Death by Veto: A Keystone XL Pipeline Story

On Tuesday the 24th of February 2015, USA Today ran an editorial titled "Kill Keystone XL once and for all: Opposing view." The author Rhea Suh piggybacks on the Presidents veto of the pipeline to opine that the pipeline should be killed completely. The author speaks to the common citizen using her experience and education in environmental areas, and voices concerns pertinent to a varied group of citizens using summarized information from studies conducted by the State Department, EPA, and information from the public domain.

The article appears written for the common citizen that is either concerned for the environment or will be directly affected by the pipeline. The rhetoric and verbiage is clear, simple, and illustrative. This style implies that the reader is possibly simpler minded and needs attractive ideas to keep their attention. The presentation of the article harks to the reading That's Infotainment. It uses soft journalistic methods to keep the reader engaged: a pic of people protesting the pipeline, an editorial style layout, and quick bites of summarized information. The author understandably wants the reader to agree with her position considering her role as an environmentalist and mainstream journalist. She uses her expertise as President of the Natural Resources Defense Council to bring forth information that supports her case. This however may be interpreted as bias in both her information and her reasoning behind using certain information.

The gist of the article is that the pipeline is detrimental to the country on multiple fronts. The argument relies on oils direct and indirect pollution of the country and its use for foreign consumption.

1. The first claim is the location of the pipeline. There is the possibility of polluting the breadbasket of the country due to the location of the pipeline through oil spills or leaks. The Environmental Protection Agency has studies and contingency plans for oil spills from established pipelines and the chemicals used for these spills. According the EPA oil spills happen and the precedent of the US is to use toxic chemicals to clean up spills. This claim has merit for concern to our food supply.
2. The second claim is the consumption, type, and economics of the oil being transported by the pipeline. The oil would be sent overseas for refining, use, and is markedly less efficient to obtain from the earth. This lack of efficiency hurts the climate. The State Department has many studies assessing the pipeline and the oil and details information that is in line with these claims. It puts doubt on the safety and economic usefulness of the pipeline.
3. The last claim is purported by the oil industry on whether the pipeline will increase safety. Evidence provided in the article claims it will not and cites yearly incidents of train derailments and plans to increase rail and oil transportation. There was not sources cited but it implies the information could be in the public domain, especially considering the newsworthiness of train explosions.

Overall I do agree with the article and author. It is conceivable to be persuaded by this article as it touches on protecting the interests of the country on a national level and local level, and is both short term thinking and long term considerate. It does make one reconsider why the US and Canada are pushing with such vigor and passion a project with a body of evidence to the contrary.This project has many political consequences. It may make or break politicians and reelections. Jobs on the short term will be affected for it not being built and long term the price of oil will probably be slightly more expensive. The prospect of renewable energy and the environment for the long term can improve if the pipeline is not built.

Farm Subsidies back in the news

A new article from The Economist, titled Milking taxpayers, reintroduces a complex subject: the exploitation of farm subsidies graphically depicted to be wealthy individuals or organizations, the mismanagement of subsidy payouts, and peculiar cost saving measures implemented by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA). The article touches on improper payouts by the government to farmers that did grow any crops and payments to deceased farmers. The cost for these payouts both correct and incorrect amount to $20 billion and it is stated that most is directed to, "...big, rich farmers producing staple commodities such as corn and soyabeans in states such as Iowa." Unfortunately political clout of farmers creates an environment that stifles reform on the subject. Congress addressed the problem in 2014 by passing a reform bill to modify the payout system and cut cost to the program. Part of the savings came from cuts to the food assistance program for needy families, an untoward byproduct of the USDA administering said program. The new, modified payout system links subsidy payments to commodity prices and output. The newest forecast by the USDA predicts a decline in farm income resulting in increased compensation to farmers. Taxes pay for the program hence taxes will be affected somehow. This has far reaching implications to the general public and the government. Unless the public demands better reform from politicians the expensive tax burden will continue, favoring many well positioned people and disadvantaging those in need. The article is interesting and should be given attention, it can be found here, http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21643191-crop-prices-fall-farmers-grow-subsidies-instead-milking-taxpayers and supporting material here, http://frac.org/leg-act-center/farm-bill-2012/ and https://www.congress.gov/113/bills/hr2642/BILLS-113hr2642enr.pdf.