Power of Story
Send a Tweet        
- Advertisement -

Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter 1 Share on Facebook 1 Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend (2 Shares)  

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   6 comments
OpEdNews Op Eds

Jon Stewart's False Equivalence

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message j dial     Permalink
      (Page 1 of 1 pages)
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags Add to My Group(s)

Well Said 3   Must Read 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com Headlined to H2 2/13/15

Become a Fan
  (24 fans)


(Image by Wikipedia)   Permission   Details   DMCA
- Advertisement -
br />


At our house we Tivo our television shows and so often don't see them right away. I was catching up on Jon Stewart on the day before he announced his departure from the Daily Show.

In a January 15, 2015 episode, Stewart humorously cast the debate about whether or not to let the Keystone XL pipeline cross the US from Canada on its way to coastal endpoints as the right's desire to improve infrastructure so as to keep us safe from the threat of terrorism versus the left's fear that billowing black clouds, presumably of particulates, will contaminate our children. In doing so he follows in the journalistic tradition of airing both sides of an argument, if fatuously, while leavening it with comedy. But look closer and you see imbalance.

- Advertisement -

Can tar sands, the filthiest of oils, be allowed to come through the US, asks Stewart? Why not, he answers himself; the US is already crisscrossed by dirty pipelines. When Congress was asked to permit the provenance of those earlier pipelines there was no problem. Keystone XL caused such a commotion only because, in 2011, environmentalists decided to embrace that cause. Before environmental activists got involved, pipeline permissions were a given. Now, with activists fanning the flames, both sides dig in with their most persuasive rhetoric.

The camera closes in on Stewart as he settles the question. The truth, he tells us, is that the US already has Mario-brothers levels of pipelines; adding the XL would be like farting in a manure factory. Even in a relatively zero-sum fight, he says, if you can tap into our country's vast outrage reserves, you can take a fight that should have lasted just one day and stretch it out to several hundred. You can't quench the US' thirst for dirty oil, he concludes, but at least you might bring it in some safer way.

- Advertisement -

Stewart hasn't distilled the problem; he's distorted it.

The Athabasca oil sands in Alberta hold large amounts of bitumen, an unconventional petroleum. Each grain of oil sand is double-coated with a layer of water wrapped by a layer of bitumen. Much heavier than other crude oils, bitumen stains the tar sands black and makes them viscous. Bitumen does not gush; it must be scraped out by strip or open-pit mining, or liquefied with steam injected deeply. Once extracted, at room temperature crude bitumen flows like cold molasses. To make it flow at all it must be heated or diluted with lighter hydrocarbons. Making one barrel of oil from bitumen takes about two tons of tar sands. When this oil is burned, its emissions exceed those of conventional oil by 12 percent.

The energy it takes to produce conventional oil, the average 'energy return on investment' or EROI, is about 25 to 1--for every one unit of energy used to extract conventional oil, 25 units of oil-based energy obtain. For tar sands secured by surface mining, the EROI is about 5 to 1, while tar sands extracted more deeply through steam injection obtain a maximum average ratio of about 2.9 to 1.

Because of these conditions, oil sands were never considered part of the oil reserves. But now our nets are cast more broadly. With the climate already spiraling into an unwholesome new normal, a state of disruption induced by man, we double down, wringing beads of prolifically filthy petroleum from tons of boreal-forest soil. Not just from there, of course; from previously frozen tundra, from ocean depths, from anywhere that we can wrest it.

So-called environmental activists who oppose Keystone XL count these factors and more in their opposition. And my guess is that Jon knows it.

Some people, especially among the young, mistrust the flawless porcelain visages of corporate anchors and get much or all of their perspective on political life from alternatives such as the Daily Show. Stewart reveals hypocrisy in political figures with an unblinking comedic eye, an eye he sometimes turns disarmingly on himself. He has done a lot to drop the scales, but ascertains they don't drop far. Remember it was Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert whose Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear poked fun at attempts to change politics through public protest. Now Stewart reduces the left's position on Keystone XL to a petulant tap into outrage reserves.

- Advertisement -

It has justifiably been said that satire can be more persuasive than pompous displays of righteousness. But satire can also be used to drain and enervate. Jon Stewart would never have occupied the place he did for 17 years had he truly been a thorn in the side of the Establishment. In fact, with his habit of pulling punches, maybe he performed a service.

 

- Advertisement -

Well Said 3   Must Read 2   Valuable 2  
View Ratings | Rate It

http://medicalink.com

Dr. Dial is a psychologist and medical illustrator who for well over a decade has worked as a freelance medical and science writer and editor. She is an editor for OpEdNews, having contributed a number of articles about hydraulic fracturing, (more...)
 

Share on Google Plus Submit to Twitter Add this Page to Facebook! Share on LinkedIn Pin It! Add this Page to Fark! Submit to Reddit Submit to Stumble Upon



Go To Commenting
/* The Petition Site */
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): , Add Tags
- Advertisement -

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

Seeds of destruction: It's NOT just about food

Who Turned Scientific American?

Who the Frack's Really in Charge?

Fracking: Water Issues--Colorado-centric, but applicable to all

Why Barack Obama Does Not Disappoint Some Folks

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Fracking but Should Be Afraid to Ask