eliott, “it might be good for the planet to increase our carbon footprint, since there are less trees naturally rejecting carbon at night”. Grassfire.org - Eliott’s conservative grass-root organization (as he presents it) - proudly claims on its website that it collected more than 10,000 citizen’s signatures against restrictions on carbon emissions and that more than 100,000,000 pounds of CO2 are set to be released (yes, you must commit to a number when joining the belch day!). . .

Read more at: Inside America

Science is Cool: Oil from Algae?

Image from source, LA Times

Talk about your green energy! Seriously, this is pretty cool. I mean, typically bio-fuels have the unintended effect of straining food supplies. But algae just sorta happens. Forget to put chlorine in the pool? BOOM! Barrels and barrels of oil! Well, maybe not, but you get my drift.

[Excerpt]

Sapphire Energy turns algae into 'green crude' for fuel

A San Diego company said Wednesday that it could turn algae into oil, producing a green-colored crude yielding ultra-clean versions of gasoline and diesel without the downsides of biofuel production.

The year-old company, called Sapphire Energy, uses algae, sunlight, carbon dioxide and non-potable water to make "green crude" that it contends is chemically equivalent to the light, sweet crude oil that has been fetching more than $130 a barrel in New York futures trading. . .

Read more at: LA Times

"Earth Hour" a Bust?

This weekend, I went to Google to look something up, and was surprised to see the site reversed, with a black background. It turns out that there was a special "Earth Hour" being observed, an attempt to get people to turn out their lights for an hour. It was an experiment to raise awareness for energy conservation. Oddly, until that random search, I'd never heard of it.

Well, conservatives are taking special glee in the fact that this experiment did not yield any substantial energy savings. Mmmkay. Why would that make them happy? I'm still trying to figure out how a political ideology with "conserve" right there in its name, has become adamantly against any form of conservation.

[Excerpt]

Earth Hour crashes to Earth

So Saturday was Earth Hour, and as if anyone reading this blog didn't know, lights were supposed to be cut off from 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. to send a message to mysterious world power that the world was ready to cut down on energy use. Sort of.

I didn't honor the Earth Hour. We rarely have more than one light on in our home at a time on a daily basis because it's wasteful and increasingly expensive. I don't have a million electronic devices running 24/7, we walk to the store when we can (Heather can walk to work) and luckily, my commute is only about 15 minutes a day. In every daily activity, even blogging, I consider the amount of energy I'm using, and how I can minimize my consumption. . .

Read more at: The Voltage Gate

Gas Prices Predicted to Soar in 2008

Photo from source, Reuters

I'm a bad liberal. I drive an SUV. The original SUV, if that makes any difference, a 1998 Jeep Wrangler. From the time I was little, I wanted a red Jeep, and eight years ago, I got one. Do I take it off-road? Uh, no. But I love my little Jeep, and even at ten years old, I'm not ready to part with it.

It gets terrible gas mileage, true, but I only have an eight-mile drive to work. Even with that short commute, though, the price for a gallon of gas is what I'll be paying each day for a round-trip to work. I wonder what the resale on SUVs like mine will be if this trend continues, which it seems to be bound to do.

[Excerpt]

Drivers face $3.50 gasoline this spring

U.S. consumers will pay record prices for gasoline this spring, with national monthly pump costs peaking near $3.50 per gallon when the busy driving season begins, the government's top energy forecasting agency said Tuesday. . .

Read more at: Reuters