EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Thousands Gather to Protest TransCanada Pipeline by Encircling the White House
WASHINGTON - Thousands of protesters, including a Nobel laureate and a film star, are slated to join hands and encircle the White House on Sunday in opposition to TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline.
The demonstration is the latest in a series of White House protests aimed at convincing U.S. President Barack Obama to block the $7 billion project that would carry Alberta oilsands crude through six American states to Gulf Coast refineries.
photo: Shadia Fayne Wood / Tarsandsaction
Mark Ruffalo, nominated for an Academy Award last year, and Jody Williams, winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work on banning landmines, are among the celebrities scheduled to speak at the rally.
Obama is in Washington, and will likely be inside the White House as the protest unfolds.
The Obama administration is currently weighing whether to give the green light to Keystone XL.
The U.S. State Department is making the ruling because the pipeline crosses an international border, but the president has said the final decision will reflect his views and suggested he isn't swayed by the argument that the pipeline will create jobs.
"Folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren't going to say to themselves, 'We'll take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health,"' Obama said in an interview with an Omaha TV station.
"We don't want, for example, aquifers to be adversely affected. Folks in Nebraska obviously would be directly impacted."
A decision on the pipeline was supposed to be made by the end of the year, but the State Department suggested last week that it might defer the decision as they continue to assess whether Keystone XL is in the national interest of the United States.
Keystone XL has become a political hot potato for the Obama administration, especially since the release of emails that suggest a cosy relationship between State Department officials and TransCanada's chief lobbyist, Paul Elliott.
Elliott worked on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008.
There have also been allegations that the State Department failed to do an impartial environmental assessment of Keystone XL by hiring an environmental consulting firm, Houston-based Cardno Entrix, recommended to it by TransCanada itself.
With a presidential election less than a year away, key Obama advisers are reportedly growing increasingly nervous about losing supporters if they approve Keystone XL.
The pipeline's opponents point to a series of recent spills along oil pipelines and argue the Keystone XL project is a disaster waiting to happen as it would carry millions of barrels a week of carbon-intensive oilsands crude through environmentally fragile areas of the U.S. Great Plains.
Proponents, meantime, say the pipeline will create thousands of much-needed jobs and help end American reliance on oil from volatile and sometime hostile OPEC regimes.
The project has not only become a symbol of the increasingly heated debate in the United States about the country's reliance on fossil fuels and a perceived reluctance to embrace renewable sources of energy, but also the distrust many Americans feel towards big corporations.
Pipeline opponents have said their anti-Keystone protests reflect larger scale public anger at corporate greed, pointing to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.
"You can't occupy the White House, but you can surround it," Bill McKibben, a leading U.S. environmentalist and one of the protest's organizers, told a news conference last week.
Keystone XL has become a flashpoint for the environmental movement in the U.S. following last year's failed federal climate change legislation. More than 1,000 protesters were arrested this summer in two weeks of sit-ins outside the White House.
The Nebraska legislature, meantime, is in special session considering legislation that could force TransCanada to reroute the pipeline away from the Ogallala aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the region.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
46 Comments so far
Show AllThere's a problem with all the emphasis on the specific route of the Keystone XL pipeline: over the Ogallala aquifer. The stage is now set for a grand compromise where the pipeline is rerouted over "less sensitive" areas, while carbon emissions just keep growing. Proceedings in the Nebraska legislature and Obama's remarks and signal the deal in the works:
"Folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren't going to say to themselves, 'We'll take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health.'"
Apparently, Tarsands Action decided to downplay global warming concerns, to focus their objections on all the other environmental impacts. With a rerouting compromise, Obama can say he's responding meaningfully, environmentalists can say their efforts have been fruitful, and we can resume our incineration of the global ecosphere.
Very interesting, and I have a feeling you've just nailed exactly how this is fated to go down. I found it interesting that Obama singled out Nebraska in that remark, as if only "folks" there would possibly be negatively affected. OK, so we'll reroute around Nebraska and problem solved. See how environmentally aware I am? I'm looking out for the interests of "all Americans." Oh, there'll still be a few naysayers like McKibben who can be easily ignored. Back to the campaign, using this deceitful strategy to win over those progressives with permanent ADD.
No sane progressives will be voting for Obomber. He has betrayed environmentalists, anti-war, Hispanics, the poor, the young, anticorporatists,and anyone who really believes in peace and justice. We'll be voting Green.
What a guy, that Obomber. I read on another website that "our" Prez avoided most of the protest by playing golf at Fort Belvoir in Virginia. It still irks me that I voted for this shameless hypocrite. He had the nerve to say in Nebraska that his decision about the pipeline would be in the best interests of the American people. Unbelievable.
I thought the same thing. This will be how Obama seems to be a good guy to many and yet still sells the environment out. I can now hear people on supposedly progressive radio trying to sell this to us as a good thing.
Aleph Null.....this is exactly what I was thinking as I finished the article, that there would be a "compromise".....I have been noticing all along that the main complaint is the danger to water........ which is true....but not much mention about the carbon emissions........ you are so right........it will get passed, with the argument that the "environmental concerns" are "taken care of".... by changing the route....Whiel.... Thailand suffers through floods....another '' natural disaster".
"key Obama advisers are reportedly growing increasingly nervous about losing supporters if they approve Keystone XL."
Which is the best reason not to reelect Obama. Considering all the damage he's done so far, what control do his supporters have in a second term (gasp) when he doesn't have to worry about re-election, and signs off on the pipeline? Scream that to the Obots and dims!
Replace the bums with an electronic congress of the people. www.TakingCongress.net
Mob rule, eh? This is often the term the 1% uses to scare people out of considering real democracy. An electronic Congress is something I have been dreaming about for years. Currently, I favor a Wiki style process. An electronic system such as TakeCongress, must never nullify, in any way, shape, or form our civil liberties and the law so there would have to be ways to amend and legislate. .
The Obama, the Bush, the Clinton, the Pelosi, even the Kucinich, all tools of the 1% to one degree or another ...... it's all I can stands, I can't stands no more!
"Mob rule, eh? This is often the term the 1% uses to scare people out of considering real democracy. An electronic Congress is something I have been dreaming about for years. Currently, I favor a Wiki style process. An electronic system such as TakeCongress, must never nullify, in any way, shape, or form our civil liberties and the law so there would have to be ways to amend and legislate. .
The Obama, the Bush, the Clinton, the Pelosi, even the Kucinich, all tools of the 1% to one degree or another ...... it's all I can stands, I can't stands no more!
..rvrwalker
yes! looks like everyone here landed on the same page!
"Folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren't going to say to themselves, 'We'll take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health,"' Obama said in an interview with an Omaha TV station.
"We don't want, for example, aquifers to be adversely affected. Folks in Nebraska obviously would be directly impacted."--obama
yes, mr p, some high powered rhetoric there...however...
"A decision on the pipeline was supposed to be made by the end of the year, but the State Department suggested last week that it might defer the decision as they continue to asses..."
can't help but wonder, is the delay more your political security than our health and environmental security?
Not only folks in Nebraska, Mr. President. As you well know it impacts folks in Wyoming, Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas.
That's farm water that cannot be replaced in thousands of summers, Mr. President. No matter where you reroute it, it's going to spill and it's going to make the gulf spill look rather tame because as you might realize, there is no bail out for the soil.
We are not the top life form on the planet, microrganisms are. We're utterly dependent upon them for food, not sun, water and synthetic chemicals as Sec. Vilsack would have you believe.
"That's farm water that cannot be replaced in thousands of summers"
The Ogallala aquifer underlies much of the mid-section of the continent, from Nebraska to Texas. In most of that area, it is not being recharged by rainwater because the recharge area (in the Front Range of the Rockies) is covered over, and in most places the aquifer is capped by impermeable rocks, so rainwater cannot get to it. If I remember correctly from my geography classes, Nebraska is in what is called the "short grass prairie" because of the relatively dry climate. The "tall grass prairie" is eastward, where there is more rain.
Ergo, if the aquifer is polluted by a leak in a pipeline (has a pipleline ever been built that did not have a leak?) in Nebraska where it is relatively shallow, farmers there can kiss their water supply goodbye, because they don't get enough rain to sustain agriculture without pumping the aquifer.
But who cares about growing food when you can supply more oil to the global oil market and let the big oil companies make even more obscene profits?
Your geology is a little shaky. It's not a question of the Ogallala not being recharged because "the Front Range of the Rockies is covered over" (I'd guess, at most, 0.01% of that recharge zone covered with impervious surfaces -- and most of those still do drain to areas that recharge groundwater). Rather, the sheer rate at which water is being pumped out of the Ogallala far exceeds the natural recharge rate that has occurred for centuries. I.e., we are "mining" the aquifer, not utilizing it at a sustainable rate. (In general, anyway. There are some local exceptions, and some localized areas where recharge is exceeding withdrawals.) You are correct that in most of western NE, most crops can't be grown without supplemental irrigation. That begins to change as you get into eastern NE.
"With a presidential election less than a year away, key Obama advisers are reportedly growing increasingly nervous about losing supporters if they approve Keystone XL."
____________________________Ah, that weasel word: "reportedly".It's possible, but I'm inclined to doubt it.One of the reasons I remain skeptical of the overall "more in sorrow than anger" tone of the Amerikan XL protests, at least the McKibben contingent, is because even when-- er, "if"-- Team Obama approves the controversial pipeline project, I fully expect the protestors to hold those noses that have been rubbed in the tarsands and vote for Obama anyway.It's just my cynical hunch, to be sure. But honestly, I expect that even deflated and disillusioned XL opponents will still succumb to fear & loathing of the Demonic Republican Nutcase and vote Democrat next November.I can easily imagine McKibben, reminiscent of Russ Feingold before him, writing a column or appearing on "Democracy Now" and earnestly arguing that yes, we were all disappointed, even crushed, by Obama's not finding the "courage" or determination to stand up against the pro-pipeline forces and vindicate our faith in him by doing the right thing.But (the rationale continues), Obama is still the best of a dubious lot, and now that he's got the election behind him and is "free" to spend his political capital with a view to furbishing up his Legacy and Place in History, we have an exceptional opportunity to really buckle down and hold his cloven hooves-- er, feet-- to the fire, etc.Ask yourself: does this seem plausible or merely farfetched "negativity"?I don't mean to pick on McKibben personally. I just see him as representative of the incipient battered-partner syndrome lurking beneath the high-minded "more anguished than angry" tone.And so I doubt that the calculating, amoral, machiavellian Team Obama strategists are all that "nervous". I think they like the odds of writing off the relative minority of progressives so embittered or disgusted that they'll finally shake off knee-jerk lesser-evilism, and more than making up the difference with Dead Centrists from both parties who'd just as soon keep Obama, "the devil we know", in office for the next four years.
You so smaht, Deah ( as we say in Maine).
Hear Hear! I believe you have nailed this one exactly on the head. Politics in the US is less about who you are for but who you are against. When I talk to Democrats in the US they tell me how evil and awful the Republicans are. When I talk to Republicans they tell me about how evil and awful the Democrats are. Wherever I go, same story. This issue is being portrayed as one that is so critical that the future of the entire planet is at stake. Whether that is true or not, if Obama approves of this pipeline, he will still get folks who disagreed with him on this issue who believe that it is true and that end up voting for him again anyway because somehow the Republicans are worse than the future of the entire planet. I am reminded of the Macarthy era "Better Dead than Red" slogan and Eisenhowers famous statement: "I would rather be atomized than communized". I think today it basically goes, "Sure it is Game Over for the planet, but at least we have a Democrat president"
It would be an amusing comedy if it were not so sadly pathetic.
Aleph Null is right: Its the CARBON BOMB, not the exact route. After the dirty extraction from the tar sands, and the iffy pipe-lining to Texas, the refined product goes to China and India to be burned off in the luxury cars of the new elites. How does this help US energy independence? Or the planet? However, Obama will find a way to go with the MONEY. We can clearly see now that the "leaders" of the world are venal, cynical, short-term, in-a-rut thinking FOOLS. Who will take ALL down with them.
obomber has already shown himself to be one of the deadliest liars in all of history. He will spin his deceptions out soon, while serving as the puppet for his corporate masters. To use that "hope" thing again, the people are waking up....OCCUPY the WORLD !
The Canadians have already threatened to construct a pipeline to their West Coast and sell the tar-sands crude to China if Mr. Obama vetoes the XL Why would a Canadian Company give up income to the U.S. by piping crude to Texas and Louisiana instead of directly to the Pacific coast? Makes no sense to me. Furthermore, the Chinese are interested in crude and not really in refined products. The may even finance the Canadian pipeline to the Pacific coast. I think that with regards to China, that is a Mao-red herring. Now India might be a different story.
vegas has it pipeline 12to1, any takers?
(Obama) will approve it. He's got nothing to lose.
or he will say something hinting at DISapproval, then APPROVE after he is re elected!. Such a trickster, is he.
In the sixties we tried to levitate the Pentagon.
I was there, ezeflyer - thought for sure it rose about 10 feet before settling back down to more wars.
Might have been the tear-gassed eyes seeing tricks, though.
I hear ya
We don't need jobs that poison Americans, increase greenhouse gases, pollute our air and destroy our drinking water supply. We need the green jobs that Obama promised when he asked us to vote for him.
"We need the green jobs that Obama promised when he asked us to vote for him."
Yes cadawa, we do and the Congress has done less than promising anything at all.
If we defeat Obama since there is no real support to elect with 50 million needed votes to have a chance for any other choice but a Republican I am not sure we won't be going from bad to worse.
FDR did not end the depression in his first term and the world economy is in worse shape now with the deindustrialization of America since the 70's which gives us less chance of growing an economy like during the 40's.
If all we care about is defeating Obama, that is also the Republican hope.
I also doubt that Obama can do what we want... Peace and a sustainable better life for everyone but the protest of the pipeline is another step forward in getting the peoples voice heard which is what OWS is all about so far.
"We don't need jobs that poison Americans, increase greenhouse gases, pollute our air and destroy our drinking water supply."
True, and keep demanding that and we may get somewhere towards that goal.
Pipe Dream: Obama puts on sensible shoes and goes out to join the circle.
I know, I know....
Thailand and northern Italy are under water. Tornados now destroy cities like nuclear bombs. Texas is burning. Someone should notice that maybe we should stop making wars to loot other nations of their oil, stop building pipelines, stop destroying mountains in order to get coal. We should start realizing that all such actions get us a couple of more years of destroying our own world. But it will not help. Fossil fuel society is soon to be finished, We need to use our current resources to get ready for that, not to delay the end by accelerating the processes.
Because of the persistence of CO2 in the atmosphere, the cost of continuing business-as-usual increases in emissions is astonishing. Hansen ran some scenarios to illustrate. These scenarios involve massive reforestation, and 6% per year reductions in carbon emissions:
If we start phasing out carbon emissions today, the atmosphere can be restored to 350 ppm CO2 by 2100.
If we delay until 2020, it takes until 2300 to get back to 350 ppm.
If we delay until 2030, we don't get back to 350 ppm until after 2500.
Each decade of delay costs the Earth two more centuries of warming past the danger zone where continental ice sheets disintegrate.
Ray Pierrehumbert at RealClimate just wrote a thorough assessment of climate impacts from Alberta tarsands:
Keystone XL: Game over?
The entire tar sands experiment is a terrible destroyer of water at the source of extraction too. Water is being polluted by the thousands of gallons each day to produce this dirty oil. But hey...it's good for business. When did the slow death of our entire ecosystem become less important than business? I guess about 1980 or so.
I heard on the local CBS affiliate last evening that the tar sands oil has already made it into Okla and has completely filled all storage facilities. There isn't any room for locally produced oil. Seems they are awaiting approval to lay pipeline from Okla on to the Houston area. If true, what does Obama need to approve? Maybe I misunderstood.
The purpose of this pipeline is to export oil South and East. What other purpose does a Louisianna port serve?
U.S. American agriculture= turning petroleum into crops. Pipeline approved!
Look, it's really quite simple. Make sure that the Manchurian Candidate (Obama), or one of the Evil, Alien, Child/Women Abusing Parasitic Right Wing Imbeciles from the 'other' party, such as the Perry-Fuck, the Cain-Fuck, the _______-Fuck is in the White House, run the pipeline over as many dead bodies as you have to, take all the bribes from TransCanada and all other CEOs involved, submerge the entire country under a 9000 ft. deep lake of tar sands oil and thyere you have it - problem solved. Oh yes, and kill whatever proportion of the population that identifies as progressive, liberal, union-members, homosexual, female, Muslim, free-thinking, non-white, poor or otherwise subversive and enemies of the state, so that only rich white male impotent tits are left so you have no dissent. And America's future is secure. Besides it's them goddamn teachers and union commies causing all the trouble and taking all the money. It's downright unpatriotic to criticise the tarsands pipeline!
As regards the argument that sending the tar sands oil to Gulf Coast refineries will help our dependence on foreign (wink, wink, mad Muslims') oil, it would be interesting to know how much Alaskan oil now goes to the United States.
Trust in your government, Here's how it works, you turn petroleum into corn, then you turn corn into petroleum, or you feed it to the masses as fructose. Basically we eat oil. This pipeline is not moving tarsands, it's moving your lunch. Bon Appetit!
Why doesn't TransCanada simply construct an oil refinery in Canada, run pipelines everywhere therebouts, and help that country to become truly energy independent. The Keystone XL proposal has a certain Dick Cheney/Halliburtonesque stench about it that has nothing to do with creating a few jobs, but more likely to move tarsands oil to India and China-the top bidders. Leave the breadbasket of America and the aquifers beneath it, out of this equation.
Anybody want to wager against Barry giving the green-light to another corporate bonanza that ultimately will increase incomes for the greedy-rich and leave any costs of future (and almost certain) oil-spill clean up to the 99 percent?
"Proponents, meantime, say the pipeline will create thousands of much-needed jobs and help end American reliance on oil from volatile and sometime hostile OPEC regimes."
The US imports most of its oil from Canada (almost 20%) Over half the amount of oil imported from all the OPEC countries combined. and almost 40% more than from the Persian Gulf. Throw in Mexico and roughly a 1/3 of all imported crude comes from our two closest neighbors. Our "reliance" on "middle eastern" oil equates to a little over 15% of total imports. We import almost as much oil (28k barrels per month) from our good friend Hugo down in Venezuela as we do from our Royal lapdogs in Riyadh (33k barrels / month)
I'd also point out that we the US are the "hostile" regime.
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_m.htm
The stats on the sheet you provided are in kilobarrels. 33,331 kilobarrels = 33,331,000 barrels. We are thus importing 28 _million_barrels per month from Venezuela, and 33 _million_barrels per month from the Saudis.
28 kilobarrels? If only. If only!!
"I’m a pessimist because of intelligence, but an optimist because of will. ".
I share the negative evaluation of Obama and the two corporate parties that is pervasive on this site. But I will not let that paralyze me. There were about 12,000 participants in yesterday's tarsands action, representing the views of thousands or possibly millions more. Some still have a hope that Obama will veto the pipeline. Some do not. Like the OWS people, who see the vile role of Wall Street, and yet get out in the streets, in the cold, in the rain, in the snow, they have a belief that people's action is the necessary key to change. That’s where the faith lies, and the only place it can lie. The tarsands protesters may not have all the answers up front, nor see exactly how things will develop. But by getting out there, they put themselves in a position to be part of an evolving resistance to the earth-killing, war-inciting role of those who have a vested interest in developing extreme methods of wresting oil from the earth..
Few believe that this particular issue, this particular decision. is the end of the struggle for the health of the earth or the beginning of a serious policy of developing green energy. But cynicism about our government, captured by Wall Street and corporate interests, should not bind us in "analysis paralyis". Once you see the true nature of the alliance between government and toxic corporate practices, then what next?
The 350.org movement has inspired, organized and brought together many diverse sectors of the population, environmental activists, native peoples, farmers, college students, fisherfolk, leftists and clergy. They have strengthened and encouraged those few voices in the labor movement who see through the phony pitting of jobs vs. clean environment and have the courage to speak out. They have activated the various existing sectors of the environmental movement toward a heretofore unlikely unity,. They have publicized and popularized the dangers to our earth from burning fossil fuels. They have brought this issue out of theh back rooms and into the public notice.
We may be, in the words of Jimmy Cliff
Sitting here in limbo, but I know it won't be long.
Sitting here in limbo, like a bird without a song.
Well they're putting up resistance, but I know
that my faith will lead me on.
Sitting here in limbo, waiting for the dice to roll.
Sitting here in limbo, got some time to search my soul.
Well they're putting up resistance but I know
that my faith will lead me on.
I don't know where life will lead me, but I know where I've been.
I can't say what life will show me, but I know what I've seen.
Tried my hand at love and friendship*, but all that is passed and gone.
This little boy is moving on.
*with the corporate politicians, that is.
duplicate removed.
.
photo: Shadia Fayne Wood / Tarsandsaction
jclientelle in part wrote:
The 350.org movement has inspired, organized and brought together many diverse sectors of the population, environmental activists, native peoples, farmers, college students, fisherfolk, leftists and clergy. They have strengthened and encouraged those few voices in the labor movement who see through the phony pitting of jobs vs. clean environment and have the courage to speak out. They have activated the various existing sectors of the environmental movement toward a heretofore unlikely unity,. They have publicized and popularized the dangers to our earth from burning fossil fuels. They have brought this issue out of theh back rooms and into the public notice.
* * * * *
My Comment
Good work! Thank you all!
I hold the hypothesis that it is not the greedy companies alone but also us, the voracious consumers of the West and our Governments, who are causing the Global Warming. My theory can be tested if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere between 1929 and 1940 is precisely known. I predict either a slight decrease, or no change, or a slower rate of increase from about 1929 to 1935. Then the increase should begin to speed up when the big states of the world began to ratchet up their war-productions. Ordinary people like us were not the consumers of those products. Governments were. This test is better for the "Great Depression" than it is for today's recession/depression because China, India, Brazil, and some other of today's industrialized nations produced then only puny amounts of CO2 compared to Japan and the West.
Your hypothesis is sound. We are all, since the industrial revolution, constantly consuming products whose procurement involved the burning of fossil fuels. That's why eating local produce is important. I've given up bananas for this reason, though I dearly love bananas. Calorie for calorie, meat is so much more carbon-intensive than other foods that going vegan can have more impact on your carbon footprint than getting rid of your car. Anyone who steps on an airplane is in the top 1% of carbon gluttons.
On the other hand, I cannot as a consumer or as an individual have much effect on whether the electric grid depends on coal-fired power plants, and whether those coal plants use scrubbers to capture CO2 in the smokestack. Political activism is necessary, but I see the target of activism as short-sightedness, not greed.
Anyways, here's a nice graph to answer your specific question. For levels prior to 1958, when CO2 monitoring started, we have a very good idea of year-by-year atmospheric concentrations from bubbles that got trapped in ice forming on Antarctica. This graph almost confirms your theoretical expectation, showing a slower rate of increase in the approximate interval 1935-1950. Evidently the WWII years were not the most voracious for fossil fuel consumption.
.
Aleph Null in part wrote:
Anyways, here's a nice graph to answer your specific question. For levels prior to 1958, when CO2 monitoring started, we have a very good idea of year-by-year atmospheric concentrations from bubbles that got trapped in ice forming on Antarctica. This graph almost confirms your theoretical expectation, showing a slower rate of increase in the approximate interval 1935-1950. Evidently the WWII years were not the most voracious for fossil fuel consumption.
* * * * *
As per Aleph Null's link.