Michael Reeve's commentary article in Austin American
Statesman, titled Stop
dallying and approve pipeline for economy's sake tells the reader
exactly what his point of view is. Mr.
Reeve’s intent is persuading his audience, like-minded people, that if we do
not have the Keystone XL pipeline our economy will suffer even more than it
already has. Mr. Reeve’s credibility is
strong amongst the commerce community, but seems to be lacking in the environment
sect.
Mr. Reeve claims that the pipeline is safe which he uses
quotes from numerous governmental agencies to substantiate his claim. He also claims that it would create about
20,000 jobs and private sector investments of more than $20 billion. With claims like that it is hard not to jump
on the Keystone XL band wagon, too bad his evidence does not back it up.
His article is written for an audience that does not need convincing. He is preaching to the choir. Mr. Reeve would have a stronger chance of convincing
the opponents if he had quotes and evidence from environmental groups and
agencies. His’ safety evidence was
lacking. Letting the public know that
the degree of safety is greater than typical constructed domestic pipelines
does nothing for eliminating the fears of the environmentally conscious citizens. A better way to argue in favor of the pipeline
would be to let the reader know what the baseline is and how much safer it is
compared to other pipelines. Again, Mr.
Reeve quotes the State Department “would not likely affect refinery emissions”
in Texas. Using the quote with not
likely is of no comfort to citizens who are concerned with environmental issues.
If you are in agreement with the Keystone XL pipeline you
will find this article right up your ally.
If you are in disagreement with the pipeline the article does not
provide strong enough evidence to convince the naysayers.
