Scary USA Today editorial

USAToday gave me a Halloween scare with their editorial:  Say yes to building the Keystone oil pipeline. 

Then I noticed that the USA Today editorial was written by James Taylor, who fits the description of what Joe Romm calls "climate zombies".  Taylor edits the Heartland Institute's Environment and Climate News publication.  Nature magazine, one of the stalwart defenders of climate science, says that the Heartland Institute is "happy muddying the waters" when it comes to global warming (see SourceWatch for more details).  And then I remembered that the mainstream media is controlled by Big Oil, so, what could I expect?

Actually, to be fair to USA Today, they did allow Bill McKibbin to write a rebuttal.  (See McKibben's article here.)  But this still reflects an irrational "balance" by USA Today.  Would they give equal weight to articles that uphold the flat earth theory?  How about the talking snake story of creation?  Climate change denial is nonsense and should not be given equal weight to those trying to solve the problem.

Nonetheless, since the article is out there, it's worth considering Taylor's points. 

• Spills:  I'm not in a position to know whether he is right when he says that the environmental dangers of oil spills from the pipeline are "overblown".  The disastrous impacts of mining the tar sands on the environment in Canada, however, are well known.  The point is that we should not be part of promotoing this environmental destruction.
• Energy Security:  His major point is that Canada is one of the United States' "closest and most reliable allies," and that not building the pipeline would "undermine U.S. energy security."  McKibben responds that the pipeline oil is planned for export--i.e. it won't even help the energy security of the U.S.  Taylor denies that point, but he does admit that there is no guarantee that the oil will be used in the U.S.  Taylor goes on to add, in a condescending tone,

  "In a different world, we might be siding with the protesters. In that world, Canada wouldn't mine its tar sands, the U.S. wouldn't import tar sands oil, refineries here wouldn't process it and U.S. consumers wouldn't use it. Instead, everyone would drive electric cars and trucks powered by sun and wind and other renewable energy."

  But that is just the point.  He and his allies are blocking this very solution.  With a proper price on fossil fuels, we could make the shift to renewable energy and solar power in a short time.  There is no need for the pipeline or mining the tar sands, and most importantly, we have to stop global warming.
• They'll Mine the Sands Anyway:  He argues that the Canadians will simply route the tar sands oil to the west coast and sell it to China.  This sounds like telling the highway patrol, "But officer other people were speeding too."  Or telling your parents, "All  the other kids are doing it", even though you know it's wrong.  If we are going to save civilization, we can't mine the tar sands.  It's that simple. 

So, I'm planning to be part of the demonstration November 6 at the White House demanding that President Obama NOT approve the Keystone XL pipeline (See Tar Sands Action to join up).  And in addition, I subscribe to Joe Romm's cure for the climate zombies:

"In summary, a zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilization, unless it is dealt with quickly. While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to blog hard and blog often. As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble."

Happy Halloween!