John, Michael Shure, & Ben Mankiewicz. Keystone pipeline spills oil. Orin Hatch vs Sherrod Brown over tax plan. Treasury chief goes on Fox to sell tax plan. NYT investigates bombings. Robot can do perfect backflips.
The military industrial complex is called the military industrial complex, not the military complex, because it props up industry. The military budget is so huge, not just because it funds the military of an empire, but because it creates much of the economy. This system was set up to fund WWII, and not just the US. The US military was funding the Soviet and British factions too. Money comes in through taxes that then get funneled to corporations that make war machines, but also R&D for making better war machines internally to the corporations, through funding to university reasearch, through DARPA and other projects for developing new technologies. Those new technologies then get privatized, creating new markets for new gadgets. The “space race” was the same. The cold war in general supported this. The war on terror does the same.
Israel is a major developer of spy tech, because of their permanent war state. so called “free market” capitalism is based on a massive state run sector that handles the troublesome, unprofitable R&D stages of creating new products and markets. There is a corresponding medical industrial complex too that funds medical research in universities, then privatizes the tools and products that come from that research. The military one is more important, however, because the unparalleled military power that is also created helps make the rest of the system go. The US runs a massive empire for capitalism that has around 800 military bases all over the world, that patrols the ocean freight lanes for piracy, invades and occupies troublesome nations that won’t join the empire, a CIA that overthrows any nation that seeks to too closely manage its own affairs, and nuclear weapons aimed at the populations of every nation on Earth for anyone who might try and get some ideas to take that spot from the US.
So, when Ben says that we would rather not spend money on things that help people, but we will spend endlessly on things that destroy, that’s true, but it’s no so much that we’re spending the money on it, as that the military industrial complex IS the money. That’s where the wealth of the nation gets created. That’s what makes the global capitalist system work, this giant military behemoth straddled across the world, plus state funded research for new markets and products, while bombing new markets into place. When they created neoliberalism, they didn’t so much remove Capitalism’s state-based nature. They didn’t make capital transnational, so much as they just made one nation the entire world’s empire, and it functions in the state role that capital depends on.
But Ben isn’t wrong either. It’s also the other thing. It’s also just because war is the perfect capitalist market. You buy products that immediately explode, so you need to buy more. You buy a tank or a jet or a drone and people shoot it down or blow it up, so you need to buy more. You’re attacking nations or financing their civil war, or funding one nation to utterly decimate another, and both sides need weapons. Your customer base is infinite so long as the wars continue, and so long as you don’t give a shit what happens to millions of people, it can keep going on like that. It’s like the market for addictive drugs. Customers just keep coming until they’re dead. When Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex, he really only meant the generals he knew would inflate their budgets, that non-military presidents would always say yes, not knowing what was inflated, that congress would make sure those military machines had to be built in every district, so the funding could never be denied. He really had no idea how big it would become. It’s now the entire world. Every nation is part of this system as either a player, or a target.
Thank you for covering the AirWars report about civilian deaths and bad intel for targets. It’s a shocking and horrible legacy that the US is has for Afghanistan, Syria, etc..
I am not an expert on the subject of Iraq, the Iraq war, Isis, etc. Not even close. Not even remotely close.
However, I really fail to see why people don’t understand why it makes perfect sense that people in these regions and others get radicalized.
Correct me if I am wrong here, and I know it is not a perfect analogy. But, say Canada bombed Iraq in 2001 similar to the twin towers. And then Iraq decided, fuck it, we will go to war with the United States instead because they have (i’m not sure what we have that they would want but insert here).
Which led to the rise in White Supremacy in the form of a militia (much more organized,bigger, and mission oriented than what we have going on now)Then almost 20 years later they are still bombing us to try and take down the white supremacists, but they are also taking out the citizens who do not want to attack them (Iraq).
WHAT THE HELL WOULD THEY EXPECT? How easy would it be for the white supremacists’ to recruit?
My point is, people still walk around like they are are trying to figure out the how and why of how people get radicalized. I think it is pretty remarkable more people don’t.
Crap panel talking to each other instead of the audience as usual with Mankewitz looking at the desk while he talks as usual. How many goddamn holidays does Cenk need to take? Because TYT is unwatchable without him.
What in God’s name makes this a “great panel?” They sit there and chat with each other, never once looking at the audience, and Mankewitz talks to the desk every goddamn time, belaboring three stories for 1 hour.
Great panel… I really love the combo of these guys. Thanks for the info and laughs… Makes all the bad news a little more bareable, but the almost7foot robot… That can’t end well…. Ugh
Michael had conflated two shuttle disasters. The “O” ring issue resulted in a burn-through and explosion on launch and killed the teacher. The second disaster made it into orbit, but a falling something on launch (shroud whatever) broke some tiles on launch, but they made it into orbit and had a full mission. However, on return, the missing tiles resulted in excessive heat that damaged the frame and the shuttle broke up over New Mexico and Texas.
I haven’t read much about the current spill yet, but it apparently is on land and is in an older part of the pipeline that has been integrated into the larger pipeline. Each spill has a physical cause and spills become more likely with pipeline age both because older installations used parts that are less reliable than more modern ones and due to metal fatigue and corrosion. A new pipeline built correctly should not have major leaks until it ages and with proper maintenance and monitoring should not have a major failure at all because corrosion and fatigue should be minimized by design and construction and monitoring should detect weakening to allow fixing it before major failure. Regulation to assure proper installation, maintenance, and monitoring should be done to assure the line performs as designed. Small leaks due to valve failures and human error during transfers will occur even with a new line, meaning spills up to a few hundred gallons. These should mostly occur at pump stations and other facilities which should have spill containment features (SPCC) to avoid the oil going onto the ground. Malfeasance may result in spills that go outside the proper bounds, like the spill in West Virginia several years ago of a mining chemical that affected the water supply and was not contained because poorly maintained spill control measures allowed it to drain into surface water drainage.
The effect of a spill on the ground surface depends on the type of material forming the soil and subsurface, the properties of the oil spilled, moisture conditions, and other specific site conditions. If it does not go directly into surface water, keeping a heavy crude like that transferred from contaminating groundwater should generally be possible with a rapid response. The first responce would be to construct a diversion berm (circular dam) to keep surface runoff from adjacent areas from running across the spill. Oil absorbant materials would be placed in streams draining a site to absorb non-dissolved oil (called free product) to limit the spread if some has gotten into the surface water. Within the diversion berm surrounding the spill, all free product will be retrieved into tanker trucks and the upper soil will be removed. Field and lab tests to evaluate the degree of soil contamination would be done to determine how much soil to remove. Monitoring wells and “direct push” groundwater sampling would be done to evaluate whether groundwater has been affected. If so, there are remediation techniques that can be done to remove the source.
With rapid action to remove the highly contaminated soil, groundwater contamination can probably be avoided. The heavy crude is viscous and hydrophobic. If the soil is moist, it will have difficulty intruding into the subsurface due to the three-phase permeability relationship of soils containing a mix of water, oil, and air. If the soil is dry soil local oil pools to some depth in low areas, this could allow greater depth penetration of the soil, so a rapid response to remove pools of free product is important to limit the time and conditions for downward movement.
I am going to stop with the technical stuff because I can’t properly treat this in just a few words. A spill at water crossings directly into a lake or into surface water is a greater problem and a concern. A spill on land affecting just a few acres and addressed quickly can generally be handled with very limited environmental effect. Older pipelines are an important issue to be addressed. However, to properly address risk, you MUST understand the details of the mechanisms at work and employ best practices to address these. We need to focus our resources where they are most needed, not spread ourselves and resources too thin by chasing aspects of the problem that don’t require great effort. I am an environmental engineer and hydrogeolgist retired from the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. Real problems exist and need to be addressed. You also need to be aware of mitigating and remedial procedures and factor these into assessing relative risks of different approaches to meeting our energy needs. Wind energy takes a major toll on migrating birds and is likely to involve other environmental costs related to its dispersed nature (low energy density of generation) which likely will require more transmission line construction. I am not opposing our renewable energy efforts, but don’t believe in a fantasy that there are no environmental costs to these alternate approaches. There is also the political issue of economic investment by private companies that have legal rights. I agree with the need to transition to alternative energy sources, but the transition needs to be done knowledgeably, looking at all aspects of the issues.
I will add to my comments to cover certain inevitable responses.
I am speculating about the oil spill based on general knowledge as a consultant and regulator on environmental matters and might change my opinion if I knew more details. My speculation about the comment by the local regulator that cleaning up will take 20 months or more is that she is referring to completion of the cleanup to legally allowable standards based on testing results on soil and groundwater. Most of the work will be done in the first month or so with removal of the contaminated soil and any free product. Free product would be separated and taken to an oil company facility for treatment and possible use. The contaminataed soil would commonly be taken to a sanitary landfill and spread in a thin layer on a impervious barrier and treated with oxidants and other chemicals to break down the organic components, then when it is at acceptable levels, spread on the landfill as daily cover of the waste. I may be out of date on the details of current practice as I have not dealt with this in the last ten years or so. After removal of the upper foot or so of soil, depth dependent on lab results, an evaluation of the groundwater would be done and also of residual contamination of the subsoil. Removal of the upper soil and above will remove the main source that would promote ongoing contamination. The contamination front moving downwards would be irregular, so some local areas of contamination may remain. There are various treatments available for deeper soil contamination and for dissolved contamination in the water. The 20 month or longer timeline mentioned by the local regulator indicates these were required. Rapid removal of the contamination and diversion of surface water runoff away from the contaminated area will greatly limit the impact. If groundwater were impacted at the spill site, its effect would be limited to the locality if the rapid response were done in this kind of area both because of the small amount of contamination that would reach the groundwater and because if monitoring does indicate movement lateral movement of groundwater contamination, there are multiple measures that can be done to arrest this. If dissolved contamination if below a certain level, the remainder of the organic components of the oil will eventually be destroyed by biodegredation by organisms in the soil. In-situ degradation is a major sub-field in itself with many contractors with expertise in this. Always a big topic at professional conferences.
If the spill gets into surface water, the ability to contain it is more limited. After assuring that further release to surface water at the source is blocked by engineering controls (diversion berms), floating bags of oil absorbant (water repellant) are placed on affected streams and drainageways to remove floating hydrocarbons. I am not familiar with methods for blocking hydrocarbons denser than water. I recall seeing papers on this a few years ago, but did not read them. I won’t speculate on this, but expect that measures have been worked out. The dissolved contamination that gets into a surface water stream generally cannot be handled because it travels too fast. Water contamination levels are monitored and water intakes for public water supplies are closed as it goes past . If the levels are high enough, I suppose aeration devices and possible some treatment chemicals could be added to the water to speed biodegredation and mitigate the loss of oxygen caused by this biodegredation. I have no expertise in this area.
Relative to the broader issue, it is legitimate to consider whether the tar sands oil should be extracted. I won’t discuss that here. I am limiting my comments to the issues of oil pipeline hazards. The safety of older pipelines is an important issue and must be addressed, including assuring adequate regulation to force identification of defective pipelines and proper maintenance and remediation. I have not been active in this issue, so only can make general comments. Problems generally arise when the company responsible for a pipeline is not making money and therefore cutting corners by deferring maintenance or when management is fragmented, so local managers are taking short-term strategies to meet their imposed targets. Properly operated larger companies flush with cash and good management have an incentive to avoid the cleanup and downtime costs and bad publicity of these spills and considerable research has gone into addressing the technical problems. However, regulation is required to assure the best management practices are implemented, even when management wishes to cut corners or is focused only on short-term considerations.
I will repeat my overall point about energy policy. Setting policy should be done based on a TOTAL overview of all aspects of the issue and comparison of alternatives. Included must be a full look at the environmental costs of the renewable energy alternatives and mitigating factors that can be employed at all levels. There must also be consideration of how a transition might come about, including considerations of private investments and ownership rights and legal limitations. I am not arguing a particular point of view here; I am saying that establishing good policy will require a lot of technical input and good documentation as a basis for decision making. As an environmental engineer, I am often frustrated by facile comments of nonprofessionals who first claim that the world is too complicated for scientists and engineers to manage it, then provide incredibly simplistic global arguments for how it should be managed. It is legitimate for the public as stake holders to set overall goals and decide on standards. This is ultimately political and should be. However, implementation of these will require a lot of technical input, such as has been provided in the past by the EPA and other groups, such as outside interveners in the environmental community. A debate of stakeholders on strategies and approaches to achieve our environmental goals is necessary and legitimate provided no party has excessive power to push their self interest over the broader public interest.
This has gotten too long and I don’t have time to edit it down shorter or to address other subissues of importance. I will leave with a gripe that as a technical professional I am tired of hearing comments that exaggerate the importance of particular environmental impacts without looking at it in a broader context. No damage ever would be wonderful. However, our lives are lived in an imperfect world with many risks and losses. A spill on a few acres of farmland in a rural area is unfortunate and should be avoided if possible. However, it is not Armageddon and can be dealt with. Local contamination of groundwater should also be avoided, but will happen sometimes even with best efforts. It can also be addressed and dealt with. We have major environmental and political issues that must be addressed. Problems like this spill are real and measures should be taken to reduce the incidence of such in the future. However, keep perspective and don’t let what is a relatively minor problem distract from a proper consideration of alternatives in deciding public policy.
Why the fuck are Dems ALWAYS the ones that need to “work with Republicans?”
Both of these parties are worthless. They are one in the same.
Sherrod Brown is trying, but it’s too little to late.
Listening to this Establishment Power Panel is draining.
Shure’s constant soft-peddling of current Corporately owned Dems actions is bad enough, but add Ben agreeing without argument, and John the “Luv Me, Michael” puppy, and it is truly grating.
Wow. Now I’m listening to Michael defend his sarcasm from twitter comments.
Where is the progressive voice on this panel?
I know this panel can barely tolerate Jimmy, but where’s a Steve Oh? Or Malcolm? Or JORDAN?
Again, TYT can’t find a strong Progressive woman over 40 to be on regular panel guest?
They can’t find one in California???
The President WILL get to the bottom of the Keystone Pipeline leak because he has sworn to us that LEAKS cannot be tolerated (unless WikiLEAKS has info on Hillary for sale…) and LEAKERS will be persecuted, er, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the executive order! Er, law, yeah that’s it, law!
That Robot scares me. It’s a CYLON! Please please stop the never-ending cycle of robot violence!
So listening to the arguments for and against the Trump Tax plan it seems like they basically have the same plan as the Underpants Gnomes in South Park.
Really, when you look at it they’re basically saying the same thing. They’re saying:
Phase 1: Give even bigger tax cuts to the wealthy
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit
Let’s look at one specific example of why this won’t work. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, said that if these tax cuts come through he will bring $150 Billion back to the US. What he isn’t saying is that they’ve already started automating jobs at Foxconn. So if they build a plant here it will be almost entirely automated. That means that virtually no jobs will be created for human workers and the only people that will benefit are the investors. Whatever, I’ve told everyone a long tome ago to start using Linux anyway LOL :). Seriously though, Linux is awesome and pretty much guilt free. Well except for the hardware it sometimes runs on, but you can run it longer so….
baceman007, astute comparison. I wanted to comment on John looking for evidence-based research to refute the benefits of “trickle-down” economics. Although admirable, there is no need. Prima facie “trickle-down” does not create jobs. It’s premise is ludicrous, and the people who champion it, regardless of what they call it, are either stupid or think we are. All one needs to do is review statements and videos of CEOs responding to questions about what they will do with the money from this lower-tax windfall. We have gone through this exercise before of providing a tax holiday for corporations during Dubyah’s administration. The irony here is that the progressives are the ones trapped with the Sisyphean task of rolling the tax-cut boulder uphill to announce it will not create jobs, only to have the boulder roll back down. In the original myth, the person punished with this futile, never-ending task was a ruler who “was punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness (Wikipedia).”
P.S. Can you suggest a good resource for Window to Linux conversion?
Honestly… Times are very, very dark… If taxes go up on the middle class it will literally cause a civil war. I’m shocked one hasn’t broken out yet… How can the republicans not see that they are fueling a divide that will literally destroy this nation?
DoberMom and Lp3, I do not think that is true. The elite-class would not be worried of a civil war because the thought is inconceivable. People will know their roles and stick to them. Martin Luther King advocated non-violence, he practiced what he preached, and he was assassinated. Non-violence has prevailed and MLK’s constituency has not benefited much since. If the elite-class realizes the inconceivable is conceivable, then they have the police to deliver state-sanctioned violence to protect their interests.
You saw the template for this at Standing Rock last year. Hell, forget Republicans, Obama did not even care. The state police was used as an enforcement arm of corporations. A private security firm was hired to infiltrate, spy upon and perpetrate dirty tricks against peaceful protesters. With privatized prisons, I assume prisons can be built as quickly as they need them. Besides, there is still some room available at Guantanamo.
Michael is very knowledgeable without getting overly emotional. He doesn’t rant in a yelling voice for twenty minutes. He’s actually my favorite host. And next to him is Ben. Sorry. The ranting, while sometimes justified, often goes on and on well after the point has been made. It’s my only gripe about watching Cenk.
Comments
Everyone should check out this report from Greg Palast on the Keystone pipeline and the oversight (or lack of it) by the company.
http://www.gregpalast.com/keystone-pipeline-safety-pig-muzzled-couldnt-squeal/
its sad to see that these stories are not at headlines of ALL media…..only Objective journalists cover this that Estambelment media NEVER COVERS…..
That oil is “more polluty”?
Loved this panel so much!
The military industrial complex is called the military industrial complex, not the military complex, because it props up industry. The military budget is so huge, not just because it funds the military of an empire, but because it creates much of the economy. This system was set up to fund WWII, and not just the US. The US military was funding the Soviet and British factions too. Money comes in through taxes that then get funneled to corporations that make war machines, but also R&D for making better war machines internally to the corporations, through funding to university reasearch, through DARPA and other projects for developing new technologies. Those new technologies then get privatized, creating new markets for new gadgets. The “space race” was the same. The cold war in general supported this. The war on terror does the same.
Israel is a major developer of spy tech, because of their permanent war state. so called “free market” capitalism is based on a massive state run sector that handles the troublesome, unprofitable R&D stages of creating new products and markets. There is a corresponding medical industrial complex too that funds medical research in universities, then privatizes the tools and products that come from that research. The military one is more important, however, because the unparalleled military power that is also created helps make the rest of the system go. The US runs a massive empire for capitalism that has around 800 military bases all over the world, that patrols the ocean freight lanes for piracy, invades and occupies troublesome nations that won’t join the empire, a CIA that overthrows any nation that seeks to too closely manage its own affairs, and nuclear weapons aimed at the populations of every nation on Earth for anyone who might try and get some ideas to take that spot from the US.
So, when Ben says that we would rather not spend money on things that help people, but we will spend endlessly on things that destroy, that’s true, but it’s no so much that we’re spending the money on it, as that the military industrial complex IS the money. That’s where the wealth of the nation gets created. That’s what makes the global capitalist system work, this giant military behemoth straddled across the world, plus state funded research for new markets and products, while bombing new markets into place. When they created neoliberalism, they didn’t so much remove Capitalism’s state-based nature. They didn’t make capital transnational, so much as they just made one nation the entire world’s empire, and it functions in the state role that capital depends on.
But Ben isn’t wrong either. It’s also the other thing. It’s also just because war is the perfect capitalist market. You buy products that immediately explode, so you need to buy more. You buy a tank or a jet or a drone and people shoot it down or blow it up, so you need to buy more. You’re attacking nations or financing their civil war, or funding one nation to utterly decimate another, and both sides need weapons. Your customer base is infinite so long as the wars continue, and so long as you don’t give a shit what happens to millions of people, it can keep going on like that. It’s like the market for addictive drugs. Customers just keep coming until they’re dead. When Eisenhower warned of the military industrial complex, he really only meant the generals he knew would inflate their budgets, that non-military presidents would always say yes, not knowing what was inflated, that congress would make sure those military machines had to be built in every district, so the funding could never be denied. He really had no idea how big it would become. It’s now the entire world. Every nation is part of this system as either a player, or a target.
Thank you for covering the AirWars report about civilian deaths and bad intel for targets. It’s a shocking and horrible legacy that the US is has for Afghanistan, Syria, etc..
Nice jacket @John!
I am not an expert on the subject of Iraq, the Iraq war, Isis, etc. Not even close. Not even remotely close.
However, I really fail to see why people don’t understand why it makes perfect sense that people in these regions and others get radicalized.
Correct me if I am wrong here, and I know it is not a perfect analogy. But, say Canada bombed Iraq in 2001 similar to the twin towers. And then Iraq decided, fuck it, we will go to war with the United States instead because they have (i’m not sure what we have that they would want but insert here).
Which led to the rise in White Supremacy in the form of a militia (much more organized,bigger, and mission oriented than what we have going on now)Then almost 20 years later they are still bombing us to try and take down the white supremacists, but they are also taking out the citizens who do not want to attack them (Iraq).
WHAT THE HELL WOULD THEY EXPECT? How easy would it be for the white supremacists’ to recruit?
My point is, people still walk around like they are are trying to figure out the how and why of how people get radicalized. I think it is pretty remarkable more people don’t.
Regarding the robots: honestly I thought of the robot police from the movie Elysium.
Challenger- O ring
Columbia- tiles
I guess Michael Shure was joking too when he said Hillary was actually against the Dakota Pipeline. Good joke, right? Stop gaslighting us!
As always, the best main shows are when Ben is on… WTF was better this week…
Crap panel talking to each other instead of the audience as usual with Mankewitz looking at the desk while he talks as usual. How many goddamn holidays does Cenk need to take? Because TYT is unwatchable without him.
Best panel in a long time, we don’t see nearly enough of Ben and Michael and John is always great.
What in God’s name makes this a “great panel?” They sit there and chat with each other, never once looking at the audience, and Mankewitz talks to the desk every goddamn time, belaboring three stories for 1 hour.
You’re the kind of guy that would complain, if he/she were hung with a new rope…
Great panel… I really love the combo of these guys. Thanks for the info and laughs… Makes all the bad news a little more bareable, but the almost7foot robot… That can’t end well…. Ugh
Michael had conflated two shuttle disasters. The “O” ring issue resulted in a burn-through and explosion on launch and killed the teacher. The second disaster made it into orbit, but a falling something on launch (shroud whatever) broke some tiles on launch, but they made it into orbit and had a full mission. However, on return, the missing tiles resulted in excessive heat that damaged the frame and the shuttle broke up over New Mexico and Texas.
I haven’t read much about the current spill yet, but it apparently is on land and is in an older part of the pipeline that has been integrated into the larger pipeline. Each spill has a physical cause and spills become more likely with pipeline age both because older installations used parts that are less reliable than more modern ones and due to metal fatigue and corrosion. A new pipeline built correctly should not have major leaks until it ages and with proper maintenance and monitoring should not have a major failure at all because corrosion and fatigue should be minimized by design and construction and monitoring should detect weakening to allow fixing it before major failure. Regulation to assure proper installation, maintenance, and monitoring should be done to assure the line performs as designed. Small leaks due to valve failures and human error during transfers will occur even with a new line, meaning spills up to a few hundred gallons. These should mostly occur at pump stations and other facilities which should have spill containment features (SPCC) to avoid the oil going onto the ground. Malfeasance may result in spills that go outside the proper bounds, like the spill in West Virginia several years ago of a mining chemical that affected the water supply and was not contained because poorly maintained spill control measures allowed it to drain into surface water drainage.
The effect of a spill on the ground surface depends on the type of material forming the soil and subsurface, the properties of the oil spilled, moisture conditions, and other specific site conditions. If it does not go directly into surface water, keeping a heavy crude like that transferred from contaminating groundwater should generally be possible with a rapid response. The first responce would be to construct a diversion berm (circular dam) to keep surface runoff from adjacent areas from running across the spill. Oil absorbant materials would be placed in streams draining a site to absorb non-dissolved oil (called free product) to limit the spread if some has gotten into the surface water. Within the diversion berm surrounding the spill, all free product will be retrieved into tanker trucks and the upper soil will be removed. Field and lab tests to evaluate the degree of soil contamination would be done to determine how much soil to remove. Monitoring wells and “direct push” groundwater sampling would be done to evaluate whether groundwater has been affected. If so, there are remediation techniques that can be done to remove the source.
With rapid action to remove the highly contaminated soil, groundwater contamination can probably be avoided. The heavy crude is viscous and hydrophobic. If the soil is moist, it will have difficulty intruding into the subsurface due to the three-phase permeability relationship of soils containing a mix of water, oil, and air. If the soil is dry soil local oil pools to some depth in low areas, this could allow greater depth penetration of the soil, so a rapid response to remove pools of free product is important to limit the time and conditions for downward movement.
I am going to stop with the technical stuff because I can’t properly treat this in just a few words. A spill at water crossings directly into a lake or into surface water is a greater problem and a concern. A spill on land affecting just a few acres and addressed quickly can generally be handled with very limited environmental effect. Older pipelines are an important issue to be addressed. However, to properly address risk, you MUST understand the details of the mechanisms at work and employ best practices to address these. We need to focus our resources where they are most needed, not spread ourselves and resources too thin by chasing aspects of the problem that don’t require great effort. I am an environmental engineer and hydrogeolgist retired from the Kentucky Department of Environmental Protection. Real problems exist and need to be addressed. You also need to be aware of mitigating and remedial procedures and factor these into assessing relative risks of different approaches to meeting our energy needs. Wind energy takes a major toll on migrating birds and is likely to involve other environmental costs related to its dispersed nature (low energy density of generation) which likely will require more transmission line construction. I am not opposing our renewable energy efforts, but don’t believe in a fantasy that there are no environmental costs to these alternate approaches. There is also the political issue of economic investment by private companies that have legal rights. I agree with the need to transition to alternative energy sources, but the transition needs to be done knowledgeably, looking at all aspects of the issues.
I will add to my comments to cover certain inevitable responses.
I am speculating about the oil spill based on general knowledge as a consultant and regulator on environmental matters and might change my opinion if I knew more details. My speculation about the comment by the local regulator that cleaning up will take 20 months or more is that she is referring to completion of the cleanup to legally allowable standards based on testing results on soil and groundwater. Most of the work will be done in the first month or so with removal of the contaminated soil and any free product. Free product would be separated and taken to an oil company facility for treatment and possible use. The contaminataed soil would commonly be taken to a sanitary landfill and spread in a thin layer on a impervious barrier and treated with oxidants and other chemicals to break down the organic components, then when it is at acceptable levels, spread on the landfill as daily cover of the waste. I may be out of date on the details of current practice as I have not dealt with this in the last ten years or so. After removal of the upper foot or so of soil, depth dependent on lab results, an evaluation of the groundwater would be done and also of residual contamination of the subsoil. Removal of the upper soil and above will remove the main source that would promote ongoing contamination. The contamination front moving downwards would be irregular, so some local areas of contamination may remain. There are various treatments available for deeper soil contamination and for dissolved contamination in the water. The 20 month or longer timeline mentioned by the local regulator indicates these were required. Rapid removal of the contamination and diversion of surface water runoff away from the contaminated area will greatly limit the impact. If groundwater were impacted at the spill site, its effect would be limited to the locality if the rapid response were done in this kind of area both because of the small amount of contamination that would reach the groundwater and because if monitoring does indicate movement lateral movement of groundwater contamination, there are multiple measures that can be done to arrest this. If dissolved contamination if below a certain level, the remainder of the organic components of the oil will eventually be destroyed by biodegredation by organisms in the soil. In-situ degradation is a major sub-field in itself with many contractors with expertise in this. Always a big topic at professional conferences.
If the spill gets into surface water, the ability to contain it is more limited. After assuring that further release to surface water at the source is blocked by engineering controls (diversion berms), floating bags of oil absorbant (water repellant) are placed on affected streams and drainageways to remove floating hydrocarbons. I am not familiar with methods for blocking hydrocarbons denser than water. I recall seeing papers on this a few years ago, but did not read them. I won’t speculate on this, but expect that measures have been worked out. The dissolved contamination that gets into a surface water stream generally cannot be handled because it travels too fast. Water contamination levels are monitored and water intakes for public water supplies are closed as it goes past . If the levels are high enough, I suppose aeration devices and possible some treatment chemicals could be added to the water to speed biodegredation and mitigate the loss of oxygen caused by this biodegredation. I have no expertise in this area.
Relative to the broader issue, it is legitimate to consider whether the tar sands oil should be extracted. I won’t discuss that here. I am limiting my comments to the issues of oil pipeline hazards. The safety of older pipelines is an important issue and must be addressed, including assuring adequate regulation to force identification of defective pipelines and proper maintenance and remediation. I have not been active in this issue, so only can make general comments. Problems generally arise when the company responsible for a pipeline is not making money and therefore cutting corners by deferring maintenance or when management is fragmented, so local managers are taking short-term strategies to meet their imposed targets. Properly operated larger companies flush with cash and good management have an incentive to avoid the cleanup and downtime costs and bad publicity of these spills and considerable research has gone into addressing the technical problems. However, regulation is required to assure the best management practices are implemented, even when management wishes to cut corners or is focused only on short-term considerations.
I will repeat my overall point about energy policy. Setting policy should be done based on a TOTAL overview of all aspects of the issue and comparison of alternatives. Included must be a full look at the environmental costs of the renewable energy alternatives and mitigating factors that can be employed at all levels. There must also be consideration of how a transition might come about, including considerations of private investments and ownership rights and legal limitations. I am not arguing a particular point of view here; I am saying that establishing good policy will require a lot of technical input and good documentation as a basis for decision making. As an environmental engineer, I am often frustrated by facile comments of nonprofessionals who first claim that the world is too complicated for scientists and engineers to manage it, then provide incredibly simplistic global arguments for how it should be managed. It is legitimate for the public as stake holders to set overall goals and decide on standards. This is ultimately political and should be. However, implementation of these will require a lot of technical input, such as has been provided in the past by the EPA and other groups, such as outside interveners in the environmental community. A debate of stakeholders on strategies and approaches to achieve our environmental goals is necessary and legitimate provided no party has excessive power to push their self interest over the broader public interest.
This has gotten too long and I don’t have time to edit it down shorter or to address other subissues of importance. I will leave with a gripe that as a technical professional I am tired of hearing comments that exaggerate the importance of particular environmental impacts without looking at it in a broader context. No damage ever would be wonderful. However, our lives are lived in an imperfect world with many risks and losses. A spill on a few acres of farmland in a rural area is unfortunate and should be avoided if possible. However, it is not Armageddon and can be dealt with. Local contamination of groundwater should also be avoided, but will happen sometimes even with best efforts. It can also be addressed and dealt with. We have major environmental and political issues that must be addressed. Problems like this spill are real and measures should be taken to reduce the incidence of such in the future. However, keep perspective and don’t let what is a relatively minor problem distract from a proper consideration of alternatives in deciding public policy.
Why the fuck are Dems ALWAYS the ones that need to “work with Republicans?”
Both of these parties are worthless. They are one in the same.
Sherrod Brown is trying, but it’s too little to late.
Listening to this Establishment Power Panel is draining.
Shure’s constant soft-peddling of current Corporately owned Dems actions is bad enough, but add Ben agreeing without argument, and John the “Luv Me, Michael” puppy, and it is truly grating.
Wow. Now I’m listening to Michael defend his sarcasm from twitter comments.
Where is the progressive voice on this panel?
I know this panel can barely tolerate Jimmy, but where’s a Steve Oh? Or Malcolm? Or JORDAN?
Again, TYT can’t find a strong Progressive woman over 40 to be on regular panel guest?
They can’t find one in California???
The President WILL get to the bottom of the Keystone Pipeline leak because he has sworn to us that LEAKS cannot be tolerated (unless WikiLEAKS has info on Hillary for sale…) and LEAKERS will be persecuted, er, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the executive order! Er, law, yeah that’s it, law!
That Robot scares me. It’s a CYLON! Please please stop the never-ending cycle of robot violence!
Amazing panel
So listening to the arguments for and against the Trump Tax plan it seems like they basically have the same plan as the Underpants Gnomes in South Park.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts
Phase 1: Collect Underpants
Phase 2: ?
Phae 3: Profit
Really, when you look at it they’re basically saying the same thing. They’re saying:
Phase 1: Give even bigger tax cuts to the wealthy
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit
Let’s look at one specific example of why this won’t work. Tim Cook, CEO of Apple, said that if these tax cuts come through he will bring $150 Billion back to the US. What he isn’t saying is that they’ve already started automating jobs at Foxconn. So if they build a plant here it will be almost entirely automated. That means that virtually no jobs will be created for human workers and the only people that will benefit are the investors. Whatever, I’ve told everyone a long tome ago to start using Linux anyway LOL :). Seriously though, Linux is awesome and pretty much guilt free. Well except for the hardware it sometimes runs on, but you can run it longer so….
baceman007, astute comparison. I wanted to comment on John looking for evidence-based research to refute the benefits of “trickle-down” economics. Although admirable, there is no need. Prima facie “trickle-down” does not create jobs. It’s premise is ludicrous, and the people who champion it, regardless of what they call it, are either stupid or think we are. All one needs to do is review statements and videos of CEOs responding to questions about what they will do with the money from this lower-tax windfall. We have gone through this exercise before of providing a tax holiday for corporations during Dubyah’s administration. The irony here is that the progressives are the ones trapped with the Sisyphean task of rolling the tax-cut boulder uphill to announce it will not create jobs, only to have the boulder roll back down. In the original myth, the person punished with this futile, never-ending task was a ruler who “was punished for his self-aggrandizing craftiness and deceitfulness (Wikipedia).”
P.S. Can you suggest a good resource for Window to Linux conversion?
Good to have this show on Thursday so it can be “balanced out” by an episode of Aggressive Progressives. That’s all I will say.
Really, Michael? Merrick Garland? Democrats chose to surrender that lifetime seat out of hubris
Honestly… Times are very, very dark… If taxes go up on the middle class it will literally cause a civil war. I’m shocked one hasn’t broken out yet… How can the republicans not see that they are fueling a divide that will literally destroy this nation?
Maybe because that’s what they want?
DoberMom and Lp3, I do not think that is true. The elite-class would not be worried of a civil war because the thought is inconceivable. People will know their roles and stick to them. Martin Luther King advocated non-violence, he practiced what he preached, and he was assassinated. Non-violence has prevailed and MLK’s constituency has not benefited much since. If the elite-class realizes the inconceivable is conceivable, then they have the police to deliver state-sanctioned violence to protect their interests.
You saw the template for this at Standing Rock last year. Hell, forget Republicans, Obama did not even care. The state police was used as an enforcement arm of corporations. A private security firm was hired to infiltrate, spy upon and perpetrate dirty tricks against peaceful protesters. With privatized prisons, I assume prisons can be built as quickly as they need them. Besides, there is still some room available at Guantanamo.
*two
About the robot, I’m a nationally rated gymnastics judge, and I have at least two tenths do deductions on that ” perfect” backflip.
Oh we’re back on this late uploading again.
Everybody knew this was going to happen but the rich get rich anyway regardless of damage to the environment.
Michael Sure is SOOO smarmy and full of himself I can’t bear to watch…
There is a simple solution to your problem.Stop watching.
get rid of smarmy another option
Another option: write in your criticisms so they can improve. Though I guess that’s what Zhenyagurl did anyways…
Michael is very knowledgeable without getting overly emotional. He doesn’t rant in a yelling voice for twenty minutes. He’s actually my favorite host. And next to him is Ben. Sorry. The ranting, while sometimes justified, often goes on and on well after the point has been made. It’s my only gripe about watching Cenk.
I love Ben. I will always listen when he’s on, even to an Hour 2. Michael is so-so.
I know some don’t like them but seriously Ben is my absolute favorite and I love Michael and all of his information. :-) John’s great too.
Michael mixed up his shuttle disasters. Challenger was because of the o ring. Columbia burned up on re-entry due to loss of tiles.
Socialize banks and energy.
Literally felt the same way. I felt like my night was ruined
Jesus about gave me a heart attack like are these gonna upload or what?