“Our main question is ‘Why now?'” said Ron Kaminski of Laborers’ Union Local 1140 of Omaha. “Weighing in against this project at the twelfth hour doesn’t help create jobs and puts the entire $7 billion project in jeopardy. The science has shown this route to be safe.”
Wow. Great question Ron.
You can say over and over and over again that any possible oil spill over the Ogallala Aquifer would be localized. You can point to the scientists who spell out that the a spill would not, could not contaminate the aquifer.
You can explain to people that the aquifer is not some giant cistern holding a pool of water, but actually an underground rocky, sandy river through which crude oil does not flow.
You can point out that oil spills much more commonly occur at river crossings and pumping stations. And you can point out that an alternate route for the Keystone XL pipeline would be longer and cross MORE rivers and streams which would be more of a threat for spills.
And you can point out that studies for this have been going on for three years and have already had hearings and debates and discussions and more studies and reports.
But that doesn’t seem to matter.
Because as soon as you ask Joe Walkingdownthestreet, “Hey! Do you want oil in your baby’s drinking water???!!!“, then all reason and studies and discussions and logic and science go down the drain.
What is easier to understand folks?
A discussion of groundwater gravitational flow through porous soil and associated limited viscosity.
Or a beanie baby with a cute caption attached to it that says, “Windmills not oil spills!”
You see, Jane Kleeb and her band of oil haters do know this, and that is why they have been successful in rounding up support on this issue.
Yesterday in Lincoln, reps from TransCanada gave their argument for the pipeline to a number of state legislators and their staff. Also in attendance was Jane Kleeb. Others there noted that she sat, grouchy faced, Tweeting madly the whole time.
An example of her fast fingered notes:
This is jeff rauh (of TransCanada), equivalent to the spin guy on “thank you for smoking”
See, there is your gangbusters argument. Make fun of the guy delivering the message. Vilify him. Though why Jane didn’t just compare him to a combo of Hannibal Lecter and Jabba the Hutt, we don’t know.
But Jane, you see thinks this is all about “#winning“. Yes, she and Charlie Sheen both like that term.
We had a commenter come to Leavenworth Street say, “Jane and the Boldies win!”
This is all a big freaking game to them, gang.
From the start of their charade, it begins with them arguing that getting the oil in Canada increases carbon emissions. That is their ENTIRE argument.
From there, will an oil leak — which we have pointed out is much less likely than at say, a river crossing — over the aquifer affect the entire aquifer, or will it be localized?
Who cares! The enviros are winning!
Will the alternate, longer route cross more of said rivers and streams and in the end be more costly and potentially dangerous?
Who cares! Windmills not oil spills!
Will this pipeline which is needed, would provide hundreds of jobs and has been studied and studied and studied for over three years now be built?
Who cares, indeed.