How to Respond to a Frat Bro Arguing for the Keystone XL Pipeline


There are a shit ton of dope things you can do with a pipe: smoke dank weed, chug beers at the bottom of a three-story building, slam bitches (that’s an entendre, bro. French for lyrical swag).

But you know what a pipe isn’t good for? Transporting oil from Canada. You’ll a hear arguments for and against the Keystone Pipeline XL, but bro trust me on this one: that shit cray and is a major step backwards for moving America’s energy economy into the 21st century.

If people are trying to front on you, I’ve outlined a hypothetical conversation with a drunk bro at a rival frat who tries to talk bullshit about why the Keystone project is good. Use this guide and shut that little bitch down:

*Slams back Natty* “Bro, by approving Keystone, Obama can bolster his credibility within the oil industry and with conservative politicians, while simultaneously diffusing concerns around energy security. What the fuck you have to say now, bitch?”

Bro, step back. You can’t come into my fransion (a frat mansion) and front on me with this bullshit.

First, Obama has already done a number of things to appease the oil industry and conservatives (approving the southern section of the Keystone pipeline, drilling in the arctic, off-shore drilling leases, etc.) and found no concessions on the part of conservatives or big oil. This isn’t a reasonable claim and you sound like a little bitch. Also you’re just being speculative, while the science behind the issue is as clear as Grey Goose premium vodka.

Also, let’s keep in mind that Obama won the election even with the coal and oil industries pumping millions of dollars into Romney’s campaign. He has no obligation to them anyways, bro. Not approving this pipeline would send a message to the world that the US is on the path to clean energy (which also diffuses concerns about energy security). That seems much more important than appeasing a small group of people who aren’t going to like Obama’s policies anyway.

So hop off.

“Tar-sands development raises serious environmental concerns in Canada, but that’s in Canada bro. Who gives a shit?”

You sound like a idiot, bro. Like somehow all of the emissions and polluted water are stopped by Homeland Security at the border and are turned around? Come on. The environment doesn’t adhere to state boundaries. All that pollution will migrate to the United States like all the slampieces migrated over here from your shitty frat.

Plus let’s consider the potential for drought caused by a rupture in the pipeline OR by the massive amount of water it takes to extracts the bitumen from the sand and clay.


“Bro, sometimes the ends justify the means. The foundation for this pipeline could be a strategic research and development (R&D) program for clean energy.”

Okay bro, great. But here’s a better idea: how about we remove subsidies on oil companies and take some of that money to invest in clean energy R&D. Or just pass a carbon tax and raise $1.5 trillion in new revenue over the next 10 years. Use that money for energy research.

Also the vast majority of money and jobs from this project are going to stay in Canada (i.e. is going into the pockets of TransCanada, a Canadian oil company). All the pipeline does is move oil from Canada to the bottom of the U.S. and it doesn’t take too much time/effort to build a pipe (not that you’d know that, bitch). Extraction and profits stay in Canada, we get ~1 year of construction jobs, if that, and get to have more oil running through our country. Great.

“You’re just being a hyperbolic bitch, bro. Oil produced from the Canadian tar sands isn’t as dirty as the lame-stream media tells you. In fact, some of the oil produced in California is worse.”

First of all, fuck you and your lame-stream media garbage. But I digress.

Crude oil from tar sands is heavier, more viscous and has more impurities than other types of oil. You’re ignoring the bigger picture here and not thinking about how much energy actually goes into extracting and refining the tar sands. You’re not looking at the entire lifecycle, bro.

Tar sands are extracted as clay, sand and bitumen. Bitumen can be upgraded to synthetic crude oil, but it’s really intensive, expensive and all around terrible for every party involved. The only reason companies are extracting tar sands is because the price of oil is relatively high right now (that’s why it’s called a non-conventional source of oil, it’s not conventional because it costs so damn much and is so intensive). It’s the same thing as shale oil and deep-sea drilling. Drilling for more oil to reduce domestic oil prices is a catch-22, which is probably why it’s so easy for politicians to confuse people (read: your dumb-ass) about it.

But…bro. Driving down the cost of low-carbon energy might unlock political solutions in the future, right?

Even if this were the way that the economics of oil works (it’s not), how would using more oil drive down the costs of low-carbon energy? Even if it did, we’d eventually reach a point where it’s no longer profitable for companies to extract the tar sands, leaving us in the same place we are now but with more carbon emissions.

*The bro breaks down crying because he’s a little bitch with no values or convictions other than those he’s told by politicians and the media. *

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ve got a different type of pipeline for this hottie right here, so I’m gonna go back to my room and drill baby drill. Later bitch.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s