Are you afraid a potential leak in the Keystone Pipeline - which is sending crude oil from Canada down to Texas - could be catastrophic for an already fragile ecosystem?
Enter Keith Stone, the always smooth spokesman for Keystone Light with a flare for drama and a trucker hat. Surely with his, hmm, appeal, regulators will be so flustered that they'll miss this report emphasizing the gross underestimates of the damages of a spill made by the pipers TransCanada.
Never fear, cause rest assured that the Daily Show's report on Canada's oil will have you cowering at even the idea of foreign energy coming from the North.
Our ideas on certain issues are highly influenced by the sources of our information. Whether its the media creating a narrative of the scary oil lords abroad, or a beer company using the time-tested trick of sex appeal in an effort to stand out from the saturated market (which is a little ironic if you think about how almost all beer is marketed), organizations are creating an image for a product meant to spark interest and creating brand recognition.
Businesses do the same thing when it comes to regulations. While seeking approval, they display their utmost concern for the social and environmental issues which are important to their audiences. They brand themselves as socially responsibility members of the community. While we could be quick to judge them for their clever (albeit misleading)PR strategy, we've all done the same thing as children when we would ask our parents for a new toy. First, we figure out which parent we should asked, and wait for the ideal time. Then we would either inflate our parent's ego with a compliment or show them that we're a good kid by finishing our chores in order to build up trust. When our relationship is peaking, we play our cards and ask for what we want, forcing our parents into a vulnerable position. We tell them all the reasons its a good idea and why we need to do it, and no parent wants to feel like they are denying their child of something they need. The parent must analyze the situation, consider the motivations of the child, determine what's in the best interest of the kid, and make a tough decision that might not be very popular.
When an energy company wants to drill a mile into the ocean, or to build a giant pipeline across America, they do the same thing. They wait for the right setting and pack their lobbyist into Washington with the right assets to give them leverage in their negotiations. They show interest in the environment, display various preventive measures in place to prevent an accidents, and produce a plan in the event of an emergency to limit the fallout. They supplement this good will by engineering evidence-based research to reassure the pragmatists that their methodology in sound and reliable. If the answer is no, campaign contributions dry up and the business may provide a press release that details exactly how denying their project will kill jobs and hurt the local economy.
We expect our government and its officials to act like reasonable parents and go through the necessary steps to protect its people, but in the end it comes down to motivations. Is the individual willing to stand up for the public's interest despite the blackmail of business, or will he fall victim to the temptation of acting upon taking the easy way out and doing what's best for their career? While it is not our government's responsibility to run our businesses, it is their duty to provide a check against abuse and act as representatives of the people and public space. When there is a conflict of interest that corrupts those who hold our corporate entities accountable, the nation suffers.
We need public servants who are more than just conscious drones who offer up fodder for comedians everywhere, but are active and conscientiously working for the good of the people in a system that does not leave them vulnerable to system corruption. Additionally, they need the funds to critically review the data and methodology of these massive projects to avoid another BP-esque situation. If we are are proactive, our government can work with the private sector to find energy solutions that work economically and environmentally, but the future is dismal if we remain reactive and hope to simply adapt, innovate and acclimate our way to survival.
Republican Presidential candidate, Tea Party darling, and Sarah Palin clone Michele Bachmann recommended we repeal the EPA, but closing an agency that fights for environmental justice will not make environmental issues go away. They will be amplified as externalities encroach upon public health and planet Earth's health. Just because an agency cannot do its job given its current resources does not mean we should abolish the agency, but nor does it mean we should just give it more money. We need to protect our regulators and our decision-makers from situations that force them to chose between their duty and themselves.
If this was a game of chess, the EPA would be a pawn. We shouldn't blame the EPA because it is stuck in the system, nor should we just sacrifice the piece. Instead, we need to use that pawn to progress forward until it can reach the other side of the board and be promoted to a queen. To do this, it will require the support of other pieces (media, various environmental / health groups, politicians, etc.) to protect it, but every day we move closer and closer to a future where environmentalism is a part of the culture, not just the dream of a fit within it.
