ENGLISH 1A/2A: SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH WRITING
Advocating for Sustainability through Effective Writing
Pathway Relfections:
New, Changed, or Deepened Understanding of ENGLISH 1A/2A: SUSTAINABILITY THROUGH WRITING
As one of my first educational experiences at Santa Clara, Noel Radley's class on Sustainability Through Writing was earth-shattering. I'd never had such a progressive class in my life, especially a class that inspired its students into action. Here are some important things I learned about sustainability and more importantly, LIFE!
- Do something about your education
- Latency and indifference lead to nothing, vehement disagreement would be more attractive
- The statistics prove climate change
- Just because you're not entirely sure about something doesn't mean you should always play it safe
- To make lasting change, you must be educated and passionate
My Pathway Focused
During Fall quarter of my Sophomore year, I took Biology 6, a class that entirely focused on the organisms and animals native to California's coasts. I enjoyed this class because it took the broader topic of sustainability and climate change and focused it on one particular area of the environment, a place sensitive to man's touch on this earth. I enjoyed see the continuity of what I learned my freshman year carry on into my sophomore year. One part that stuck out to me most was the sensitivity of coral to temperature change of the ocean and overall environment. It turns out that with climate change, some areas have seen more rainfall, increasing the influx of freshwater runoff to reef areas which ultimatley kills coral, since it is so sensitive to salinity levels. It was because of the readings we did in English, I was more aware not only of how society has endangered these fragile environments, but how I could do my part in ensuring that generations that succeed mine could enjoy coral reefs.
Life Application
Like I mentioned, this class was the first real exposure I had to sustainability. More importantly however, this class taught me how to advocate for something I cared about through writing. Even more, we focused on other rhetorical methods, including blogs, media, and more conversational writing styles. I quickly gained the necessary skills to convince others of my opinion and how to inspire action. Being a person of action is the most valuable thing I've learned at Santa Clara. If you actually believe in something, let your actions be the true testament of that belief.
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Sean Roe
CTW: Sustainability
February 9, 2012
Professor Radley
It’s Halftime, America
As our nation nears the 2012 election, uncertainty and confusion runs rampant throughout. Many claim that the past four years have been disastrous, a downward spiral towards socialism and increased government control. Many Americans fear losing their jobs, their investments, and their livelihoods. Some blame the actions our government’s leadership for their loss. This indefinitely is a time of crisis and confusion for our country’s economy. But our economy’s ugly sister, the environment, weighs on our nation’s conscience with equal importance. While not as immediate in its consequences, the environment is in an equally dire state to our economy. One of the most current environmental challenges is stopping the Keystone Pipeline XL expansion, an extension of the current pipeline to the Gulf of Mexico. It seems apparent that continuing with the project would have irreversible consequences to our delicate environment. Currently the decision to stifle the pipeline sits on hold; President Obama has not clearly stated whether the pipeline deal is off. Although the upcoming 2012 Presidential Election has been labeled the “economy election,” President Obama must choose his emphasis for his reelection campaign. On one hand, the economy issue appears more immediate; yet, it is self-resuscitating. Our environment, on the other hand, cannot afford the luxury of a rebound. I propose that this is an election of priorities, more specifically, an election for the sake of our environment.
Each year, Super Bowl commercials are of equal importance to the Super Bowl game itself. While I didn’t find myself laughing as much at commercials this year, one commercial pricked the nerve of my American pride. The dark lighting and the deep, husky voice of Clint Eastwood in the “It’s Halftime, America” commercial gave me the pang of American pride I’d been hungering for. Americans love to elevate the “American made” economy as a sense of national pride. For example, the American car industry put itself at the forefront of this “homegrown” push for economic revival. While I would never purchase an American car, the commercial was at least heartwarming. Americans obviously value hard work, local, and old-fashioned methods as apart of revitalizing our economy. The title of the commercial and Eastwood’s closing line say it all, however. “It’s halftime, America.” Our nation believes that we can finish strong and that our best years are yet to come. Why can we not rally around the improvement of our environment as we rally around the improvement of our economy?
Our environment is in trouble. Conservative politicians are looking to economy growth and resurgence through environmentally harmful methods, namely the Keystone Pipeline. Currently, the Keystone Pipeline runs from the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada to oil refineries in Cushing, Oklahoma and Patoka, Illinois. The plans for the pipeline are to only make it bigger and potentially more harmful for our environment. TransCanada, the contractors for the project will achieve at destroying our natural environment in the following ways.
Firstly, the existing pipeline is problematic. According to Edward Flattau of the Huffington Post, “TransCanada's oversight record is hardly stellar. Although mostly minor, there were 12 spills during the first year of the company's operation of its existing original Keystone pipeline” (Flattau). Using simple logic, one could infer that a pipeline twice as long (Keystone Pipeline XL) would produce more spills. To make matters worse, TransCanada will increase the rate of oil pumped from the Athabasca Oil Sands. According to the New York Times, “the rate of extraction will increase to 1.8 million barrels of oil per day” (New York Times). Obviously, greater pipe surface area and a higher rate of oil flow will result in more areas contaminated by oil spills. The areas affected by these oil spills include delicate ecosystems throughout the Midwest. RTCC Climate Change Television helped me understand how the pipeline expansion will damage delicate ecosystems:
This puts it in the direct vicinity of rivers and streams across America, but most importantly the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. Not only does the area provide drinking and irrigation water for millions of American it is also home to the Nebraska Sandhills – the largest wetland ecosystem in the United States and designated an ecoregion by WWF (Smith).
I can’t reiterate this enough: pollution from the construction of the pipeline extension combined with the increased environmental impact of frequent spills along this sensitive route will devastate the United States’ largest wetland and contaminate fresh drinking water.
It also seems that we need to babysit the Canadian government. It’s as if we’re dealing with a child that has no perception of morals or consequences. The Canadian government has shown no intentions of combating this environmental blunder. It is clear that they are only focused on the economic benefits of the project. Therefore, America should not support the Canadians’ selfish behavior. After all, the fallout from increased greenhouse emissions affects us globally, not just nationally. At the approval of the pipeline, TransCanada plans to remove 740,000 acres of Canadian boreal forest to make way for increased oil extraction. Not only will the burning of this oil vastly contribute to greenhouse gasses, the process of merely extracting the oil from the sands will “contribute to a 30% increase of greenhouse gas emissions from the oil and gas sector from 2005 to 2020” (New York Times). The process in which oil is removed from the oil sands is dirty and inefficient. Oil sands are often touted as the “dirtiest oil the world.” Not only does the Keystone Pipeline project promote increased dependency on non-renewable resources like oil but it also promotes a more inefficient and dirty way of obtaining oil than we already use in traditionally drilling. How could the Republican Party even conceive that this is “beneficial for our nation?”
Despite the direction this argument is headed, it is not entirely about how “scary and bad” oil is. This argument is more about how “alarming” it is to focus more on the economy and neglect the environment is for President Obama this next election. According the PBS California, “President Obama has proven to abandon climate change legislation, increase oil drilling, and fail to assist the EPA. Therefore, why should environmentalists choose to stick with him?” (PBS California). What is President Obama doing? He has an opportunity as “Superman” to save our climate so why blow it? The environment seems to always be pushed to the wayside when faced with the economy or more “immediate” crises. While it is true that the economy is faltering, Republicans have convinced themselves (and possibly our President) that the Keystone Pipeline is our savior to ending unemployment. Conservatives stand firmly upon statistics like “the pipeline will create 100,000 jobs” and that “oil will be cheaper from a Canadian source.” Conservatives feel that these benefits from the Keystone Pipeline justify its construction. However, these statistics are simply not true. According to Grist:
The Obama administration in explaining the denial of the pipeline in a report to Congress also said “the project would not have significant impact on long-term employment in the United States” and acknowledged that claims that over 100,000 jobs would be created by the pipeline were “inflated” based on a misinterpretation of the analysis conducted by TransCanada (Grist).
As for oil prices, Keystone Pipeline proponents claim that Canada is able to sell oil at a discounted price. This is because Canada does not have a major market share in the oil industry; they simply cannot sell oil for the same price as Middle Eastern nations. But, with the Keystone Pipeline expansion, “Canadian producers will gain more leverage and will be able to sell their oil at the world price” (Washington Post). I can assure you, the Canadians will screw America for every penny for their oil. No one is doing anyone any favors here. This situation is not more economically beneficial for our nation than purchasing oil from overseas or drilling for United States oil in the Gulf of Mexico. Canada has no intentions of “cutting us a deal.” Canada wants to be a competitor in the oil industry; after the construction of the pipeline, it no longer makes sense for Canada to sell oil at a discounted rate to the United States.
So then, what is all the economic hype about the Keystone Pipeline? In terms of price of oil, it doesn’t make sense for the US to invest. The employment numbers don’t make sense either. No matter how many jobs the Keystone Pipeline expansion creates, they will only be temporary, hardly a solution to our economic problem. According to the State Department, “we fix the number of jobs at 6,000, with most of them lasting no more than the two years it would take to complete the project” (Grist). As much as sustainability of our environment seems to be at odds with our economy, they are very interconnected. Cool. We get 6,000 jobs that last for two years and then everyone is back out on the streets. The Keystone Pipeline seems to quench our desire for immediate satisfaction. We want jobs, NOW. We want change, NOW. We want our paychecks, NOW. Perhaps our nation’s focus should be on jobs that will provide for themselves for many years down the road so we can avoid similar economic crises. While solving our economic crisis immediately appears justifiable, it is wrongfully pushing our environmental crisis aside. In terms of sustainability, our current environment is not sustainable. Hello!? We don’t get a second chance at our environment. With our economy, we do get a second chance (or third or fourth etc.).
The conservatives may have one valid point, however. Republicans feel that if America seals this deal with TransCanada, North America can keep the oil away from nations like China. Since TransCanada has threatened to build a pipeline across British Columbia to ship oil to China, some Americans feel that it is our duty to protect our local oil reserves. The idea of “domestic production” is important to Americans. Judging by the nearly 10 million views on YouTube, not accounting for millions more that witnessed the “Halftime in America” commercial I discussed earlier, one could say that the security of our jobs and resources is important to Americans. Unfortunately, proponents of the Keystone Pipeline expansion to the Gulf of Mexico wrongfully assume that Canadians value the same domestic security. According to an article written by Edward Flattau:
TransCanada Corp., the corporate sponsor behind Keystone, actually admits that if its tar sands oil were piped down to our Gulf Coast refineries, it would be shipped overseas for a more attractive price than it could garner here. So much for the Keystone supporters' contention that the project would ease our dependency on oil imports from unstable parts of the world (Flattau).
It should be pretty clear that Canada intends to not provide the United States with discounted oil prices; therefore investing in the pipeline does not make sense economically. In addition, if Canada plans to ship oil overseas to Chinese markets whether or not the pipeline is built through the United States, investing in the pipeline does not make sense for the security of domestic resources. The Keystone Pipeline makes no sense.
Right now, Obama should be scared. In today’s politics, seeking reelection and making difficult, potentially party-alienating decisions do not co-mingle. James Wang, a writer for the University of Houston school newspaper warns that, “Barack Obama needs to remember that if people are forced to vote for him because of the poor quality of competitors this year, we’ll be expecting even more of him in his second term” (Wang). Voters from both the Republican and Democratic parties are concerned with President Obama’s ability to follow through on promises. Quite frankly, he hasn’t. In his recent State of the Union address, Obama pledged to “make the commitment to end subsidies to oil companies, apparently starting with his decision earlier this month to reject the Keystone XL Pipeline” (Wang). But, according to the New York Times, Obama didn’t “reject” the Keystone Pipeline; he merely “put it off because the environmental impact of the project couldn’t be adequately reviewed” (New York Times). This hardly seems like Obama has indicated his stance on the Keystone Pipeline expansion. Obama is fence sitting, which is a characteristic of a weak leader. In this case, however, Obama’s hedging is a result of political pressure from conservatives, where Republicans are portraying our president as an enemy of business. Could Republicans possibly find something else to do than obstruct our nation’s leader? Republicans claim “Obama is pandering to extreme environmentalists”(New York Times). However, if saying no to the Keystone Pipeline were “pandering to extreme environmentalists,” wouldn’t approving the pipeline be “pandering” to extreme conservatives? It is obvious that President Obama’s instinct (based on his initial stance towards environmental progressivism) is to say that Keystone Pipeline is wrong and detrimental to our society. Bullying by the Republican Party forced Obama to reconsider his values. In terms of utilitarianism, it is more beneficial for Obama to stay the course and fully reject the Keystone Pipeline in order to maintain a satisfied liberal voting pool. His current position (sitting on the fence) includes a lot of angry liberals won’t show up for the polls and conservatives that love to bully, yet wouldn’t dream of voting in support of protecting our environment over money. It’s a lose-lose situation.
Our president needs encouragement. Fully rejecting the Keystone Pipeline will provide headway for more environmental change. Taking a stand in this crucial moment in his presidency, Obama could initiate a chain reaction of major environmental reform. In a recent eyewitness interview by the Huffington Post, victims of mountaintop blasting in Appalachia shared that a strong stance against the Keystone Pipeline could provide momentum for environmental change in other parts of the United States. Again, our president promised to “look for new sources of energy without blowing the tops off mountains” (Huffington Post), yet hasn’t fulfilled his commitment. Clearly our president has good intentions and he needs encouragement in order to follow through; the Keystone Pipeline project is right at Obama’s fingertips and a decision to stop it could provide headway for major environmental change throughout our nation.
Two issues dictate the victor of the 2012 election, both issues with importance to millions of Americans. Although a Democrat, our president must work across party lines to appease both liberals and conservatives. A president is a civil servant and is elected for the people, by the people. However, the primary role of a president is to do what is best for Americans. It is clear which is more important in the argument between the economy and the environment. Despite conservative claims that the Keystone Pipeline expansion is the best thing for economic recovery, this claim’s supporting evidence is not substantial. A utopian society would value the economy and the environment equally but the current American voter demands emphasis on one or the other. Whether the economy receives more hype because of its immediacy or because of its satisfaction of our wallets, the environment is a ticking time bomb. The environment desperately needs the help of our president, a man who believes in justice for future societies, societies that depend on our efforts in the present to stop climate change. Fixing the economy is the “comfortable” thing to do. What can go wrong from supporting economic growth? Fixing the environment, however, we may not see an impact in our lifetime. Does that mean we shouldn’t try? Aren’t we bigger than ourselves? I know I am part of a bigger picture: the sustainability of life. The economy loves to dip and rise; it loves the attention our nation gives it. The economy feeds off patriotic car commercials at the Super Bowl that woo it back to life. The environment, however, gets no such attention in 2012. And, the environment gives us one shot to make it right. It may be halftime for the economy America, but it’s the end of the football game for the environment and we’re down by a touchdown.
TO BE PUBLISHED FOR SYMPATHETIC LIBERAL MEDIA
GRIST, HUFFINGTON POST
Works Cited
Biggers, Jeff. "If We Can Stop the Keystone Pipeline, We Can Stop Mountaintop Removal. Right?" The Huffington Post. 2 Feb. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
Broder, John, and Dan Frosch. "Rejecting Keystone Pipeline." New York Times. 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.
Eilperin, Juliet, and Steven Mufson. "Obama Allies’ Interests Collide over Keystone Pipeline." Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. 16 Oct. 2011. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
Flattau, Edward. "Canadian Keystone XL Oil Pipeline: Why the Deception?" Huffington Post. 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
Lee, Brianna. "The Keystone XL Pipeline | Need to Know." PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. 7 Nov. 2011. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
NY TIMES. "Tar Sands and the Carbon Numbers." New York Times. 21 Aug. 2011. Web. 8 Feb. 2012.
Rampton, Roberta. "Senators Push for Bill to Approve Keystone Pipeline." Washington Post: Breaking News, World, US, DC News & Analysis. 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
Wang, James. "State of the Union." The Daily Cougar. University of Houston, 30 Jan. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.
Zimmerman, Jess. "State Dept. Official Overstates Keystone Jobs by a Factor of 10." Grist | Environmental News, Commentary, Advice. 27 Jan. 2012. Web. 09 Feb. 2012.