It was a normal Tuesday evening—husband working late, kids outside playing, me trying to figure out what to make for dinner—when the phone rang. And at first, it seemed like a normal phone call: just an automated survey.
The recorded voice’s questions started out simply enough: “Do you think gas prices are too high?” My actual thoughts on that question are more complicated than a simple “yes” or “no,” but the automated caller made it clear it was not interested in nuance. From there, the questions moved to the economy: Was I concerned about the economy? Did I think we should be doing more to create new jobs? To promote economic development?
By now, the survey call had piqued my interest. It was not like consumer surveys that ask about products and brands; it was not like news surveys that somewhat objectively ask my opinions on specific issues. This call seemed more like the ones I get from politicians running for office, calls that ask innocent-sounding questions designed to lead me toward seemingly-inevitable political conclusions. Because who would be the person to say “no” to wanting lower gas prices, more jobs, a better economy for hard-working Americans?
After that, the recorded voice made its agenda clear, speaking of a possible solution to these problems: the construction of a new pipeline that would bring oil from Canada to refineries in Texas. The TransCanada pipeline would reduce our dependence on foreign oil, lower gas prices, create new jobs right here in Texas, and grow our economy. Sounds great, right? The only thing holding all this up, the voice said, is the simple matter of approval from the Department of State. To that end, the recorded voice would be happy to submit my name as a Texan in support of the pipeline project to the Department of State—would I be willing to let the caller do that?
Um, no. At the time I got this phone call, I didn’t know a lot about the proposed TransCanada pipeline, called the Keystone XL—but I knew enough to know that there are environmental concerns around the method of extraction from the tar sands in Canada. Not to mention, just imagine a pipeline that runs from Canada to Houston! I can pretty quickly think of a host of potential environmental and human health concerns related to construction and then the use of such a thing. And then there’s the fact that rather than pumping (pun intended) our money into oil, we could be putting it into renewable sources of energy and new technologies that will also create jobs—clean ones.
The voice asked me if I’d like more information about the TransCanada pipeline project, and I said no. In retrospect, I’m sure I should have said yes—but by then, I was mad. Here’s why: I am not an expert, but I know a lot more about environmental issues than most people. So I’m thinking that most of the people who get this phone call—paid for, the voice said, by the Consumer Energy Alliance—won’t have any idea about the environmental and human health hazards of bringing tar sands oil from Canada to Texas. I’m thinking that the questions this “survey” asked were one-sided, leading, and pretty slick (pun intended). I’m thinking that most well-meaning and over-extended suburban moms (that’s my category) who get this phone call will say “yes” to all the voice’s suggestions and add their names in support of this project, without knowing the big picture—because the big picture hasn’t even been hinted at in this call. And I’m thinking that big corporate money could gain itself an advantage by funding these misleading calls. Meanwhile, regular people like me who care about the health of our communities and a livable planet for our kids are too busy scrambling to clean the kitchen and make something for dinner to be able to organize against this project. Besides, I know we don’t have the money to fund robo-calls like the one that interrupted my evening.
The one good thing that came out of this call, for me, is that it alerted me to the issue. Since receiving the call, I have researched to learn more about the tar sands in Canada, the method of oil extraction and the proposed XL pipeline that would bring the highly toxic material to Texas. I’ve learned that the pipeline route runs through the Ogallala aquifer, which provides 30% of the groundwater for American agriculture—as well as about 80% of the drinking water for people who live within the aquifer’s boundary. Any kind of spill of this tar sands material, which is more toxic than regular crude oil, could be disastrous.
If you’d like to learn more, here are some resources—and some ways to take action:
· “Tar Sands Pipeline Safety Risks” report, issued in February, 2011.
· Three-minute video by the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund.
Let's be in conversation about this. If you have information, questions or suggestions, please send me an e-mail.
Peace & blessings, Amanda