Stickybuffalo.com

“Pain at the pump.” “Pain at the pump.”  “Feeling the pinch from high gas prices.” Etc., etc., etc.

Times like these it must be great to be a journalist. With a presidential election this year, and rising petrol prices, both, copy-and-paste might almost suffice for a full day’s work for some reporters.

Because, obviously, it isn’t like anyone ever has anything new to say on the subject. Any more than it is the case that, lacking anything new or useful to say about the subject, news media figure that hey, Americans feeling ornery about gas prices is basically a fact of life these days, and is no more “news” than hot weather in July, so we should just write about something else. Instead, we get more “pain at the pump” stories (and, for that matter, more “hot weather in July” stories every year, also). Plus, fun speculation (bordering on advocacy) that this may drag down President Obama’s re-election campaign. Lovely!

And I suppose the really funny thing is that, yes, a more nuanced story is boring, except one might think that the 11 millionth “pain at the pump” retread story might not seem all that lively or engaging, either. I suppose that the latter type of coverage, however, allows news media to show themselves “relating” to the concerns of readers, who want something they can click on which seems to express their frustration, rather than a lecture which informs them why the cause of their frustration defies easy solutions. Plus, lecturing might seem, somehow, less “objective” than the “pain at the pump” story model, even though the latter frequently ends up verging on Republican campaign advertising. No one ever said that journalism had to be objective, though, just seem like it.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, let’s go crazy and take an honest look at what options, if any, are realistically available as responses to anger about high gas prices (and ad nauseum reporting of such). (more…)

The following is a letter addressed to the TransCanada corporation, also submitted to The Globe and Mail as an open letter.

Dear Sirs,

Here in the United States, as is also the case in Canada, we have a democratically-elected government. That government has said “no” to your proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline. Apparently, however, rather than accept this decision you have determined to continue asking until you get a “yes.” I daresay that you would find such behavior exceedingly tiresome, from a child. Speaking as a citizen of the country from which you are trying to win permission for your project, I have much the same reaction.

At this point your only conceivable strategies for overcoming our government’s “no” are either some sort of end-run around our democratically-elected president, or else hoping that he will be defeated by the opposing Republican party. The former is particularly odious coming from an organization which never tires of trumpeting how Canada’s own democracy makes its commodity product more “ethical” than that of many other oil-exporting nations. The latter, meanwhile, seems an increasingly dubious hope given that said Republican party’s prospective champions are all immersed in a fierce competition over who can be the most remotely out-of-touch with reality.

Very possibly, the fact that this party constitutes the bulk of support for your proposal within the nation for which it is meant should tell you something. As might the fact that, despite your insistence that your product is an irreproachable boon to humanity, the European Union is planning to impose considerable penalties on it as part of measures “to discourage more-than-usually polluting sources of transport fuel,” in the words of The Economist.

Might there not be a point when, instead of continuing to circle the wagons ever more tightly, you instead stop and consider that perhaps the mounting opposition confronting you is not an inexplicable conspiracy but rather an indication that you genuinely are doing something wrong? I submit that you have passed that point. Why not do the grown-up thing and acknowledge it, rather than turning to “pester power” or a tantrum to get your way anyway, like a spoiled child?

Why not invest in building infrastructure for clean, sustainable energy which will enrich the future, rather than infrastructure for dirty, dead-end fuels which will poison it.

Looking forward to the favor of your reply I remain, your friend,

Matt

I’ve already posted about one of these, earlier, and neither is really yet at the point of being anything like what you could call a real “mission accomplished,” and etc., etc., so-on so-forth.

But I think the combination of these two positive policy developments, on the same day, is enough to really demand a brief note. Not often do we get even one item of good news like these, however compromised, let alone both:

• Obama Administration Rejects Keystone Pipeline Proposal
• Sopa: US backers end support for anti-piracy bill

That’s not too bad. Both of these proposals epitomize the “migod can we just not do this completely stupid unhelpful horrible abomination” ideas that are all-too common in American politics. Yeah, sure, the list of reasons for restraining the urge to celebrate is long and familiar: Neither measure is really necessarily “dead” yet; industry-backed monstrosities like these are never really truly “dead” anyway. Even if stopped, for now, they’ll sneak back. Neither measure’s defeat really amounts to any kind of actual progress. Nor do these limited little “non-defeats” come close to being “enough” relative to the big-picture of the challenges we’re facing. Nothing ever seems like it is or will be enough.

All true, but, aside from the fact that if this is about as good as we ever actually do we might as well take the opportunity to celebrate when we can because otherwise we’ll eventually just die without ever having let ourselves enjoy the feeling of winning… (more…)