Fracking jobs - Obama's re-electioneering

Obama will need more than another SEAL raid to get my consideration on whether I should vote for him. His re-electioneering campaign that started in earnest with his state of the union speech didn't help. Now I get that such speeches are mere political hype - promises without the burden of keeping them. But the continual use of 'jobs' by all politicians - local to national is just too much.

One prime example of this hyperbole is his backing of fracking to add 600,000 jobs while at the same time vowing safe drilling. 600,000 jobs - really? A job is not just a job. While it may be to some - it isn't when those jobs carry substantial risks to the environment.

These special interest jobs carry with them serious environmental concerns of damage to the aquifers, air, rivers, etc. If the drinking water is harmed and the irrigation water becomes unusable - jobs means nothing. And Obama talks of more regulations - but what is the likelihood of effective regulations that will protect all parts of the environment?

It seemed that his decision to deny the Keystone - expansion (part 1 already in operation) - permit was the step in the right direction - a balance among the significant concerns of job creation and environmental harm. The question has to be more than just creating jobs. There is an ever growing need to consider the effects of oil and gas producing industries on mother earth.

Photograph: Jonathon Gruenke/AP

The same considerations have to be made when the "reduction of energy dependence" is the accompanying battle cry.

[Caption to the image in an article by Senator Bernie Sanders: Tar sands oil and Keystone XL's dirty secret: "A Canada goose covered in oil attempts to fly out of the Kalamazoo river in Marshall, Michigan. The tar sands spill will cost at least $700m to clean up."]

See this excerpt from Senator Sanders' Guardian UK piece: "After reviewing the [Keystone XL] project, it becomes clear that instead of reducing America's reliance on oil from overseas, this pipeline would carry oil across America, risking spills on our land and waters, just to export the oil to other countries. In addition, the pipeline would increase gasoline prices in America, add to our air pollution, and most importantly, be a major setback in the fight to reverse global warming."

Aren't the days of free wheeling capitalism done for? Shouldn't a representative government sit as an arbitrator to balance the economic needs and environmental harm? And shouldn't we question who will really benefit economically from these jobs?


See my other posts:
Oil and water don't mix
Ogallala Aquifer (and Keystone pipeline)
Keystone pipeline