It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Art Tanderup represents a group of family farmers whose land and businesses would be put at risk by the pipeline. His appearance on Fox News was rather risky as well considering the network’s blatant support for the fossil fuel industry. Smith began the segment with a question that focused on an overtly partisan premise:
“President Trump has argued that the pipeline construction would bring new jobs. But the whole thing is now in the hands of a state regulatory board […] What is you goal here?”
Trump’s support for Keystone rests on a foundation of disinformation. Independent analysts agree that the the project would create about thirty-five permanent jobs. But even if it created more, that wouldn’t justify destroying communities and the livelihoods of private citizens.
Nevertheless, Tanderup responded to the question without addressing the political overtones. He said that the goal is to “leave the tar sands in the ground and move more rapidly to renewable fuels.” Elaborating on that he continued:
“After we learned how destructive the chemicals and the tar sands are, we have come to realize that this type of fossil fuel should not be happening. It doesn’t matter where it’s at. We need to look for other sources of renewable energy.”
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Although I agree that this pipelines positive impact on America has been drastically exaggerated, the negative impact has been as well.
We have a million plus miles of oil and gas lines in America, a thousand more will not make any difference.
Well, then you don't really have a handle on the controversy, my friend.
originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
I don't think he schooled her at all, she lead the narrative. A lot of what is said in the article wasn't even brought up by the guy during he interview. She just brought him on to look fringe to unsuspecting people. I feel she may have succeeded.
Fox News is a brazenly Trump-sponsored outlet, like RT. Both propaganda.
Notice that Smith was fact-checked live about her contention that energy independence had anything to do with this. It doesn’t. But even then she attempted to imply that Canadian oil was the same as American. It’s not. And Tanderup’s obvious knowledge of the subject left her floundering.
This brief segment is a profound summary of the whole Keystone XL debate. The pipeline does not create the jobs that supporters claim. The oil is not American, so it doesn’t contribute to energy independence.
And the refined oil is intended for export to Europe and Asia. So it isn’t helping to reduce American fuel imports. And if this Nebraskan farmer can get it right, so can Fox News. Which is the best evidence that Fox is deliberately getting it wrong to advance their right-wing political agenda.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
Although I agree that this pipelines positive impact on America has been drastically exaggerated, the negative impact has been as well.
We have a million plus miles of oil and gas lines in America, a thousand more will not make any difference.
Shows your sketchy knowledge of environmental issues. My brother is an environmental mitigation engineer. My uncle is a geologist. For some unknown reason they both voted for Trump, regardless of his reckless intentions with our natural resources like water, clean air, forests, and agriculture.
Last week the gas lines at the front of my yard and my neighbor across the street had new pipes installed to our gas service. Our county's water is some of the best in the country. We have plenty of sunshine and wind. We are moving away from fossil fuels.
And yes, it makes a difference. Anything else I can correct for you?
Shows your sketchy knowledge of environmental issues. My brother is an environmental mitigation engineer. My uncle is a geologist. For some unknown reason they both voted for Trump, regardless of his reckless intentions with our natural resources like water, clean air, forests, and agriculture.
Last week the gas lines at the front of my yard and my neighbor across the street had new pipes installed to our gas service. Our county's water is some of the best in the country. We have plenty of sunshine and wind. We are moving away from fossil fuels.
Natural gas is a naturally occurring hydrocarbon gas mixture consisting primarily of methane, but commonly including varying amounts of other higher alkanes, and sometimes a small percentage of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, hydrogen sulfide, or helium.[2] It is formed when layers of decomposing plant and animal matter are exposed to intense heat and pressure under the surface of the Earth over millions of years. The energy that the plants originally obtained from the sun is stored in the form of chemical bonds in the gas.[3]
Nope. He doesn't. I'm his older sister and have just as much education in environmental science as he does.
If your brother is an environmental mitigation engineer, he probably knows far more about the environment and proper stewardship than you do.
"Rigorous science is critical to my administration's efforts to achieve the twin goals of economic growth and environmental protection," Trump said in a statement Saturday as thousands of marchers filled the streets of downtown Washington to support science and evidence-based research -- a protest partly fueled by opposition to Trump's threats of budget cuts to agencies funding scientists' work.
"My administration is committed to advancing scientific research that leads to a better understanding of our environment and of environmental risks," Trump said. "As we do so, we should remember that rigorous science depends not on ideology, but on a spirit of honest inquiry and robust debate.
"This April 22nd, as we observe Earth Day, I hope that our nation can come together to give thanks for the land we all love and call home," Trump added.
originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
We can live without each other's resources having to be traded.
The United States is the largest net exporter of refined petroleum, the rest of the world cannot live without our products.
originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
Well, then you don't really have a handle on the controversy, my friend.
originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: BuzzyWigs
I don't think he schooled her at all, she lead the narrative. A lot of what is said in the article wasn't even brought up by the guy during he interview. She just brought him on to look fringe to unsuspecting people. I feel she may have succeeded.
It requires some background knowledge, which she also does not have.
Fox News is a brazenly Trump-sponsored outlet, like RT. Both propaganda.
Notice that Smith was fact-checked live about her contention that energy independence had anything to do with this. It doesn’t. But even then she attempted to imply that Canadian oil was the same as American. It’s not. And Tanderup’s obvious knowledge of the subject left her floundering.
This brief segment is a profound summary of the whole Keystone XL debate. The pipeline does not create the jobs that supporters claim. The oil is not American, so it doesn’t contribute to energy independence.
And the refined oil is intended for export to Europe and Asia. So it isn’t helping to reduce American fuel imports. And if this Nebraskan farmer can get it right, so can Fox News. Which is the best evidence that Fox is deliberately getting it wrong to advance their right-wing political agenda.