Granted, I haven’t seen all of them, but buckle up and brace yourselves for this stunning revelation from a representative of the party of science: When you put rocks in water… they sink. Game-changer?
For instance, let’s look at the tar sands themselves. … As we put them in the water, you’ll notice that they absolutely sink, and that’s why the pipelines spills and leaks are so dangerous in places like Mayflower, Arkansas, that is so difficult to clean up. This stuff sinks, it doesn’t float. Keystone XL is about 2,000 miles long, it’s going to carry 800,000 gallons of this stuff on that pipeline everyday. So, you don’t have to be a Congressman in a borrowed lab coat to do the math.
Uhm… brilliant? I mean, if that video — brought to you courtesy of Arizona Democrat Rep. Raul Grijalva — didn’t persuade you to voice your opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline, I just don’t know what will!
I’m going to try and overlook the several awkward iterations about borrowed lab coats and sinking-oil sands non sequiturs, and instead address the vague leaks-and-spills environmental issue that comes the closest to a readily detectable argument in Rep. Grijalva’s ramble. Never mind that there are already many miles of similar pipelines already crisscrossing the United States, but Keystone opponents have long insisted that Nebraska is home to some of the most sensitive high-risk areas for environmental damage from the pipeline itself — except that the state has already performed their own positive environmental review of TransCanada’s proposed route and the governor has given the green light (and let’s not forget the several times over the State Department has now cleared the project, shall we?).
Rep. Grijalva’s other apparent qualm is that the pipeline’s ultimate approval will not create nearly as many jobs as its advocates claim, but the State Department’s latest review estimated that the pipeline’s construction would eventually support over 42,000 jobs through various means — and even if that’s an optimistic overshoot, there is no doubt that the pipeline would create direct and indirect jobs, both temporary and permanent. I would also merely like to point out that it’s a little odd how President Obama and his fellow Democrats are all about temporary “infrastructure” projects to boost the economy when they are handed down via political decisions and taxpayer money, but not so much when the private sector produces infrastructure projects. Pretty messed-up logic you’ve all got there.
The Congressman didn’t even touch on the argument to which opponents are most desperately clinging these days — that developing the especially dirty oil sands would result in a carbon bomb that would be an unmitigated disaster for climate change — although not referencing that argument might have been a wise move, since it’s so full of holes. Not only is the hyper-carbon intensive line false in and of itself, it also conveniently overlooks the reality that Canada is going to develop their resources whether it’s the United States reaping the economic benefits or another foreign buyer.
But… good try, I guess?