Debating Keystone, the environment and the Chinese

I honestly had no intention of using Storify again today, or even any time soon. But after Jim Naureckas of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) and I tweeted back and forth over the merits of Joe Nocera’s New York Times column on the Keystone XL pipeline, Reuters media critic Jack Shafer said I should post it. So here it is. The world will little note nor long remember …

[View the story “Hot liberal-on-liberal action” on Storify]

3 thoughts on “Debating Keystone, the environment and the Chinese

  1. Stephen Stein

    While @JNaureckas certainly raises valid objection to oil use in general in the larger, long-term sense, Dan expresses at the present-day reality quite well. But I object to Keystone on more practical, short-term grounds: the danger of a leaky pipeline fouling water supplies.

    We’ve already got flammable water in a lot of central PA and NY due to fracking – do we really want to foul up the water on which our midwest agriculture bread basket depends?

    Have these pipeline guys demonstrated that they can build and operate this in a safe and responsible manner? Right now, all we have are assurances by firms like Cardno Entrix, which is just another oil firm. Pardon me if I’m not reassured. TransCanada is having serious problems with its existing pipelines. “Six-story geyser” and “21000 gallon spill” are not calming phrases.

  2. Bill Schweber

    Call me old-fashioned–well actually, yes, I am–but I’d really prefer a clear, coherent, well-written story than all these zings back-and-forth from all sides. It’s hard to follow, or make any sense of, and it just adds to the ADD-ness of life around us. We engineers would say this type of “writing” is high in noise level, and low in actual signal level–never a good combination, ever.

    1. Dan Kennedy

      @Bill: Storify is hardly a substitute for “a clear, coherent, well-written story.” But, used properly, I think it can make for an interesting presentation of certain types of information. I doubt the exchange between Jim and me was worth preserving except as a tongue-in-cheek response to Jack Shafer’s tongue-in-cheek request.

Comments are closed.