Tag Archives: major

Party Unity Time Is Coming Soon for Bernie and Hillary

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Greg Sargent thinks that Bernie Sanders has already conceded to the reality that he’s not going to win the Democratic nomination. He’ll continue to go through the motions for a while, but will then start up “serious unity talks” with the Clinton campaign:

At that point, the question of how the Clinton campaign, not just the Sanders campaign, handles the conclusion to this whole process will play a big role in influencing what happens. It’s still unclear whether the Clinton camp will see a need to make any concessions to Sanders in order to win over his supporters and unite the party. But it will be in the interests of Clinton and the Democratic Party to ensure that this process goes as smoothly as possible. They’ll likely conclude that there is greater risk in not making any meaningful gestures towards unity than in making them. What this might look like is the subject of a future post.

Speaking very generally, it’s obviously in Hillary Clinton’s interest to have Bernie on her side. But what kind of concessions can she make, if indeed Bernie demands some? She can’t credibly make any major policy switches, but perhaps she could make some minor ones. She could make concessions on future appointments, but that would have to be done privately, which is always a danger. What else?

My own take is that Hillary probably doesn’t have to do very much. Past candidates haven’t, after all. In theory, the difference this time is that Bernie’s followers are so loyal and committed that they’ll withhold their votes if Bernie even hints at it, but I just don’t buy that. By the time September rolls around, the prospect of a Trump presidency will have every liberal in the country fired up. Hillary’s weaknesses simply won’t seem important anymore. If Bernie seems even slightly less than completely enthusiastic about her campaign, that will reflect back on him, not Hillary.

So…I think there’s less here than meets the eye. Hillary and Bernie will make nice, because that’s what candidates do when primaries are over, and perhaps Hillary will make a few small concessions—either privately or otherwise. Then it will be all hands on deck to defeat Trump. No one who doesn’t want to be drummed out of the liberal movement entirely can afford not to be a part of that. Bernie Sanders, of all people, knows this very well. When the time comes, he’ll be there. He’s much too decent a person to sulk in his tent just because he lost a campaign that he never expected to win in the first place.

Visit link: 

Party Unity Time Is Coming Soon for Bernie and Hillary

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Party Unity Time Is Coming Soon for Bernie and Hillary

The Story of the Great Brooklyn Voter Purge Keeps Getting Weirder

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The first head has rolled after more than 100,000 voters were mistakenly purged from the Brooklyn voter rolls ahead of this week’s New York primary, which handed Hillary Clinton a much-needed win over Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Diane Haslett-Rudiano, the chief clerk of the New York Board of Elections, was suspended “without pay, effective immediately, pending an internal investigation into the administration of the voter rolls in the Borough of Brooklyn,” the agency said in a statement, according to the New York Daily News.

Anonymous city elections officials said Haslett-Rudiano, who was in charge of the city’s Republican voter rolls, had been “scapegoated,” according to the New York Post. “It sounds like they cut a deal to make the Republican the scapegoat and protect Betty Ann,” an anonymous Democratic elected official from Brooklyn told the Post, referring to Betty Ann Canizio, who was in charge of the Democratic voter rolls.

On the day of the primary, New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio, a Clinton supporter, said he’d heard reports of the “purging of entire buildings and blocks of voters from the voting lists.” He said, “The perception that numerous voters may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the entire electoral process.”

The voter purge was just one of several problems with the primary throughout the city. Voters also reported long lines, poll locations that didn’t open, and, in one case, an elections worker sleeping on the job.

According to the Daily News, Haslett-Rudiano was in charge of maintaining accurate voter registration lists, a job that includes updating party registration information and removing the names of people who’ve died or moved. That process had fallen six months to a year behind schedule, according to WNYC, which reported the day before the primary that 60,000 Democrats had been removed from the polls in Brooklyn. That number later doubled after the Board of Elections followed up on the WNYC story.

New York City Comptroller Scott M. Stringer has opened an investigation into the matter, and New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that his office had received more than 1,000 complaints about the election and would also look into “alleged improprieties” by the New York City Board of Elections. Scheiderman’s statement noted that he would expand his investigation to other areas of the state if warranted. On Friday, an official in Schneiderman’s press office told Mother Jones that there had been reports of issues in other parts of the state, but that for now the investigation was limited to the New York City area.

“Voting is the cornerstone of our democracy, and if any New Yorker was illegally prevented from voting, I will do everything in my power to make their vote count and ensure that it never happens again,” Schneiderman said.

According to the Daily News, Haslett-Rudiano skipped a step in the process of purging people from the list, which led to some people being improperly removed. Many voters reported being registered as Democrats, only to find that their affiliation had been changed from Democrat to unaffiliated. That meant they couldn’t vote in New York’s closed primary election, which requires an official registration with one of the major parties.

This isn’t the first time Haslett-Rudiano has made headlines. According to the Daily News, a building she owned on the Upper West Side of Manhattan was the subject of more than 20 Department of Buildings violations over the years after she’d let it fall into disrepair. The building, which she reportedly bought for $5,000 in 1976, was sold in 2014 for $6.6 million.

New York State Board of Elections spokesman Thomas Connolly told Think Progress that each complaint he’d followed up on had been due to a mistake on the voter’s part. “I’ve yet to come across a voter registration that’s been maliciously changed,” he said. “There’s always been a legitimate reason.”

Election Justice USA, a national organization formed after the botched Arizona elections on March 22, tried to help voters whose affiliations had been switched without their knowledge by filing a lawsuit to make the primaries open to any registered voter. A judge dismissed that request on Tuesday, but the group hasn’t given up. Shyla Nelson, a co-founder of the organization, said there is an ongoing lawsuit seeking a review of all the provisional ballots submitted by voters who reported being removed from the rolls against their will. The group is also seeking to have provisional ballots (sometimes referred to as “affidavit ballots” in New York) counted before the state certifies its primary results on May 5.

Nelson told Mother Jones that an evidentiary hearing will be held in the case on April 29. The group is nonpartisan, said Nelson, who noted that there are Republicans among the 700-plus reports of election troubles the group has collected. She added that until there’s a full understanding of improperly disqualified ballots, the results of the election are in doubt.

“If that had not happened, would that have changed the outcome of the election?” she asked. “It may have. And so long as that’s out there as a question, I think we’re looking at some deep fundamental questions about how we conduct our elections systematically, and what it is that we need to do to ensure that we’re not left with so severe a level of doubt in that process.”

See more here:

The Story of the Great Brooklyn Voter Purge Keeps Getting Weirder

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ringer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Story of the Great Brooklyn Voter Purge Keeps Getting Weirder

Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For the last couple of months, we’ve been taking flak from some of our readers over our election coverage. Here’s a sample of Facebook comments from a recent story, headlined “Sanders Extends His Lead in Wyoming.”

“You hate Bernie.” “Boy the media hates her!”

Journalists like us typically shrug off this kind of criticism. When we make people on both sides mad, we must be doing something right…right?

But Mother Jones is not your typical news organization, this isn’t your typical election season, and we’ve never been too much into doing things the way they’ve always been done. So we wanted to take a different tack this time and address these concerns with you, head-on.

We won’t be coy: This is about building a relationship, and we’re going to ask for money.

Mother Jones is a reader-supported nonprofit, and that means we rely on donations and magazine subscriptions for 70 percent of our annual budget. It also means that by April 30, we need to raise $175,000 from readers like you to stay on track.

So the easiest thing to do, in some ways, would be taking it easy on our election coverage so as not to upset any of you while we’re asking for your support—we know Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders appeal to a lot of our readers. But taking it easy on anything is not in our DNA; in fact, it’s exactly the opposite of what (we think) you want us to do.

We’ll explain why we believe that—but if you don’t need to read more, please make your tax-deducible donation to help fund our reporting right now. (You can use PayPal, too, which could be easier if you’re reading this on your phone.)

Here’s one big thing about being supported by readers: No one tells us what to cover, or how. That means we’re free to do what good journalism has always done: Offend some of the people, all of the time.

Unlike some publications, we don’t endorse or support candidates. As a nonprofit, we’re legally prohibited from doing that, and, just as importantly, it would be counter to what we stand for journalistically. We’re not about telling you how to make up your mind. You do just fine on your own. What we are about is giving you the facts you need to do it—even when they are uncomfortable.

That often means going to extra lengths: Unlike a lot of “news” you read online, what we write goes through a real fact-checking process. (Read a great description of it, by one of our ace former researchers, here.)

And it means digging in places where others aren’t. Back in 2012, pundits insisted that voters didn’t really care about the 0.01 percent and their disproportionate influence in politics—until we revealed how Mitt Romney had told his big-ticket donors that 47 percent of Americans were moochers. Two years ago, when few were talking about Clinton’s links to the fossil fuel industry, we did a major investigative feature on her support for fracking as secretary of state; now her links to the fossil fuel industry are a big issue. Last summer, we ran the first in-depth piece on Sanders’ political evolution (and put an illustration of him on Mount Rushmore on the cover of our magazine); it took months for other major outlets to take him seriously. Since then, we’ve both covered the breaking news in the race and dug deeper on the strong points and weak points of both candidates—because that’s the job you want us to do.

Stories that make some of our readers uncomfortable don’t just happen during a presidential election. The increase in mass shootings and the influence of the National Rifle Association, the neuroscience behind racism, the incredible amount of water it takes to grow a single almond—we’ve gotten pushback from a lot of people about these stories, too, but they’ve also turned into mainstays of the public debate.

And that’s what we’re aiming for: substantive reporting that challenges conventional wisdom. There are plenty of places that serve up content to affirm what their readers already believe. But we think you deserve better.

Do we expect our biggest critics to open up their wallets to support us after reading this? Nope. But being a reader-supported nonprofit means building a real relationship with our audience, and that starts with trust. We hope there are enough of you who trust us to provide information you won’t find anywhere else—even if, especially if, it challenges your own preconceptions.

Continue reading here: 

Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why We’re Tough on The Candidates You Like

We Dare You to Not Break Down Watching Prince’s Tribute to Freddie Gray

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Prince wasn’t just a major pop icon—he was also a staunch supporter of the Black Lives Matter movement. Last May, after weeks of protests in Baltimore that followed the death of Freddie Gray in police custody, he released a tribute song, “Baltimore,” which honored Gray and those demonstrating against police brutality. Prince performed the song live that month at a free show in Baltimore. He also gave a nod to the Black Lives Matter movement while presenting the award for Album of the Year at the 2015 Grammys. “Albums still matter,” he said. “Like books and black lives, albums still matter.”

Today fans are mourning the death of the legendary pop star. This week also marks the one-year anniversary of Freddie Gray’s death. Check out the video for Prince’s tribute to Gray below.

Original link:  

We Dare You to Not Break Down Watching Prince’s Tribute to Freddie Gray

Posted in Anchor, cannabis, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Dare You to Not Break Down Watching Prince’s Tribute to Freddie Gray

This week’s deadly flooding in Houston is just the beginning

A scene from 2015’s disastrous floods in Houston. REUTERS/Lee Celano

This week’s deadly flooding in Houston is just the beginning

By on Apr 19, 2016commentsShare

Houston is in the throes of a flood that is, according to recent headlines, “historic,” “deadly,” and “unprecedented.”

None of that is hyperbole. As of Tuesday, the floods had killed at least six people, destroyed miles of homes and highways, and displaced hundreds of residents. More than 17 inches of rain had fallen in Texas’ Harris County since the previous morning, according to ABC News. And it wasn’t over yet: The National Weather Service issued flood warnings into late Tuesday night. (Meanwhile, Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner helpfully commented that there was “nothing you can do” in the face of “a lot of rain coming in a very short period of time.”)

Flooding has become an annual hazard in the city, which sits at just 43 feet above sea level. Unfortunately, it’s very likely that the situation will only worsen.

For starters, when floodwaters begin to recede, they bring their own set of hazards and dangers. A spokesperson for the American Red Cross noted the extreme toxicity of floodwater, reports ABC News, which constitutes a sludge of debris from cars, houses, and infrastructure — not to mention overflow from contaminated waterways like Texas’ Blanco River. The rising waters also disrupted wildlife — officials warned that aggressive snakes washing up on people’s properties were a risk factor. During cleanup, Houstonians will be exposed to a Pandora’s Box of mold and airborne toxins that could aggravate asthma or respiratory illness.

Plus, Houston is woefully underprepared for natural disasters, as an investigation by ProPublica and Texas Monthly revealed in March. The investigation, which relied on predictive meteorological models, found that the near-miss of Hurricane Ike in 2008 was a relative blessing for the city that no one should bank on occurring again. According to scientists interviewed for the project, the odds of Houston’s “perfect storm” happening in a given year exceed that of being killed in a car crash or by a firearm — both of which are fairly common occurrences in the U.S.

According to ProPublica, Houston is the fourth-largest American city and a major industrial hub that contains the country’s largest refining and petrochemical complex, NASA’s Johnson Space Center, the Houston Ship Channel, and multiple rapidly expanding residential areas. If the storm hits at the wrong spot, all of those place would be at risk of being underwater or severely damaged by flooding. That’s a scenario that would halt supply chains all over the country and wreak havoc on the American economy.

But experts told media outlets this week that there was no way that Houston could prepare in time. “Could we have engineered our way out of this?” said Rice University engineer Philip Bedient, quoted in the Guardian. “Only if we started talking about alterations 35 or 40 years ago.”

Bedient went on to say that the best that Houston could hope for for was a good warning system. NASA might want to get on that — if only certain presidential candidates wouldn’t get in its way.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue at source: 

This week’s deadly flooding in Houston is just the beginning

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, ProPublica, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This week’s deadly flooding in Houston is just the beginning

A climate hawk’s guide to New York’s Democratic debate

Bernie and Hillary debate in Flint, Michigan, March 6, 2016. REUTERS/Jim Young

A climate hawk’s guide to New York’s Democratic debate

By on 14 Apr 2016 5:00 amcommentsShare

Less than a week to go before the New York primary, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders will hold their ninth debate on Thursday on both their home turfs — Brooklyn. Though the environment hasn’t cropped up in many of the previous debates, it’s looking as though it will be on the table during this one with CNN and NY1. Last weekend, Sanders held climate rally for activists in upstate New York and he’s taken plenty of opportunities to go after his opponent on hydraulic fracturing. And on Wednesday, the day before the debate, Clinton released a plan to fight for climate and environmental justice.

With Clinton currently polling ahead of Sanders by double-digit margins and Sanders coming in from a seven-state winning streak, you can expect a tussle. But if you haven’t been keeping up — in this election season’s circus, we wouldn’t blame you — here are the climate fireworks to watch for in the debate:

Fracking: Sanders’ camp pointedly brought fracking into the fray in a state that’s banned the practice outright, highlighting Clinton’s record of supporting the natural gas industry. When it comes to fracking, Clinton favors local control and stiffer regulations, as opposed to the straight-up national ban that Sanders has called for.

How would Sanders stop fracking? Grist spoke to the Sanders campaign in February to get the details. (Hint: He says he doesn’t need Congress.)

Environmental justice: The water crisis in Flint, Mich., has featured heavily in the Democratic primary, as Rebecca Leber writes. Clinton released a plan on Wednesday to tackle lead poisoning, which includes establishing a Presidential Commission on Childhood Lead Exposure, directing more money to the Superfund budget, and requiring federal agencies to come up with environmental justice plans. It has some overlap with Sanders’ past proposals and calls for environmental justice.

Fossil fuel donations: Clinton recently snapped at a Greenpeace activist at a rally in Purchase, N.Y., who challenged Clinton to reject fossil fuel donations in her campaign. Clinton lost her cool, replying that she was “sick of the Sanders campaign lying about me.” Ben Adler has the context on whether Clinton’s donors matter more than her policy positions.

Fuel extraction: Clinton and climate activists have genuine disagreements when it comes to fossil fuels, as Grist pointed out last week. For starters, Clinton supports some extraction on public land. (Sanders doesn’t.) Clinton in the past has also supported natural gas as a “bridge” between fossil fuels and clean energy.

Clinton has come out against offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic, while Sanders opposes offshore drilling. Sanders supports a bill that would ban fossil fuel extraction on national land, ban offshore drilling in the Arctic and Atlantic and stop new leases for drilling in the Gulf.

Nuclear energy: One major difference between Sanders’ climate plan and views held by some environmentalists: nuclear energy. Sanders opposes nuclear across the board, while enviros tend to favor keeping it in the mix to street clear of coal and oil.

Ben Adler took a deep dive into Sanders’ stance on nuclear power last month, and found that while it may “not be the best idea from a climate perspective,” it’s also not “the shallow hippie caricature that his critics describe.”

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Continue reading here – 

A climate hawk’s guide to New York’s Democratic debate

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A climate hawk’s guide to New York’s Democratic debate

The oil industry knew about climate change before we landed on the moon

Astronaut Neil Armstrong snapped a photo of Buzz Aldrin on the surface of the moon in 1969. NASA

The oil industry knew about climate change before we landed on the moon

By on 13 Apr 2016commentsShare

The year before we landed Neil Armstrong on the moon, the largest oil industry trade group was aware of the consequences burning fossil fuels had on the climate. And yet, even today, public belief in climate change is still rising and falling with changes in the weather.

The D.C.-based Center for International Environmental Law this week dug up an old report commissioned by the American Petroleum Institute in 1968. The warning about carbon dioxide might sound familiar:

“If CO2 levels continue to rise at present rates, it is likely that noticeable increases in temperature could occur … “Changes in temperature on the world-wide scale could cause major changes in the earth’s atmosphere over the next several hundred years including change in the polar ice caps.”

This wouldn’t be the last time Big Oil heard this finding. Exxon, in particular, conducted research confirming fossil fuels’ role in global warming as far back as the 1970s. But, as InsideClimateNews investigations have shown, the industry orchestrated a lobbying and misinformation campaign beginning in the 1980s to cast doubt about the research’s conclusions.

The fossil fuel industry was aware of climate change well before the death of Elvis Presley (1977), before the end of the Vietnam War (1975), and way, way before the invention of the internet (1983). The public and politicians, however, are still catching up.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link: 

The oil industry knew about climate change before we landed on the moon

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The oil industry knew about climate change before we landed on the moon

No new lead crises in 5 years? Clinton has a plan

Hillary Clinton addresses the National Action Network’s 25th Annual Convention in New York City. REUTERS/Mike Segar

No new lead crises in 5 years? Clinton has a plan

By on 13 Apr 2016commentsShare

The day before a Democratic presidential debate in New York, Hillary Clinton rolled out an environmental justice plan that calls for eliminating lead as a major public health threat within five years.

She would have her work cut out for her, as Flint, Mich.’s lead-poisoning crisis has shown. As Clinton reminded her audience today in a speech on racial justice at Al Sharpton’s National Action Network conference: “There are a lot of Flints across our country where children are exposed to polluted air, unhealthy water and chemicals that can increase cancer risk.”

Studies show that some 500,000 U.S. children under the age of 5, who are predominantly black and Latino, have high levels of lead in their bloodstreams. This is primarily because of lead-based paint in old buildings, but also stems from contaminated soil and drinking water. When it comes to water contamination, we don’t even know where most of the problematic pipes are concentrated; best guesses range from 3 to 10 million lead service lines in America. Nor do we have consistent reporting on concentrated areas of lead paint in homes.

Despite the myriad challenges, Clinton insisted Wednesday: “If we put our minds to it, it can be done.”

Her plan calls for:

A Presidential Commission on Childhood Lead Exposure and a task force charged with finding and fixing 50 other Flints around the country.
Directing all federal agencies to develop plans on environmental justice and ensure that the Justice Department prosecutes environmental crimes as heavily as other crimes.
More funding — specifically, up to $5 billion in federal dollars — to replace lead paint in homes and contaminated soils in school yards.
Federal incentives through her Clean Energy Challenge (something Clinton proposed previously) so that states have a reason to exceed federal standards for lead reduction and other types of pollution.
Funds to replenish the Superfund budget to clean up over 450,000 polluted sites around the U.S.
An update the Lead Disclosure Rule and Safe Water Drinking Act to improve lead inspections, and the need for more infrastructure spending to fix water and transportation-related pollution.

A number of these proposals would require Congress to cough up more funding for infrastructure and transportation, as well as for Congress to amend laws. And a few of them overlap with proposals from Bernie Sanders, who has also called for more funds for Superfund sites and would direct agencies to develop clear priorities on environmental justice. Sanders, too, has highlighted the “unequal exposure of people of color to harmful chemicals, pesticides and other toxins in homes, schools, neighborhoods and workplaces” on his campaign website.

Flint has featured heavily in the Democratic primary and was the site of a Clinton-Sanders debate in March. With a week to go before New Yorkers vote, environmental justice is back in the national spotlight. But the intertwined problems of pollution, poverty, and racism won’t be fixed in just a handful of debates.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Taken from: 

No new lead crises in 5 years? Clinton has a plan

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No new lead crises in 5 years? Clinton has a plan

Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an XL pipeline out there

Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an XL pipeline out there

By on 4 Apr 2016commentsShare

A major section of the original Keystone pipeline is out of commission after an oil spill near the pipeline was detected in South Dakota on April 2.

The spill, estimated at 187 gallons of crude oil, serves as a reminder of the risks that pipelines pose — and that with the Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, we’ve likely avoided the potential for an even bigger, more disastrous spill.

Part of the original argument against Keystone XL was that eventually, the proposed pipeline was bound to spill. A 2013 Forbes article (which claimed that it was “crazy” to think Keystone XL wouldn’t leak) pointed out that as pipelines age, they are often not properly maintained, leading to a greater possibility of a leak occurring.

The recent oil spill was discovered, of course, by TransCanada’s state-of-the-art spill detection technology — oh, what’s that? My state-of-the-art Tweet detecting system’s “Bill McKibben” sensor just went off:

Apparently, a South Dakota landowner first noticed signs of a spill and informed TransCanada of the leak. As a result, TransCanada shut down the section of the pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Cushing, Okla. (The section of Keystone that runs from Cushing to Texas is still in operation.)

Transcanada says that “no significant impact to the environment has been observed” from the April 2 spill. We hope it stays that way — and in the meantime, we’re glad that there’s one less huge pipeline out there to worry about. Spilled milk might not be worth crying over, but unspilled pipelines are definitely worth celebrating.

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original article:

Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an XL pipeline out there

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an XL pipeline out there

Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an even bigger pipeline out there

Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an even bigger pipeline out there

By on 4 Apr 2016commentsShare

A major section of the original Keystone pipeline is out of commission after an oil spill near the pipeline was detected in South Dakota on April 2.

The spill, estimated at 187 gallons of crude oil, serves as a reminder of the risks that pipelines pose — and that with the Obama administration’s rejection of the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, we’ve likely avoided the potential for an even bigger, more disastrous spill.

Part of the original argument against Keystone XL was that eventually, the proposed pipeline was bound to spill. A 2013 Forbes article (which claimed that it was “crazy” to think Keystone XL wouldn’t leak) pointed out that as pipelines age, they are often not properly maintained, leading to a greater possibility of a leak occurring.

The recent oil spill was discovered, of course, by TransCanada’s state-of-the-art spill detection technology — oh, what’s that? My state-of-the-art Tweet detecting system’s “Bill McKibben” sensor just went off:

Apparently, a South Dakota landowner first noticed signs of a spill and informed TransCanada of the leak. As a result, TransCanada shut down the section of the pipeline from Alberta, Canada, to Cushing, Okla. (The section of Keystone that runs from Cushing to Texas is still in operation.)

TransCanada says that “no significant impact to the environment has been observed” from the April 2 spill. We hope it stays that way — and in the meantime, we’re glad that there’s one less huge pipeline out there to worry about. Spilled milk might not be worth crying over, but unspilled pipelines are definitely worth celebrating.

Correction: An earlier version of this article’s headline read “Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an XL pipeline out there.” In fact, the southern leg of the XL pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas is in operation. Grist regrets the error.

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read this article – 

Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an even bigger pipeline out there

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Keystone leaks and reminds us why we’re glad there isn’t an even bigger pipeline out there