The Necropolitan Sentinel

With the official unemployment figure at 9.1%, and economists arguing about what the “real” rate is–yet generally agreeing that it goes north from there, and probably into the double-digits–it seems crazy for us to be dragging our feet on an international project that would bring this country 100,000 jobs and increase our independence from unstable and unsavory suppliers. Yet the need to demonize oil in general, and oil sands in particular, has led us into this insane stance.

The Wall Street Journal:

In September 2008 TransCanada applied to build a new pipeline—the Keystone XL—to bring diluted bitumen from the oil-rich tar sands of Alberta to thirsty American refineries on the Gulf Coast. It is hardly a radical proposal. Canadian crude has been flowing to the U.S. for decades. Another Canadian company—Enbridge—operates the Clipper pipeline across the Canadian border to Chicago. In July 2010 TransCanada began operating its Keystone pipeline from Alberta to Cushing, Oklahoma, which is a major storage and pricing depot.

The Keystone XL would cut a slightly different path, through the American heartland to Port Arthur, Texas. Judging from its past experience and that of Enbridge, TransCanada expected that permitting would take roughly 23 months. Thirty-three months, two State Department studies and 208,000 public comments later, TransCanada is still waiting. On current trend, the company will be lucky to get its permit by January, or after 40 months. But even that is far from certain.

If Mr. Obama were drawing up a plan from scratch to boost union employment and deflate Iranian-ally Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, it might look like the Keystone XL. TransCanada estimates that building the pipeline will mean more than $20 billion—$13 billion from TransCanada itself—in investment and 13,000 new American jobs in construction and related manufacturing. The company also expects more than 118,000 “spin-off” jobs during the two years of construction.

TransCanada says it has signed building contracts with four major U.S. unions. It projects that construction will generate $600 million in new state and local tax revenue and that over its life the pipeline will generate another $5.2 billion in property taxes. The Energy Policy Research Foundation in Washington estimates that by linking to the XL, oil producers in North Dakota’s Bakken region will enjoy efficiency gains of between $36.5 million and $146 million annually. Lower transport costs will mean savings for Gulf Coast refiners of $473 million annually if the pipeline meets conservative expectations of shipping 400,000 barrels per day.

Today those refineries are highly dependent on imports from Mexico and Venezuela, which have decreased output in recent years. TransCanada would help to provide Gulf Coast refiners with a more reliable source of supply from a U.S. ally.

None of this is lost on the State Department, which must approve the project because it crosses the U.S. border. Its first environmental impact statement, in April 2010, found that the XL would meet industry standards and not significantly affect the environment. Without the pipeline, State said, the U.S. would not be able to benefit from cost-efficient Western Canadian oil and “would remain dependent upon unstable foreign oil supplies.”

Hillary Clinton indicated early on that she was inclined to allow it and so it seemed the company would get its permit after a 90-day comment period. But the Environmental Protection Agency raised a stink and State acquiesced to a “supplemental” statement, which took months to prepare. On June 6, at the end of another 90-day comment period, the EPA stamped the report “inadequate” and sent State a nine-page letter with objections, which, no surprise, would require years of further study.

You could be forgiven for thinking that this must have something to do with pipeline safety. But pipelines remain the statistically safest way to transport oil, pipeline accident rates have fallen sharply, and technology has improved reaction time to leaks and the ability to contain them.

Friday’s Exxon pipeline leak of up to 1,000 barrels along the Yellowstone River in Montana is a case in point. Any spill is unfortunate, but Exxon says it has put 150 workers on clean-up duty, has asked local residents to identify further damage, and has flown in 90,000 feet of absorbent boom, 3,000 absorbent pads and 2,200 feet of containment boom. TransCanada points out that for river crossings the XL will be 25-feet underground versus Exxon’s eight feet (laid 20 years ago) and will feature other state-of-the-art safety enhancements.

Pipelines are a much more environmentally friendly way to transport oil, versus shipping it in tankers. And of course it’s less risky to get the oil on-land in the first place, versus having to go offshore–NTTAWWT. And that is the case even when fracking is involved.

And yet the myths about fracking go on, getting longer and more forbidding in the telling: superstitious types believe that methane gets into drinking water in the Northeast, and in Colorado, because of fracking. No–as with the tar on the beaches of Santa Barbara, there would be more of it if the pressure weren’t relieved elsewhere. Tar and oil bubble up less when they are being developed, and it’s the same with natural gas–more of it being extracted (provided those wells are properly constructed) means that less of it is likely to get into the water table. Come on.

UPDATE: Hydraulic Fracturing Is Reliable and Safe. Word.

There may be an end to Incandescent Insanity.

House Republicans introduced legislation Wednesday they hope to bring to the floor next week that would repeal a light bulb efficiency law.

The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), would repeal sections of a 2007 energy law that require traditional incandescent light bulbs to be 30 percent more energy efficient beginning in 2012.

As The Hill reported Wednesday, House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Fred Upton (R-Mich.) hopes to bring the bill to the floor next week for a vote, according to his spokeswoman.

Leana Fallow, a spokeswoman for House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.), said next week’s floor schedule has not yet been set. But she said Republicans hope to bring the bill to the floor “in the near future.”

Upton’s support for the bill represents a change of tune for the energy panel chairman. He supported the 2007 light bulb efficiency law, much to the chagrin of his fellow Republicans.

But Upton now says the law limits consumers’ choices.

“It was never my goal for Washington to decide what type of light bulbs Americans should use,” Upton said in a statement to The Hill. “The public response on this issue is a clear signal that markets – not governments – should be driving technological advancements. I will join my colleagues to vote yes on a bill to protect consumer choice and guard against federal overreach.”

The bill Barton introduced Wednesday would repeal the light bulb efficiency law. It also includes a provision specifying that the efficiency standards can not be met solely with bulbs that contain mercury. Compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs, which are much more efficient than incandescents, contain mercury. Barton introduced similar legislation earlier this year.

Republicans have cast the 2007 law as a “light bulb ban,” even though the language doesn’t explicitly ban incandescent bulbs. Still, Republicans say the law will disadvantage incandescent bulbs in favor of more expensive LED (light-emitting diode) and CFL bulbs. LEDs and CFLs are significantly more efficient than traditional incandescent bulbs.

Environmental groups and others have mounted an opposition campaign to the Republican legislation. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Alliance to Save Energy and the National Electrical Manufacturers Association are running advertisements in Capitol Hill newspapers touting the light bulb efficiency law.

“Phasing in energy efficient light bulbs means more choices and more savings and that’s good for families, the country and the environment,” the ads say.

Yes; it’s always good for choices when we restrict them. More background on the ban/gentle encouragement WRT incandescents, from Virginia Postrel.

The fraud in the Atlanta Public Schools was pervasive, extensive, and of long duration, involving, according to the report issued by the governor’s appointed investigators, “178 educators, including 38 principals.” No word yet on whether these underpaid public servants were forced to supply their own erasers, or how many of these were consumed by the tireless educators in their efforts to raise their students’ test scores.

A Washington Post article on the recent NEA convention quoted a retired union member who referred to “the teacher who works her tail off for 14 hours a day.” If you’re a parent in Atlanta, you’ve got to wonder: how many of those teacher’s hours were spent erasing and filling in those little ovals on her illiterate, innumerate students’ standardized tests? Let’s pause in appreciation of her efforts, because all that erasing can really make your hand tired. And those teachers in Atlanta were doing this thankless job, improving their students’ work the only way they knew how, on their own time!

At Gideons Elementary, teachers sneaked tests off campus and held a weekend “changing party” at a teacher’s home in Douglas County to fix answers.

Cheating was “an open secret” at the school, the report said. The testing coordinator handed out answer-key transparencies to place over answer sheets so the job would go faster.

Was that labor-saving device required by the union?

At Venetian Hills, a group of teachers and administrators who dubbed themselves “the chosen ones” convened to change answers in the afternoons or during makeup testing days, investigators found. Principal Clarietta Davis, a testing coordinator told investigators, wore gloves while erasing to avoid leaving fingerprints on answer sheets.

But we can be sure they did it because they care about our children.

Oh, wait. This doesn’t help kids at all. In fact, it does them grievous and often irreparable harm. But it props up government schools and keeps over-paid bureaucrats and teachers’ unions in clover. Politicaljunkie Mom puts it this way:

These kids have been cheated. Robbed of an education. But the union shills still got their loyal dues.

Backyard Conservative notes the inevitable thuggish aspects, always present whenever unions are involved:

For teachers, a culture of fear ensured the deception would continue.

“APS is run like the mob,” one teacher told investigators, saying she cheated because she feared retaliation if she didn’t. [. . .]

Principal Gwendolyn Benton, who has since left, obstructed the investigation, too, the report said, when she threatened teachers by saying she would “sue them out the ass” if they “slandered” her to the GBI.

The explanation for this decade of corruption is that the standards imposed on the schools are impossibly high: Debatable. A system becomes corrupt if the people who constitute it are corruptible. Seems to me that their most important standards are abysmally low. This scandal throws into relief one of the real purposes of government “education,” which is lining the pockets of those who profit from keeping the system going—and students be damned.

Exit question: How many other school districts’ “success” is based on fraudulent test scores? A Young Conservative wonders about that, too, and encourages students as well as parents to take matters into their own hands:

As students, it’s time to say we’ve had enough. We’re not buying any more of the “it’s for the kids” crap. Any high school student in his right mind should be begging his parents to put him in private school or homeschooling. And parents should be wary of allowing the broken system to ruin their kids.

Right. Nothing is more important than your children, and it just might be that the government’s idea of what’s good for them isn’t, at all.

[Eraser image courtesy of Photography of Grace.]

Cross-posted at P&P.

Is there a huge backlash on the way this summer?

Kevin Binversie sounds the alarm in the Wisconsin Reporter:

For Wisconsin Democrats, recalls are a national fight

For liberals nationwide, the 2012 election starts this summer with nine recall elections in Wisconsin. For liberals, these recalls aren’t just about Wisconsin; they’re about the country’s very future. It’s a national fight that won’t just set the course for Wisconsin, but the course to congressional and presidential victory in 2012 and beyond.

Groups, such as We Are Wisconsin, a union front group said to have millions of dollars at its disposal, are coordinating simulated grassroots advocacy. Chief spokesman Kelly Steele holds near daily phone calls with friendly media in Washington, D.C., and other groups to explain the political layout of the land.

Yet, even with all that in its arsenal, Wisconsin liberals want more.

Wisconsin Reporter has gone over a number of websites from groups like We are Wisconsin, Defending Wisconsin and the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. The groups are recruiting as many out-of-state volunteers as possible to work the upcoming recall campaigns. The sites urge volunteers to work “Virtual Phonebanking,” so they could make phone calls to Wisconsinites from the comfort of their homes anywhere in the state or across the country.

But more interesting and daring is the final-day push for volunteers. Interested volunteers are given their choice of 12 cities in any of the nine recall districts. Volunteers then are told “more information” would be sent to them about car rentals and hotels in the particular city or district of their choice. One group appears to be going as far as saying they’d work to line up lodging at members’ homes for out-of-state volunteers in these districts.

No indication is given if the volunteers would be paying for their hotel stays and car rentals, if they could arrange for payment elsewhere, by someone else, or who would be picking up the tab.

State Democratic and Republican party officials did not return calls asking whether these tactics are common or new.

The concern here is whether those who wanted to rein the unions in may be resting on their laurels; is there a sense that the fight in Wisconsin is effectively over? A lot of damage can be done with that attitude . . .

UPDATE: Professor Jacobson is concerned.

UPDATE 2: Ed Morrissey wonders Who Paid the Fleebaggers’ Expenses?

I’m still amazed that Melson has turned into a whistleblower; this is big. It looks like James Cole was in this up to his ears, and very likely Eric Holder as well. What did the President know, and when did he know it?

Katie Pavlich at Townhall has more details:

Yesterday, Acting ATF Director Kenneth Melson answered questions from Rep. Darrell Issa and Senator Charles Grassley surrounding Operation Fast and Furious. Melson voluntarily participated in the interview and appeared with personal counsel, meaning although the Justice Department has prohibited Melson to testify before Congress on behalf of the DOJ about the scandal, he can in fact come forward with information as an individual informant outside of the DOJ and separate from DOJ interests.

In a letter sent to Attorney General Eric Holder, Issa and Grassley expressed disappointment in the DOJ limiting and controlling Melson’s communication and interaction with Congress surrounding the scandal but called the information Melson presented yesterday “extremely helpful” to the investigation.

Melson revealed the scope of Operation Fast and Furious reaches far beyond ATF and the Justice Department. He said the FBI, DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) and other agencies were heavily involved.

We have very real indications from several sources that some of the gun trafficking “higher-ups” that the ATF sought to identify were already known to other agencies and may even have been paid as informants. The Acting Director said that ATF was kept in the dark about certain activities of other agencies, including DEA and FBI. Mr.Melson said that he learned from ATF agents in the field that information obtained by these agencies could have had a material impact on the Fast and Furious investigation as far back as late 2009 or early 2010. After learning about the possible role of DEA and FBI, he testified that he reported this information in April 2011 to the Acting Inspector General and directly to then-Acting Deputy Attorney General James Cole on June 16, 2011.

According to the letter, the Justice Department continues to obstruct the independent House Oversight Committee Investigation . . .

There’s more at the link, including video.

UPDATE: The Mudville Gazette reminds us what thse people were sort-of thinking (in all likelihood) when they started this fiasco. The New York Post has a summary in its usual breathless style. And Power Line has more excerpts from the letter, along with a link to the original.