Keystone XL & Dakota Access, let the builder bear the risks

Aside from the rarely asked question; "why are we burning vitally important raw materials like coal, natural gas, and oil as if they were waste products", there are important questions about how and where we harvest, transport and refine them.

There are several core concepts that are critical to any discussions about Keystone XL, and Dakota access, and are generic to all other high-risk / high-profit projects. Before moving forward with their development, I think these issues must be fully addressed, understood and resolved.

- Who should bear the responsibility for disclosing the true risks associated with the development and operation of these ventures, and to what extent should they be held accountable for misrepresenting them?
- Who should be held accountable for misinformation disseminated through the media in support of their project, and to what extent?
- Who is in the best position to know how risky a given project is? This includes those which are hidden either for a lack of information, or those which are purposefully hidden to further a hidden agenda.
- Who should be granted the authority to make the social cost-benefit decisions regarding them? Shouldn't it be the people who bear the greatest cultural burdens and greatest risks?
- Who should be held morally, financially, and criminally liable for accidents and malfeasance? Should society at large bear the costs of their accidents, corner cutting to minimize costs & maximize profits or their wanton disregard for the welfare of all living things (including our kids) and the environment? I think not!

If and when something goes wrong, is it the corporations and governmental officials who promote, build and oversee these projects that should bear the full burden in all its glory? Should we allow them to be protected from criminal and financial liability by passing laws which provide the safety and security of corporate shields or official immunity?

Rather than transport extremely hazardous materials across America's heartland at great risk by pipeline, rail or truck, why not build a new refinery at or near the point of entry to the US? Wouldn't this create just as many jobs, or far more (many of which would be highly skilled and long term), greater cost effectiveness, and lessen environmental risks dramatically?

Although it is far too big an issue to do justice to here, let's keep in mind the tremendous value of clean water, fertile land, and all living thing, not to mention the importance of insulating them from all reasonable risks.

The proponents of these pipelines are advertising that the pipeline itself will be totally safe and environmentally friendly. Their ads clearly state that the end product will be environmentally cleaner than "many" existing fuels, and that might be fantastic depending on the precise meaning of the statement. Based upon precedent, this is the diametric opposite of reality.

In an effort to reach fair and equitable solutions to all of these questions among honorable people, why not attach rigid contractual obligations to any permit requiring that all of their promises be truthful and carry guarantees that they bear fruit. If their claims are true, there can be no reason to object, if they are false it is fraud and those responsible must be held fully accountable.

They say the project is safe and will cause no damage to America, Americans, or the environment. Frankly, we've all heard that song before and reasonable human being wants to repeat past failures. In spite of Exxon and BP's claims that they have been good citizens, their TV ads showing how they restored utopia, and that they were/are totally committed to 100% restoring the environment and compensating every person and business damaged buy their oil spills, this bears no resemblance to reality. Both companies thrive, while countless Americans and our ecology suffer the unfathomable consequences of their irresponsible actions.

Before allowing these projects, and others like them to move forward, it is only good sense to require their backers and investors to have a comprehensive indemnification plan in place. It must assure the resources required to fully and promptly return to whole every single person, business large or small, wildlife species, or piece of public land damaged by their project are in place and readily accessible. The potential liability is far beyond huge and the indemnification must be up to the full value of the company, its affiliated corporations and shareholders - no exceptions. It must be backstopped by insurance sufficient to totally cover any and all shortfalls. Huge projects offer huge profits, but they also present huge risks which must be 100% born by those who are in a position to reap the gains. It's only fair and right. America and the American people cannot continue bearing these burdens and costs. 

Frankly, the developers will never accept these conditions because they know the magnitude of the serious risks. Risks they are completely willing to place upon the American people, but not upon themselves, and that is why this plan should be rejected out of hand. Keystone XL, Dakota Access, and other similar projects are terrible deals for America and must be permanently stopped.

Revisiting the Boston Tea Party

Fall victim to divide and conquer political control and lose, or unite behind a common goal and win!

They come from many different backgrounds. About one-third are skilled craftsmen, a much smaller number are professionals, doctors, educators, lawyers, merchants, and the like. Although we do not know the occupations of all the participants, the majority are students and from the working class. About two-thirds are under 20; few are over 40. Most are locals, but some came from great distances. They have one thing in common, they are committed in opposition to a government which ignores the needs of the people in favor of the rich and powerful. Regardless of their financial or social origins, they work as a team of self-sacrificing patriots against an oppressive and seemingly all-powerful enemy. Although the words were yet to be written, they stood for “the Right of the People to alter or to abolish any Form of Government that becomes destructive of inalienable rights of men such as Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness”.

This describes the majority of both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the modern Tea Party, it also paraphrases the words of the Boston Tea Party Association’s depiction of the participants in one of America’s proudest moments.

Like the rank and file members of both the original and modern day Tea Parties, the “Occupiers” have the same central agenda; fairness, equity, and opportunity. They don't have a Robin Hood complex and do not want to steal from the rich, they just want the crimes of the powerful punished and their plunder returned to those they stole it from; this is not theft, it is justice. They want the opportunities enjoyed by their parents and grandparents. Their common goal is the return to a world where there was a vibrant and growing middle class where anyone who was willing to do the hard yards could improve their lot in life, and that of their families and friends; they're not seeking a redistribution of wealth through confiscation or trickery. Neither ascribes to the mean spirited rhetoric of those at their extremes. Nor would they knowingly yield to what appears to be the divide and conquer tactics of those amorphous individuals at the highest levels of power. But unfortunately, they have often fallen prey to it.

Where they differ is in their leadership. The Sons of Liberty, the folks who brought you the Boston Tea Party was led by the likes of Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Paul Revere; some of the same great and highly principled leaders who led the American Revolution. The modern Tea Party is controlled from behind the scenes by "The Invisible Hand", a group of three of America's richest men; Rupert Murdoch, and the Koch brothers, David and Charles. Occupy was also highly principled and devoted to democracy, to a fault, its leadership was far too amorphous to create a sustainable movement.

The puppeteers who orchestrated the Sons of Liberty and Occupy were highly principled, whereas the strings of the Tea Party are pulled by power brokers with their own agendas, not those of their followers.

In the end, the memberships of the Tea Party and Occupy are both modern American patriots following in the footsteps of our forefathers; those which led to the creation of our democracy. To a great extent they are doing it in ways that would have made them beam with pride. If they can side step the voices of their most radical leaders to sharply focus on their commonalities and band together to bring their core values to reality, all Americans triumph. If they don't, they will simply cancel each other out while the bad guys on both sides win one more time.

Copyright Fred Schwacke 2011-2017

WSJ China comments

• Fred Schwacke wrote: (your comment)

Proposal to impose currency-related trade measures against China or other countries with undervalued currencies makes no sense for two major reasons:

- First, if China revalues its currency upward, it will dramatically increase the value of our debt to them, doing us far more harm than good; in short, it is counter productive.

- The second is centered on the concept that it's far better to define the core problems and create meaningful solutions than to resort to band aid fixes. The core problem is that China's environmental protection, human

rights and nationally subsidized industrial policies create a massive and immoral cost advantage. Equalization is the solution; the creation of an environmental and humanitarian equalization tariff is the vehicle.

Although ill-defined, there is a dollar value connected to protecting our environment and quality of life, and at least short term it is expensive. As a country we have decided it is money well spent, and we must aggressively protect that decision; at least within our borders.

There is no question that countries which do not respect these values, while massively subsidizing exports, have a huge cost advantage in international commerce. We need to make adjustments in order to compete with them economically, and contrary to the beliefs of the short sighted, this does not mean lowering our standards to meet theirs. It does mean punishing the "dumping" which has all but killed many of our core manufacturing industries, including solar energy.

Obviously, we cannot continue to subsidize these nations at the expense of our own; the goal has to be the creation of a level playing field. It is my opinion that as a nation, we need to immediately do the calculations needed to define the real and total costs of sound environmental policys, fair working conditions and good wages, and use these numbers as a factual basis for creating a meaningful solution to inequitably priced imports.

Based on those calculations, the solution is the creation of an environmental and human exploitation levy to be placed on all countries who want access to our markets and whose humanitarian polices are below those we have adopted. For those who share our values, there would be little or no levy, for those who do not, the costs would be substantial. The proceeds would then be used to fund national technology and job creation initiatives.

A related issue is countries who engage in espionage in order to gain our country's military and industrial secrets. This is extremely expensive and must be aggressively rooted out and punished. In the case of China, this has been particularly pervasive. Our only possibilities for compensation is through the seizure of their assets which is impractical, or assessing large, long term, punitive levies on their goods and services while aggressively enforcing our anti-dumping laws.

In my opinion, these actions would force countries like China, India and others to clean up their acts in order to compete fairly in international markets; while helping us attain the critically important goals of restoring our onshore manufacturing base and good paying jobs, the middle class, and upward mobility.

• Link
• Go to Tracked Comments

• • 8 hours ago
  • Zilong Zhao replied:

  
  

  Are you nuts?
  
  1. When US was at the peak of her industrialization, did she consult or ask for agreement when she polluted the environment and burnt so much fossil fuels relative to others?
  
  2. What do you mean by subsidizing exports? What do you think US has been doing for decades to protect her agricultural sectors? And when you are talking about subsidizing, didn't you think of Solyndra and the other two solar companies that received massive subsidies but went bankrupt. How about the bailing out of US banks, GM and Chrysler? Don't you get any goose pimple for being such a hypocrite?
  
  3. If you want to trade on a level playing field, you need to get your country's fiscal and monetary policies fixed instead of demanding others to heed to US senseless commands.
  
  4. Don't accuse other countries of illegally gaining US military and industrial secrets. If US have the proofs, please expose them to the world, otherwise whining daily on such accusations are nothing short of stupid and barbaric. Accusing others without facts is an easy and coward thing to do.
  
  5. Don't think that US can force China of anything without seriously causing more damages to itself. US would not have restrained herself from doing anything to gain and take the fullest advantages over others.

  Recommend

  • Link
  • Reply to Zilong Zhao
  • Track Replies to this Comment

  • Report Abuse
  • • 1 hour ago
    • Alex Temenid replied:

    
    

    While the US does indeed need to address its fiscal concerns, to balance its current account it also has no choice but to adopt the merchantilist policies of nations like China.

    Recommend

    • Link

    • Report Abuse
  • • 29 minutes ago
    • Fred Schwacke replied: (your comment)

    

    I appreciate your comments and totally agree with some. We definitely abused the environment in the past when arguably we did not understand the consequences. Unfortunately, to a lesser extent we still do. Although the unenlightened self-interest of some forms their defense against incontrovertible scientific evidence, the importance of protecting the environment is perhaps today’s top priority. The fact that we made mistakes in the past does not justify their continuation, nor does it justify supporting the ability of others to profit from similar abuses.
    As a Nation we certainly made massive investments in our agricultural sector resulting in America becoming the world's leading food producer. It must also be said that China forbids the importation of U.S. beef. There were, and still are, wrongs and abuses done along the way, and the people of America are fighting to correct them. Bailing out the auto industry was a hard pill to swallow, but Main Street overwhelmingly saw the importance of supporting one of the most important sectors of our economy and its industrial base. This was Americans supporting Americans through loans, not subsidies. Although imperfect, this worked brilliantly by saving jobs, an entire industry, yielding a line of far superior products, and re-inventing what promises to be a healthy cornerstone industry. Let's not forget that those loans are being repaid. It is America at its best and requires no apology.
    Regarding Solyndra et al, there is no question they have failed financially at our taxpayer’s expense. The questions are how they fit into the big picture, what underlying benefits they produced, why they failed, and what can be done to minimize the chances of it happening again? Clearly, there are hidden internal factors which led to these failures, and questions about the wisdom of these specific investments.
    In fairness, China’s huge subsidization of their solar industry enabled anti-competitive dumping and the resulting artificial depression of worldwide market prices. These subsidies, made possible largely by their blind eye on human rights and ecology, made a huge contribution to these failures. How would this have been handled in China; even bigger subsidies?
    Creating national initiatives make good sense when developing important technologies for the future, both here and internationally. Our space program is a shining example of what they can achieve, and also the errors which need to be addressed. Keep in mind, the resulting economic benefits this investment has been enjoyed around the world.
    You are 100% right, bailing out the massively corrupt U.S. financial system was a big mistake, it is truly “too big to succeed” and anti-competitive. Our financial policies are seriously flawed and need a thorough overhaul and the main stream of American people are aggressively fighting to correct these problems; in spite of the real obstacles in their path, they are showing signs of winning.
    Your comments about China’s national policy of IT and technology theft is self-serving and disingenuous. While deny, deny, deny is a popular defense for the indefensible, it is always transparent.
    I’m not demanding anything from China, or anyone else, I’m simply saying if you want access to our markets, your products must adhere to our rules and standards. Every nation has that right. There is a huge debate here as to what those criteria should be, but although the effort to compete with less enlightened competitors is clouding the discussion, we are moving in the right direction. America cannot allow others the power to force us to follow their path.
    In the end, it may be seen by some it as hypocritical & by others as pragmatic or unrealistic, but we must put America first, just as China is. At the same time, we must benefit from 20/20 hindsight and do it sensibly and honorably, with a major emphasis on protecting our hard earned technologies, human rights and the environment, and we have the right to expect the same from those who want access to our country and its markets.

    • Link
• • 1 hour ago

The Stock Market is not the economy, it is the leech that skims off the cream.

- The Stock Market is not synonymous with the economy, it is gambling pure
and simple, and in its current form it is one of the economy's greatest
ills. A simple truth is wherever there is gambling there are people who
will find sophisticated ways to cheat and fleece the unsuspecting. In its
noblest form, the concept of selling stock started as a way to fund the
research, innovation, and company growth that was vital to the economic
development of our nation. With time it morphed into a haven for
speculation and manipulation. Rather than funding growth, for the most
part shareholders have become solely interested in maximizing short term
profits at the expense of the company's long term health and growth. It is
speculation rather than investment. In my opinion, shares should be
classed into two broad categories based upon that statement, those held
short term (for argument sake, less than two years) and those which
following Warren Buffet's advise are long term. Voting power should not be
bestowed upon the short term, speculative investor. Executive stock
options should encourage long term corporate health and growth by not
becoming vested for at least five years after they are exercised. 

- Food costs have more than doubled, yet the family farmer is struggling while large
corporate farmers are getting huge subsidies. One solution would be
enacting Anti-trust legislation that forbids the huge conglomerates which
are so dominant in critical industries from operating at more than one
level in the manufacturing and distribution chain; pick one, manufacturing
(including farming), distribution or retail. It should also limit the
market share one company can have in any sector to 10% of the market.
Except in small towns, retailers should not be allowed to control more
than a specified market share based upon the population of the area they
serve. Just watch what this would do to your weekly food bill. 
- The price of oil at the well head is dramatically different from the price we see
quoted on the TV each night. The difference is created by speculators in
the commodities markets (the same holds true for food and other vital
commodities). Products which are vital to the national good such as food,
oil and the like should be heavily regulated so as to forbid the
unconscionable profits which are siphoned off by manipulation of these
markets. A short term 90% windfall profits tax should be levied on all
profits above a reasonable spread, for argument sake 15%. At the same time
a long term per share traded tax of 1.0% should be applied to all stock
and commodities transactions (by other than users) which are held short
term. The term should be 1 year, with the fee applied at the time of sale.

Keystone XL, let the builder bear the risks!

Aside from the rarely asked question; "why are we burning such a vitally important raw material like oil as if it was a waste product", there are important questions about how we harvest, transport and refine it that must be fully answered.

There are several core concepts that are critical to the discussions about Keystone XL and other high risk / high profit projects. Before moving forward, they must be fully addressed and resolved.

- Who is in the best position to know how risky a given project is?
- Who is in the position to make cost benefit decisions regarding it?
- Who is in the best position to know its hidden risks.

Those are the people, corporations and governmental officials who should bear the full burden if something goes wrong, and without the safety and security of corporate shields or official immunity.

Rather than transport this extremely hazardous material across America's heartland at great risk, why not build a new refinery at or near an appropriately chosen point of entry to the US? Wouldn't this create far more permanent jobs, most of which would be highly skilled and long term? Wouldn't this  offer greater cost effectiveness, and lessen environmental risks dramatically? Wouldn't this satisfy the needs of our energy producing neighbor to the north? And wouldn't this make the likelihood of these refined petroleum products benefiting the North American economies far greater, rather than endangering them?

Although it is far too big an issue to do justice here, lets keep in mind the tremendous value of clean water, and the importance of insulating it from risk.

The proponents of this pipeline are advertising widely that the pipeline itself will be totally safe and environmentally friendly. Their ads clearly state that the end product will be environmentally cleaner than "many" existing fuels, and that could be fantastic depending on the precise meaning and truthfulness of the statement. In an effort to reach a fair and equitable solution among honorable people, why not place rigid contractual obligations into any permit requiring that all of their promises bear fruit; with serious and meaningful penalties if they don't. If their claims are true, there can be no reason for objection.

They say the project is safe and will cause no damage to the environment. Frankly, we have all heard this before and we do not want to repeat the past failures. In spite of claims by Exxon and BP that they have been good citizens and that they were/are totally committed to 100% fully restoring the environment and fairly compensating every person and business damaged buy their oil spills, this has been far from the reality. Both companies continue to thrive, while countless Americans and our ecology continue to suffer the consequences of their actions.

Before allowing this project to move forward, please require them to have an indemnification plan, with real teeth, in place that assure the resources required to fully and promptly return to whole every single person, wildlife species, company, or piece of public land damaged by their project, up to the full value of the company and its founders, affiliated corporations and shareholders. Huge projects offer huge profits, but they also present huge risks that must be 100% born by those who are in a position to reap the gains.

Frankly, they will not accept these conditions because they know it creates a serious burden of risk, one they are willing to place upon the American people, but not themselves; and that is why this plan should be rejected out of hand. Keystone XL, and other similar projects are a terrible deal for America.

What happened to the jobs, and how do we get them back?

The facts are clear and incontrovertible. Big corporates are not creating new jobs; meanwhile,  they are being paid a fortune in our tax dollars to ship many of the best paying offshore. The same banks we gave many hundreds of billions of dollars to in order for them to totally recover from the effects of their fraudulent activities are unwilling to offer loans to the real corporate job creators, small businesses, no matter how worthy they are. The people who created the sub-prime mortgage crisis  have used our money to fully recover and reap massive profits while those they fleeced are further decimated.


The financial cream they skimmed from our nation took job supporting industries and the ability for Main Street to recover with it.

In spite of the fact that the re-creation of good paying jobs here at home is the best way to restore the health of our economy and rebuild our middle class, Congress has done absolutely nothing to start this ball rolling, in fact they continue to obstruct it. The core question is why?


The obvious answer is they don't want to. Less obvious is the fact that restoring the jobs engine the super wealthy and corporate greed destroyed has to occur before a really recovery can happen, and it will be neither easy or fast.


In spite of corporate coffers filled with trillions in cash, we are told time and again that they won 't use it to create jobs because they are uncertain about the economy. Is that the real reason, or is it that it is invested where they get a better return than expanding their businesses will bring? The simple fact that their profits are astronomical while Main Street is floundering illustrates the answer.


The simple truth is if investing in jobs was the best way to create short term profits, that is what Corporate America would be doing. If there was a demand for goods and services, investment dollars would be made available to supply it.  


isn reality, it is  the people who reside in the middle and lower levels of the economic pyramid that fuel the demand, but they do not have the discretionary income to do it. The greed at the top has syphoned off the cream that created their ability to buy, and until it is returned, there can be no economic recovery. Good paying jobs and discretionary income are the real jobs creators. Sadly this pursuit of short term gains has all but killed the golden goose (the middle class), and with it America's long term prospects.


Only Congress has the ability to restore the balance which existed in years past that created the vibrant American economy and the world's highest standard of living. Absent any better answer, and their is none, the obvious solution is to return to the pre 1980 model which created it.

I truly care about life from conception to the grave, do you?

Dear President Obama,

While I agree with this conservative mantra, there are a lot of "but if's" that are part of the defining equation.

My first area of concern is the tradition of our government to make laws which allow the writers to "eat their cake and have it too". If laws are passed which are based upon personal beliefs put onerous burdens on those effected by them, the government must fully bear the financial burden of recompense. It is only fair and it is only right.

If a woman has made the choice to have a child, there is a good argument that she and her partner are responsible for that life until it reaches maturity. On the other hand, what if the pregnancy occurred because of faulty birth control? Or was totally outside the woman's sphere of control like rape, or any other outside of the box reason? Who bears the emotional and financial costs of rearing that child? The financial backers of the legislation will protect the manufacturer of the defective birth control and ignore the problems of the mother and child.

I agree that every life be it unborn, in its most vital years or near death,  deserves the support of our society. What I have a problem with is the hypocracy of those who use abortion as a smoke screen to obscure their stance against Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security.

It would be refreshing to hear a politician call this spade a spade by addressing this core question. Mr. President, are you up to it?

Just roll it back, say no to deregulation.

Restoring good paying jobs and upward mobility to all Americans is the key to restoring the health of our country. The spiral of downward mobility must be reversed immediately, and rolling back the tax code to pre 1980 levels immediately is one of the critical keys.

Just say no to the Republican proposals to make things worse for all but the rich. No to continuing Bush Era tax breaks to the richest Americans. No to incentives and loopholes for giant corporations. No to speculation as the foundation of modern day Wall Street. No to the perverted definition of “investment” which embraces race track like betting and crooked bookies as their purveyors. And no to the excessive and /or hidden costs and fees that are syphoning the cream out of the finances of everyday Americans.

Not to mention, no to cuts to investments in our country's future like education, infrastructure, honoring our promises to seniors including Social Security (which they paid for as deferred compensation), or Medicare
and Medicaid for the neediest Americans.

Put in the most basic terms, just say no to the unabashed legislator supported greed which has taken over our country and is milking it dry.

It is time to restore fairness and equity by rolling back banking and corporate regulations to pre-1980 levels.

Why the proposed American Chinese currency manipulation bill is against our interests.

The Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011, the proposal to impose currency-related trade measures against China or other countries with undervalued currencies makes no sense for two major reasons:

- First, if China revalues its currency upward, it will dramatically increase  the value of our debt to them, doing us far more harm than good; in short, it is counter productive.

- The second is centered on the concept that it's far better to define the core problems and create meaningful solutions than to resort to band aid fixes. The core problem is that China's environmental protection, human
rights and nationally subsidized industrial policies create a massive and immoral cost advantage. Equalization is the solution; the creation of an environmental and humanitarian equalization tariff is the vehicle.

Although ill-defined,  there is a dollar value connected to protecting our environment and quality of life, and at least short term it is expensive. As a country we have decided it is money well spent, and we must aggressively protect that decision; at least within our borders.

There is no question that countries which do not respect these values, while massively subsidizing exports, have a huge cost advantage in international commerce. We need to make adjustments in order to compete with them economically, and contrary to the beliefs of the short sighted, this does not mean lowering our standards to meet theirs. It does mean punishing the "dumping" which has all but killed many of our core manufacturing industries, including solar energy.

Obviously, we cannot continue to subsidize these nations at the expense of our own; the goal has to be the creation of a level playing field. It is my opinion that as a nation, we need to immediately do the calculations needed to define the real and total costs of sound environmental policy, fair working conditions and good wages, and use these numbers as a factual basis for creating a meaningful solution to inequitably priced imports.

Based on those calculations, the solution is the creation of an environmental and human exploitation levy to be placed on all countries who want access to our markets and whose humanitarian polices are below those we have adopted. For those who share our values, there would be little or no levy, for those who do not, the costs would be substantial. The proceeds would then be used to fund national technology initiatives.

A related issue is countries who engage in espionage in order to gain our country's military and industrial secrets. This is extremely expensive and must be aggressively rooted out and punished.  In the case of China, this
has been particularly pervasive. Our only possibilities for compensation is through the seizure of their assets which is impractical, or assessing large, long term, punitive levys on their goods and services while aggressively enforcing our anti-dumping laws.

In my opinion, these actions would force countries like China, India and others to clean up their acts in order to compete fairly in international markets; while helping us attain the critically important goals of restoring our onshore manufacturing base and good paying jobs, the middle class, and upward mobility.