"In fact, his approach may be even more antique: Fixating on Canada’s tar sands — where the economics of extracting low-quality crude have driven one big company after another out of that oil patch — is roughly equivalent, in its energy logic, to planning a sperm whale expedition."
Bill McKibben, "On Pipelines, Donald Trump Looks Backward", New York Times, 2017-01-25 https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/opinion/on-pipelines-donald-trump-looks-backward.html.
McKibben also points out that more people are employed in solar energy than in extracting coal, oil, and gas. When the Keystone pipeline is completed, it will only employ 35 full-time workers, most of the work being done with sensors.
I recommend reading the full article. McKibben has many more ideas that are worth quoting.
Showing posts with label Bill McKibben. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill McKibben. Show all posts
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Monday, January 09, 2012
Conservatives, prudence, and the rest of us
George Will has written about "the central conservative virtue, prudence"; see
"What to make of George Will on Newt Gingrich".
I thought again about this prudence in reading "Why I'm Giving Up Cynicism for New Year's" by Bill McKibben, Yes! Magazine, 2012-01-06. McKibben wrote about the 234-194 Congressional vote "to force a quicker review of the [Keystone XL] pipeline":
"As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million."
This paragraph made me think about Will's "prudence" remark. Darn tootin' conservatives have "prudence"; they know better than to upset their paymasters.
Some of these same "prudent" conservatives are imprudent with facts and language. Maybe we should do our own fact and language change; let's call "campaign contributions" for what they are – bribes.
Now, dear reader, let me check your prudence. In the quote above "As important as the vote total…" what happened within minutes of the vote? Did those who voted "aye" receive within minutes "$42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry"?
If you thought the contributions were instantaneous, please read the quote again. "[W]ithin minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that…"
How easy it is to slant things to our own thinking!
"What to make of George Will on Newt Gingrich".
I thought again about this prudence in reading "Why I'm Giving Up Cynicism for New Year's" by Bill McKibben, Yes! Magazine, 2012-01-06. McKibben wrote about the 234-194 Congressional vote "to force a quicker review of the [Keystone XL] pipeline":
"As important as the vote total in the House, however, was another number: within minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that the 234 Congressional representatives who voted aye had received $42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry; the 193 nays, $8 million."
This paragraph made me think about Will's "prudence" remark. Darn tootin' conservatives have "prudence"; they know better than to upset their paymasters.
Some of these same "prudent" conservatives are imprudent with facts and language. Maybe we should do our own fact and language change; let's call "campaign contributions" for what they are – bribes.
Now, dear reader, let me check your prudence. In the quote above "As important as the vote total…" what happened within minutes of the vote? Did those who voted "aye" receive within minutes "$42 million in campaign contributions from the fossil-fuel industry"?
If you thought the contributions were instantaneous, please read the quote again. "[W]ithin minutes of the vote, Oil Change International had calculated that…"
How easy it is to slant things to our own thinking!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)