Three Letters to the Editor - Coursework Example

Analyses of Three Letters to the Editor The three letters to the editor chosen were written in response to the piece that Joe Nocera wrote for his column in The New York Times. The column piece, Poisoned Politics of Keystone XL, discussed about the issues that hounded the plan to build an oil pipeline from Alberta, Canada that crosses the United States and ends at the coast of the Gulf of Mexico. Apparently, the article focused more on the political angles of the issue. However, the varied responses to it only proved that there are more concerns to consider aside from politics. The three chosen letters to the editor examples of these varied reactions coming from people who are experts in their own fields which are related or affected by Keystone XL. Since the three letters to the editor are responses to the Nocera’s column piece, The New York Times had put them all together under one heading, Pipeline Politics, Economics and Science. However, being written by different letter senders, each of these are has a distinct perspective on the issue. First Letter to the Editor The first letter to the editor has the usual elements of terms of address and the subject line. Apparently, the letter is meant for the individuals who bear the responsibility of presenting to the public detailed information regarding the issue; in this case, the Keystone XL pipeline. Aside from this, the editors are also in charge of putting in print the different reactions, opinions, and comments on the burning issues of the day. This letter to the editor, however, wishes to tell the public that Nocera has missed certain important information that should also be mentioned in his article because this could have resulted in a more objective view of the issue. The sender did not waste space for explaining the purpose of his letter. As soon as he wrote the subject line in order to refer to the column piece written by Nocera, he immediately presented his reaction. He may not have directly expressed his criticism of Nocera’s focusing on the politics aspect while leaving out other important concerns but he did the raise the point that those who are in support of the Keystone projects always miss to mention the “same major facts.” After the very first sentence, which was short but succinct, the letter sender immediately presented his supporting statements in bulleted form. The very first bulleted point is similar to saying that the Keystone XL project should not even be considered as a major concern of the United States because it does not really benefit the consumers of oil products in the country. The pipeline is not heading for any principal oil refinery in the country. It goes to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico, where tankers are going to be filled with crude petroleum. The letter sender then clarifies another piece of information that the Keystone proponents miss, which is that the number of jobs to be generated by the project is not as much as estimated. To strengthen his argument, an estimate released by the US State Department is cited. It is apparent that the letter sender wishes to negate the argument of the pro-Keystone camp that the project would be beneficial to the economy because it would result in more jobs. The third bulleted point is puts emphasis on the fact that many Canadians are even against the tar sands pipeline project. After the bulleted points, the letter sender took a moment to summarize his thesis and supporting information and arguments. When summed up, his position on the issue is made clear; that he is against the Keystone project and that he supports any step to prevent it from being realized. This would have been enough a conclusion already. However, it is clear that he sees the need to present an opinion on the need to overcome China in the competition. However, even as he does so, he also clarifies that while Chine should be “outgunned,” this should not result into damaging the environment. He then pushes for the development of renewable energy, which could be realized through American ingenuity. This is the call to action part of the letter. The letter was written and sent by Dean Bigbee from New Jersey. Second Letter to the Editor The second letter to the editor basically agrees with Nocera and this is immediately expressed at the very start of the letter. The purpose of the letter, however, is divulged right in the same sentence that agreement is verbalized. The letter sender just wants to point out that the decision of Canada to approach the Chinese was triggered by the President Obama’s hesitance to let the Keystone pipeline through. The letter sender points out that Obama is confronted with two pressing problems; the serious problem of energy insecurity and the 17 percent unemployment rate in the construction sector. In the letter, it is insinuated that the Keystone XL project would have been one solution for the two problems. It solves the issues of lack of energy sources and employment opportunities in the construction sector. To support his argument, the letter sender insinuates that it is the president’s politicking and hesitance that drove the Canadians to the Chinese. The second paragraph of this letter to the editor mentions three arguments of those opposing the Keystone project but for the purpose of negating these. The first point is that “blocking the Keystone project” does not also result to the end of the America’s dependency on oil imports. This is actually a counter-argument to Obama’s aim to reduce dependency on the supply of oil from other countries. The second point negates the idea that the project would prematurely stop the development of the oil sands. The third point, on the other hand, is a plain refusal to believe that the project would contribute to the worsening problem of climate change. After these relatively general or sweeping negations and assertions, the letter sender is quick to conclude opposition to the project would just result in missed opportunities while giving these away to a country that is perceived as a threat in terms of economic and military might. The letter ended with another generalization; that the hesitance is “flawed policy on both security and environmental grounds.” The letter is written by Richard D. Little, who is an academic specializing in public policy at University of Southern California. Third Letter to the Editor The third letter to the editor is the shortest. The letter merely points out that Nocera’s position on the issue is basically wrong and that it does not in any way the follow logic while, at the same time ignores science. The first sentence re-states Nocera’s view that opposition to the Keystone project is “ludicrous.” But this is only to be debunked by the letter sender’s position when he said that those who employ science in analyzing the issue would not find the opposition laughable. However, the letter sender did not spare a few more words or sentences in order to explain further what he meant. Instead, he immediately jumped to asserting his own views, which is essentially an environmentalist position. Nevertheless, he implies that the tar sands oil would just contribute further to global carbon emissions, which would further destroy the environment and, consequently hurt the economy. Using an environmentalist’s perspective on the issue, the letter sender insists that the any opportunity aimed at further increasing the dependence on fossil fuels, including those that could be found in the tar sands in Alberta, Canada. In relation to this, no additional investments should be poured on the said sources of energy. It is clear that the installation of the pipelines from Alberta to the coast of the Gulf of Mexico would require billions of dollars, which for the letter sender, is money misappropriated towards something that would just bring more harm than good to both the environment and the economy. In concluding, the letter sender reaffirms the point that the opponents to the Keystone project have correctly encouraged people to believe in climate science and to apply it. He then ends with a quip alluding that it is those who insist on implementing Keystone are the ones who are ludicrous. The letter sender is Jabe Blumenthal. As board co-chairman of a group called Climate Solutions, his position on the issue may be expected. Comparative Analysis of the Three Letters to the Editor Each of the letters to the editor presented here has its strengths and weaknesses. However, of the three, it is the first that has done well in presenting a thesis that is supported by data coming from credible information. Aside from the bulleted supporting information and arguments, Bigbee, the letter sender, also made it a point to re-state the gist of the letter and take a snipe at the China argument used by the Keystone proponents. Because of this, his call to action at the end could be effective and compelling. While the first letter to the editor says that Nocera myopically bound the Keystone issue to politics, Little, the second letter sender, believes so but in another way. He insists that it is not just politics that is the problem but Obama himself. His sweeping generalizations, however, do not help in strengthening his case. What are obvious though is that aside from the fact he is critical of Obama, he supports the Keystone project. He does not have any data to support his pro stance but he just does not believe what the antis are saying. The third letter to the editor does not present any idea to bolster its claim too. However, there is a strength in it which makes it relevant despite its being the shortest. The letter encourages people to learn science in order to appraise the Keystone issue better. Blumenthal goes into generalizations also but with the encouragement, it is the reader that is obliged to learn more about the issue. REFERENCE: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/opinion/pipeline-politics-economics-and-science.html?_r=1&ref=letters Pipeline Politics, Economics and Science To the Editor: Re “Poisoned Politics of Keystone XL,” by Joe Nocera (column, Feb. 7): Every pro-Keystone argument leaves out the same major facts: Tar sands oil is not intended for United States consumption, but for shipping to the highest bidder. The job projections were discovered to be highly inflated; State Department estimates barely break 5,000. Many Canadians oppose a tar sands pipeline as it is destroying large sections of their environment. Mix this with about a dozen leaks that Keystone I has had in a single year, extremely high refining costs, and a route that puts American food and water supplies at increased risk, and it’s hard to find a reason to like Keystone XL. If Americans want to outgun China, it’s not going to be on the back of dirty oil, but on renewable energy and ingenuity. DEAN BIGBEE Bergenfield, N.J., Feb. 7, 2012 To the Editor: Although Joe Nocera is probably right to lay most of the blame for the Keystone pipeline fiasco on our intractable political situation, President Obama is supposed to be the grown-up in the room. But instead of seizing the opportunity to improve American energy security and reduce the 17-plus percent unemployment rate in the construction trades, his dissembling is pushing Canada into the arms of the Chinese. Blocking the Keystone project will not reduce American dependence on imported oil, preclude development of Canada’s oil sands, or have any meaningful impact on climate change. What it will do is squander the benefits of having huge oil reserves just across the border under the control of a true and trusted ally and put the seas at risk from the supertankers that will carry that oil to Asia. That’s flawed policy on both security and environmental grounds. RICHARD G. LITTLE Los Angeles, Feb. 7, 2012 The writer is a senior fellow at the Price School of Public Policy at the University of Southern California. To the Editor: Joe Nocera states that opposing the expansion of tar sands oil is “ludicrous.” Not if you’re rational enough to believe in science. The reality is that we must decrease global emissions — deeply, rapidly and permanently — to avoid potentially vast environmental and economic disruption. The only way to avoid dangerous, irreversible climate change is by reducing fossil fuel dependence at every opportunity, not by investing billions in new fossil fuel development. Keystone opponents are arguing that we accept climate science and act responsibly on what we know. To do otherwise would truly be ludicrous. JABE BLUMENTHAL Board Co-chairman  Climate Solutions Seattle, Feb. 8, 2012 Read More