16 thoughts on “Keystone Debate: Joe Romm, Josh Fox on the Ed Show”
Pity he didn’t show any of the abominable beyond-biblical-scale destruction going on, or have any indigenous Canadians on the show that have unusual cancers as a result.
This cannot go on.
A really stunning fail by Schultz, who is (was) a hero of mine.
I have to wonder how he became to oblivious to what is going on in Canada, the cancers downstream, the wholesale destruction of boreal forest, and the swallowing of the State Department report produced by oil-connected cronies.
For someone like him to be for the Keystone XL is astonishing.
We know that there will be very few (less than a hundred) permanent jobs from building the KXL, while we also know that the only really bright and productive spot in our economy is the creation of clean energy jobs.
The other thing that is clear is that Schultz really, really does not get the fact that we are already in a state of emergency with regard to climate change.
He really needs to get up to speed. I was ashamed of him.
I am dismayed that he doesn’t get it, but I suppose I should not be, since so few people do — this would include Governor Frackinator Brown, who is pro-fracking in his mega-drought-stricken state. Another real mind boggler.
Keep in mind that this is MSNBC – supposedly the left-wing counterpart to Fox News. ALL major US media is corporate-controlled (and therefore heavily right-wing biased). Entities like MSNBC can be left-wing on the social issues, because it doesn’t really affect corporate bottom lines. Things like the pipeline do. Their message is going to be quite different when it comes to things like bailing out the banks, regulations, and subsidies (which the pipeline is basically a subsidy).
So, let’s dissect ‘Ed’ here (I have no idea who he is, as I don’t watch TV new any more):
1) He starts with a viewer writing that we should stop all oil extraction. This is a strawman to start out with. Only people who haven’t the foggiest clue about energy would say such a thing. The tar sands happen to be the heaviest emitter of all oil sources. The pipeline is about whether or not we subsidize that particular source. So, Ed starts with an idiot, so that he can look like he has the high ground.
2) He says that the tar sands have 17% more GG emissions than conventional oil (pretty accurate), and then says that rail shipping has 28% more GG emissions than a pipeline. Well, the pipeline itself, or rail shipping itself, has TINY GG emissions when compared to the totality of tar sands extraction and processing. He’s taking a number that sounds bigger than the 17% tar sands addition, when in fact it’s much, much smaller. Besides that, that same State report ALSO says that rail shipping will not be substantially affected (or decreased) by building the pipeline. Rail shipping will continue. Most of the train wrecks right now are related to the Bakken – different source. And what’s the record for pipeline ruptures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge#Spills_and_violations
Several pipelines have been proposed for the Bakken and refused, simply because the producers themselves prefer rail shipping at this point.
3) The State report does say the pipeline won’t significantly affect the rate of extraction. But let’s look at this realistically and symbolically. Realistically, pipelines are about increasing profits to the producers. Increasing profit = increasing development = increasing production. Symbolically, if the most “liberal” administration in decades approves the pipeline, then it will send a huge message both to us and to the world that business as usual will continue.
4) The “pipeline will reduce oil dependence on foreign countries less friendly than Canada”. Total BS. Corporations sell their product to the highest bidder. They don’t care who buys it. As it is, Canadian oil and the Bakken significantly drops oil prices locally, as it costs money for them to ship it elsewhere. Pipelines allow cheaper access to the ports for these companies, allowing them to access the world market at lower rates. Far from increasing energy independence, pipelines to the coasts allow greater exports. (Fox calls him out on this too, which Ed takes as a personal attack, and shuts down the discussion.)
5) “Who knows who’s telling truth?” So, screw it, tar sands oil must be okay. (Ed later says he gets his information from “Canadian officials”).
6) “I believe we should get our oil from our friendly neighbor to the north.” We already are.
7) “The best solution is, it’ll never come out of the ground. But that’s not reality. It is going to come out of the ground.” The argument from defeat. The question about pipelines is do we encourage (subsidize) production or not. The tar sands WILL get produced, because the world is completely reliant on oil, but do we encourage extraction of the dirtiest source? Do we help subsidize it?
8) The liberals have to elect officials who make sure this doesn’t happen. Wait, aren’t John Kerry and Obama supposed to be the ones we elected to do that? Besides that, this kind of argument is infuriating, in that it is Machiavellian. Ed knows most of the officials in government are corporate shills. He knows corporations own elections. He knows corporations own the media and virtually all propaganda fronts. But somehow it’s the voters’ fault. Eff you, dude. (Josh Fox calls him out later on this, and his response is to turn red-faced and say he didn’t ask him on the show to do that.)
9) We’re putting too much pressure on our railways and trucking industries. WTF. They’re getting paid to do the shipping! Look at BNSF stock, for crying out loud.
10) We’re going to have spills everywhere, but they won’t be as big with a pipeline. Perhaps. But in the end, this is an issue about continuing (and increasing) GG emissions, or if we actually make at least a statement that we are going to try not to do so.
Kudos for an astonishingly intelligent and well-thought out comment. Attaboy.
You wrote: (I have no idea who he is, as I don’t watch TV new any more):
Here’s where having a buddy helps. I started to keep track of Ed Schultz’s meteoric rise into the national media when he was interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN circa 2004. At that time, Schultz was proposing a “liberal” talk show which seemed rather odd to me because he went out of his way with Lamb to promote Monsanto and the other frankenfood GMO developers. Ed was a big promoter of corporate farming in South Dakota, his home base at the time.
Looking up more of his C.V. on Wikipedia we find some curious lacunae for a purported progressive:
In 1992, Schultz became a conservative political talk show host on WDAY-AM.[11]
And then…. Schultz pondered a run as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives against Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy in 1994, but decided against it after visiting with state Republican leaders.[13]
What a disappointment that Ed is now standing in lock step with big oil. What a croc that he really believes this. It was probably part of the deal he cut to get back on the air. Cannot imagine why else he would carrying their filthy torch!
This issue may be represent a growing split within America’s political left. On one side the primary issue is growing inequality, stagnant wage growth, etc. On the other side is the growing urgency to mitigate the devastation of climate change. The former will argue that I care about the environment but, hey, I got bills to pay. The latter will argue that it is immoral to bequeath a devastated planet to our children and grandchildren. This may be presented as a false dichotomy, but, rest assured, America’s political right will make every effort to exploit this fissure.
The whole energy independence meme is like arguing that a junkie can become more drug independent by a larger supply of drugs. Reduce the use and switch to methadone please.
Pity he didn’t show any of the abominable beyond-biblical-scale destruction going on, or have any indigenous Canadians on the show that have unusual cancers as a result.
This cannot go on.
http://www.ted.com/talks/garth_lenz_images_of_beauty_and_devastation.html
Crude Sacrifice
http://youtu.be/JTY18-P-j5s
There should be huge posters and billboards of the destruction at every gas pump and every ICE auto showroom.
Like pictures of diseased lungs on cigarette packets as in Europe…
Still doesn’t have much effect though – the nicotine addiction blanks them out.
https://imageshack.com/i/5im3b6j
I don’t entirely agree with that presenter, but he seems a nice and honest guy! Refreshing to see, as a European.
I’m reading the other comments now, and understand that I was mistaken in thinking that this was on Fox. 😀
A really stunning fail by Schultz, who is (was) a hero of mine.
I have to wonder how he became to oblivious to what is going on in Canada, the cancers downstream, the wholesale destruction of boreal forest, and the swallowing of the State Department report produced by oil-connected cronies.
For someone like him to be for the Keystone XL is astonishing.
We know that there will be very few (less than a hundred) permanent jobs from building the KXL, while we also know that the only really bright and productive spot in our economy is the creation of clean energy jobs.
The other thing that is clear is that Schultz really, really does not get the fact that we are already in a state of emergency with regard to climate change.
He really needs to get up to speed. I was ashamed of him.
I am dismayed that he doesn’t get it, but I suppose I should not be, since so few people do — this would include Governor Frackinator Brown, who is pro-fracking in his mega-drought-stricken state. Another real mind boggler.
Keep in mind that this is MSNBC – supposedly the left-wing counterpart to Fox News. ALL major US media is corporate-controlled (and therefore heavily right-wing biased). Entities like MSNBC can be left-wing on the social issues, because it doesn’t really affect corporate bottom lines. Things like the pipeline do. Their message is going to be quite different when it comes to things like bailing out the banks, regulations, and subsidies (which the pipeline is basically a subsidy).
So, let’s dissect ‘Ed’ here (I have no idea who he is, as I don’t watch TV new any more):
1) He starts with a viewer writing that we should stop all oil extraction. This is a strawman to start out with. Only people who haven’t the foggiest clue about energy would say such a thing. The tar sands happen to be the heaviest emitter of all oil sources. The pipeline is about whether or not we subsidize that particular source. So, Ed starts with an idiot, so that he can look like he has the high ground.
2) He says that the tar sands have 17% more GG emissions than conventional oil (pretty accurate), and then says that rail shipping has 28% more GG emissions than a pipeline. Well, the pipeline itself, or rail shipping itself, has TINY GG emissions when compared to the totality of tar sands extraction and processing. He’s taking a number that sounds bigger than the 17% tar sands addition, when in fact it’s much, much smaller. Besides that, that same State report ALSO says that rail shipping will not be substantially affected (or decreased) by building the pipeline. Rail shipping will continue. Most of the train wrecks right now are related to the Bakken – different source. And what’s the record for pipeline ruptures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge#Spills_and_violations
Several pipelines have been proposed for the Bakken and refused, simply because the producers themselves prefer rail shipping at this point.
3) The State report does say the pipeline won’t significantly affect the rate of extraction. But let’s look at this realistically and symbolically. Realistically, pipelines are about increasing profits to the producers. Increasing profit = increasing development = increasing production. Symbolically, if the most “liberal” administration in decades approves the pipeline, then it will send a huge message both to us and to the world that business as usual will continue.
4) The “pipeline will reduce oil dependence on foreign countries less friendly than Canada”. Total BS. Corporations sell their product to the highest bidder. They don’t care who buys it. As it is, Canadian oil and the Bakken significantly drops oil prices locally, as it costs money for them to ship it elsewhere. Pipelines allow cheaper access to the ports for these companies, allowing them to access the world market at lower rates. Far from increasing energy independence, pipelines to the coasts allow greater exports. (Fox calls him out on this too, which Ed takes as a personal attack, and shuts down the discussion.)
5) “Who knows who’s telling truth?” So, screw it, tar sands oil must be okay. (Ed later says he gets his information from “Canadian officials”).
6) “I believe we should get our oil from our friendly neighbor to the north.” We already are.
7) “The best solution is, it’ll never come out of the ground. But that’s not reality. It is going to come out of the ground.” The argument from defeat. The question about pipelines is do we encourage (subsidize) production or not. The tar sands WILL get produced, because the world is completely reliant on oil, but do we encourage extraction of the dirtiest source? Do we help subsidize it?
8) The liberals have to elect officials who make sure this doesn’t happen. Wait, aren’t John Kerry and Obama supposed to be the ones we elected to do that? Besides that, this kind of argument is infuriating, in that it is Machiavellian. Ed knows most of the officials in government are corporate shills. He knows corporations own elections. He knows corporations own the media and virtually all propaganda fronts. But somehow it’s the voters’ fault. Eff you, dude. (Josh Fox calls him out later on this, and his response is to turn red-faced and say he didn’t ask him on the show to do that.)
9) We’re putting too much pressure on our railways and trucking industries. WTF. They’re getting paid to do the shipping! Look at BNSF stock, for crying out loud.
10) We’re going to have spills everywhere, but they won’t be as big with a pipeline. Perhaps. But in the end, this is an issue about continuing (and increasing) GG emissions, or if we actually make at least a statement that we are going to try not to do so.
Kudos for an astonishingly intelligent and well-thought out comment. Attaboy.
You wrote: (I have no idea who he is, as I don’t watch TV new any more):
Here’s where having a buddy helps. I started to keep track of Ed Schultz’s meteoric rise into the national media when he was interviewed by Brian Lamb on C-SPAN circa 2004. At that time, Schultz was proposing a “liberal” talk show which seemed rather odd to me because he went out of his way with Lamb to promote Monsanto and the other frankenfood GMO developers. Ed was a big promoter of corporate farming in South Dakota, his home base at the time.
Looking up more of his C.V. on Wikipedia we find some curious lacunae for a purported progressive:
In 1992, Schultz became a conservative political talk show host on WDAY-AM.[11]
And then…. Schultz pondered a run as a Republican for the U.S. House of Representatives against Democratic Rep. Earl Pomeroy in 1994, but decided against it after visiting with state Republican leaders.[13]
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Schultz#Talk_radio
Well, you know what they say. If you can’t be a comedian, you should at least be a cameleon.
What a disappointment that Ed is now standing in lock step with big oil. What a croc that he really believes this. It was probably part of the deal he cut to get back on the air. Cannot imagine why else he would carrying their filthy torch!
This issue may be represent a growing split within America’s political left. On one side the primary issue is growing inequality, stagnant wage growth, etc. On the other side is the growing urgency to mitigate the devastation of climate change. The former will argue that I care about the environment but, hey, I got bills to pay. The latter will argue that it is immoral to bequeath a devastated planet to our children and grandchildren. This may be presented as a false dichotomy, but, rest assured, America’s political right will make every effort to exploit this fissure.
Here’s Thom Hartmann on Keystone XL and the tar sands. This is a good antidote to Ed Schultz’s bafflegab.
The whole energy independence meme is like arguing that a junkie can become more drug independent by a larger supply of drugs. Reduce the use and switch to methadone please.