EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- One American Who Isn't For Sale
- Transcript: Today's Live Q&A With NSA Leaker, Edward Snowden
- Remembering Satyajit Ray’s Hirok Rajar Deshe: On Edward Snowden, Resistance and Inverted Totalitarianism
- Obama Cans Regulator Who Crossed Wall Street
- Pentagon Bracing for Public Dissent Over Climate and Energy Shocks
Popular content
Today's Top News
Keystone XL Victory Will Help Stop the Tar Sands
These days, it’s easier to kill pipelines than “conventional wisdom.”
In a news analysis published today, the New York Times concludes that while the tax bill provision on Keystone XL will likely kill the project, the victory will do little to stop future pipelines, stall tar sands development, or slow down global warming. After all, the world needs energy, the tar sands have it, and therefore, they’re going to be developed, atmosphere be damned.
It’s a compelling argument that’s been made over and over again during the fight against Keystone XL. Here’s why it’s wrong.
Time and again, public opposition has stopped things that made “economic” sense. That’s every mile of the Colorado isn’t dammed, why we haven’t cut down every last inch of Brazilian rainforest, or, to pull from another time period, why the British Empire finally abolished the slave trade even though it was great economics. As it turns out, there are other forces in the world than supply and demand. Just because morality is hard to quantify, doesn’t mean it can’t change history now and then.
As political opposition to the tar sands grows, it’s going to be nearly impossible for oil companies to build the pipelines they need to get tar sands oil out of landlocked Alberta. You thought the fight against the Keystone XL pipeline was contentious? Just check out the struggle over the Enbridge Northern Gateway, a pipeline that was slated to be built from the tar sands out to the coast of British Columbia. Thanks to the opposition from indigenous communities along the entire pipeline route and people up and down the coast, the Canadian government has been forced to stall the project for yet another year of environmental review. The delay, along with the news on Keystone, has fired up the anti-tar sands movement even more. When Goliath teeters, David puts another stone in the sling-shot.
The pipeline victories also create the momentum necessary to push for the larger, structural changes that can really shut down the tar sands, like ending fossil fuel subsidies, rolling out a clean energy economy, and putting a price on carbon. In the United States, the fight against Keystone XL made tar sands a (dirty) household name for the first time. Over 500,000 people signed petitions against the pipeline, tens of thousands of people to part in demonstrations, and over 1,000 people were arrested over the course of the campaign. At places like 350.org, we’re busy brainstorming with supporters across the country about how to quickly get into these larger fights.
The New York Times is right: if it was let up to economics, tar sands development (and the planetary destruction that comes with it) would be inevitable. Good thing we’re not leaving it up to economics.
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...
43 Comments so far
Show AllIs XL and the NAFTA Superhighway all part of the same long-term neoliberal agenda? An easement from the north pole to the Gulf that would most certainly need to be wide enough for servicing and security. What better place to put a superhighway? The big picture shows a long-term neoliberal agenda that is not weaning US from oil. The neoliberal agenda is being implemented in slow motion. So slow that we don't see it happening in real time. We can only look back to see how our country has changed. Our sovereignty has been monetized.
I do not see an XL victory. The (D)s and (R)s want the project. Big Oil wants the project. If Obama stops the deal it will be temporary only to buy votes. After the election he will 'have to' approve the project. He will have one of his patented really good excuses.
The tar sands project does need to be stopped. The carbon emitted from burning this dirty fuel will only add to global warming. The coming droughts and famine around the world would lead to a mass migration north in primitive times. Canada's boreal forest is a massive watershed. This fresh water is being fouled by the tar sands project. Civilization and greed is eliminating humanities escape route north.
I was in Indiana on a work trip recently, and boy-oh-boy, they are working on the stretch of the NAFTA highway from Evansville to that huge county-sized Navy depot in those wooded hills south of Bloomington, like gangbusters. For some reason, they are saving the stretch from the naval depot to Indianapolis for a later phase. I guess the naval depot is more important than the big City of Indianapolis.
I used to live in Evansville. That highway is something Evansville has been trying to get since the early 1970's. They want a more direct route to Indy for economic development reasons. The reason the highway is only partially built is because of lack of funding. Wouldn't it be nice if someone in Congress could get off their fat duff and approve some economic stimulus in the form of construction aid to states!
everyone needs to see the bigger picture go to the huffington post canada and you will see the country behind the pipline is CHINA they are the now major owners of most of the companies there on way or another go see for yourself you won't hear that down here in the US
So when the president forces sanctions on Iran and countries and companies doing business with Iran(unless you're Haliburton) and Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, the value of the tar sands deposits increases, making it easier for the president to give in to the industry. By the way, the tar sands deposits are not oil. Oil is extracted using the most carbon and water extensive means in an almost nightmarism process. The digging up of the tar sands has ruined forever large swaths of boreal forests an area approaching the size of the state of New Hampshire.
This is a pretty good article. I have a problem with the use of the word "economics". The usage implies that "economics" means immediate profits for a particular company. That is much too narrow a definition. We should take back the word and use it to mean the totality of economic impact of an action or policy, including many factors alluded to in the story.
It is worse than that, actually. ;)
She is assuming in her usage that the particular theory of economics that -when applied- would say "ramp-up tar sands exploitation" in the face of rising petroleum costs -due possibly to peaking production of the cheaper kind of oil- is the ONLY economic theory that can be applied to ANY situation -which of course is nonsense!
Boring old Keynesian theory would argue against such actions if the tar sands and global petroleum were treated correctly as a fixed stockpile, instead of a production flow as they are now.
No "take back" needed.
Just reference to slightly older books in the Economics section of the library. ;)
"There are other forces in the world than supply and demand." Damn right. And F the phony liberal N.Y. Times.
There will be plenty of oil in the Arctic and Antarctic Deserts. We just won't be around to drill for it having killed our life sustaining environment.
Cheer up!
It's Christmas Eve for eff's sake!
When the world was much, much warmer and the dinosaurs roamed, the poles weren't deserts, they were jungles.
Homo Sapiens Technologicus may be a goner (though I'll bet ten bucks we ain't), but Life/Gaia is just gonna shift gears back to a warmer state like before all that carbon got buried in the first place, and new and more interesting species of plants and animals will cover the land. (The bacteria and viruses and fungi might hardly notice, and many ocean dwellers might just undergo another slight design modification.)
And if that doesn't brighten your day, just remember that NOTHING we can do -even out-of-date Global Thermonuclear War scenarios- could possibly be more harmful than the K-T Boundary Event, and that didn't kill Gaia.
So neither can we. ;)
The polar regions have never been jungles (six months of night and all that).
You are wrong about that. The fossil record show it. Plants can adapt to light conditions, when abundant heat and water are available.
There were times when polar regions were more temperate with a climate comparable to, say Newfoundland, but you cannot have anything but a pretty cold winter when the sun doesn't even come up for months at a time. Dinosaurs were warm blooded, and some species were adapted to fairly cold climates similar to musk oxen or caribou.
Remember that just because tropical fossils may be found on, say, Ellesmere island, does not mean polar regions were once tropical, in the Paleozoic when that fossil was deposited, the part of the earths crust making up the arctic was near the equator.
I agree with jclientelle. From a broader economic perspective, the problem is that many of the costs of fossil fuel production and use are "externalities". The costs of climate change, air and water pollution, habitat destruction, damage to human health, etc. are external to the market. That's why we need to use the political and regulatory system to get those costs accounted for in decision-making. If all the costs were accounted for, then energy conservation and alternative sources would most likely be cheaper than fossil fuel, and demand for alternatives would increase. The simplest solution would be a phased-in tax on fossil fuel imposed close to production or import, with rebate to tax payers. Not likely any time soon, I'm afraid.
Unfortunately the great majority of those opposing the Keystone pipeline, (including Bill Mckibben himself) continue to use increasing amounts of a product made from the crude this pipeline will carry, and protest loudly when the price of said product goes up. A badly needed increase in the federal gasoline tax would be opposed almost universally.
Now, I've got to catch a bus downtown to do some last minute Christmas shopping...
Rev. Billy would not approve : ) Happy Holidays to you.
That's a lame argument that assumes everybody else thinks the same way you do. There are plenty of alternatives for those products that don't require petroleum.
I agree with this article, it is a help to get a better energy policy and I am glad I at least lifted my finger to stop it.
Those here who predicted that Obama would sign it also helped stop it so far.
Keep predicting, I am still giving odds.
Bookmaker Jim
Guess few can read what they don't want to. Obama never said he's postponing the decision on the pipeline. He said he's just looking for another route not under a major aquifer.
As I said “So Far”, that is in all practical purposes at least postponement since he might not even get reelected... another prediction?
Most folks here were saying he would sign it right away before he decided to find a “safe" route.
The government finding another route that is “acceptable" is another problem just like Canada is having and like the problem of finding a State to accept the thousands of years storage of hot Fuel Rods.
Personally, I still think his position would have been better if he had just signed or not.
From where I sit, this stalling looks like a way to try to keep progs on the line through next November -which I both doubt will work and think is a nasty, cynical way to get votes.
The real pipeline battle will be direct action at the construction sites.
Now matter what the kabuki theater in Imperial Capital is showing, pipelines from Alberta to the coasts are coming unless we directly stop them.
Stalling could be a tactic that works by attrition. Sooner or later, your opponent is unable to sustain the push and gives up. I don't think we are going to give up here.
My thoughts exactly - a strategy being played out in a number of areas. Attenuate public attention between a variety of concerns and pull the strings as weapons of mass distraction.
more people needed in more places to be in the street and send emails. I know a lot of people deride the latter - but get your voice ion record.
How's this: Nebraska has a Republican governor on the take from corporate ag, and they don't want the pipeline under the aquifer. Think that had anything to do with Obama looking for another route?
If you mean a pipeline over not under the aquifer... Could a Republican governor "on the take" have the power to stop the pipeline and if he did have that much power would he? You decide.
In the meantime no pipe line is being built.
I refuse to be complacent. I am not as sanguine as some who believe Obama will simply refuse to approve. Even does, the fight is far from over.
Agreed.
I am no expert on this issue but I fully understand that a huge group of citizens are against this pipeline.
The Times is right about one thing and that is a energy program that actually works is what we need and can benefit our society. For to long our country has not done any positive things on this really big issue.
If anybody could provide me with some facts on this Tar Sands issue I would be grateful.
Have a great 2012.
I hope wherever you are, demondade49, you can get your hands on a copy of Andrew Nikiforuk's book, "Tar Sands" AND view the dvd, "Petropolis" for starters. The tar sands project is basically a nightmarishly wasteful, ecologically disastrous catastrophe-in-the-works. To transform bitumen into usable oil requires the clearcutting of enormous swathes of boreal forest, vast amounts of water and, ironically, copious amounts of fossil fuels for extreme heating, transport and gargantuan infrastructure, not to mention a good deal of heavily funded PR and obfuscation of this monstrous mess.
"Our country" (assuming you're either talking US or Canada) is exceedingly addicted to fossil fuels and the petroleum industry is pretty fine with that, so long as profits are there to be made. The most positive things on this really big issue I can think of are lots of people trying to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels (and everything else under the sun!), extricate themselves from the imprisoning mindset that we are helpless without every technological convenience from private cars to iphones to fast food & mountains of plastic, electronic or other detritus from our "ownership society" on steroids, and to learn what we can about localizing our economies, becoming better communicators with our neighbors and learning how to share this planet with each other and with other life forms. This is not easy, but (and maybe Christmas eve is a good time to think about this!) is truly revolutionary and needs to be seen and discussed openly ----as revolutionary as the actions taken by a legendary figure killed a couple thousand years ago for daring to reject the delusions and lies of the status quo in favor of a reality in which mammon does not rule over ALL.
To curb our addictions individually and collectively may be facilitated by some leaders like Rocky Anderson as someone mentioned earlier, but ultimately we each must wake up to whatever parts we personally play in worsening or bettering the situation of the whole, whether through resource usage, communication's ethics, developing the bravery & skills to speak truth to power or to remind one another of the beauty and rarity of this life. We are all in this same boat and cannot expect perfection from others or ourselves, but together we may still have a chance to prevent suffering, explore new possibilities and live lives of greater and greater awareness, honesty and wisdom. 2012 WILL be great insofar as we can break free of our mental slavery.
fantastic post, Matangicita; every word! i offer you a standing ovation with resounding applause.
you can say that again!
I hope wherever you are, demondade49, you can get your hands on a copy of Andrew Nikiforuk's book, "Tar Sands" AND view the dvd, "Petropolis" for starters. The tar sands project is basically a nightmarishly wasteful, ecologically disastrous catastrophe-in-the-works. To transform bitumen into usable oil requires the clearcutting of enormous swathes of boreal forest, vast amounts of water and, ironically, copious amounts of fossil fuels for extreme heating, transport and gargantuan infrastructure, not to mention a good deal of heavily funded PR and obfuscation of this monstrous mess.
"Our country" (assuming you're either talking US or Canada) is exceedingly addicted to fossil fuels and the petroleum industry is pretty fine with that, so long as profits are there to be made. The most positive things on this really big issue I can think of are lots of people trying to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels (and everything else under the sun!), extricate themselves from the imprisoning mindset that we are helpless without every technological convenience from private cars to iphones to fast food & mountains of plastic, electronic or other detritus from our "ownership society" on steroids, and to learn what we can about localizing our economies, becoming better communicators with our neighbors and learning how to share this planet with each other and with other life forms. This is not easy, but (and maybe Christmas eve is a good time to think about this!) is truly revolutionary and needs to be seen and discussed openly ----as revolutionary as the actions taken by a legendary figure killed a couple thousand years ago for daring to reject the delusions and lies of the status quo in favor of a reality in which mammon does not rule over ALL.
To curb our addictions individually and collectively may be facilitated by some leaders like Rocky Anderson as someone mentioned earlier, but ultimately we each must wake up to whatever parts we personally play in worsening or bettering the situation of the whole, whether through resource usage, communication's ethics, developing the bravery & skills to speak truth to power or to remind one another of the beauty and rarity of this life. We are all in this same boat and cannot expect perfection from others or ourselves, but together we may still have a chance to prevent suffering, explore new possibilities and live lives of greater and greater awareness, honesty and wisdom. 2012 WILL be great insofar as we can break free of our mental slavery.
On the issue of gasoline taxes:
The majority of people don't live near enough to public or mass transit sevices (or the ones they live near super-suck and are of no utility) to use them.
This is why a hike in federal tax would be universally opposed.
Because it is only adding a burden to the over-burdened, with no less burdensome alternative offered.
The truly massive build-up of transit systems we need in most of the U.S. (to actually get folks riding, not just make them feel guilty for not making the sacrifice) will cost a truly massive capital investment (though shockingly tiny next to the whale that is the Imperial Budget) but will in turn generate the sort of truly massive jobs-based stimulus that is needed to keep things decent.
We shouldn't let ouselves even think a stray thought about raising the gasoline tax without also mentioning the Rebuild Our Cities for the Future sort of transit investment it should fund. ;)
And don't forget flex-fuel engines.
For those who may not know, flex-fuel engines are normal internal combustion engines with a few of their fiddly bits set different and a clever gizmo on the exhaust that informs the engine's computer in real-time how lean or rich it is running so it can twiddle with the fuel injectors and keep things just right, no matter the fuel type.
The upshot of this is that the engine can run on gasoline, ethanol (from starchy/sugary usually edible plant parts), methanol (from leafy/woody inedible plant parts or trash or coal[!] or lots of other stuff) or ANY combination of the above.
Pretty much any automobile maker worth mentioning on planet Earth has one or more current models set up for flex-fuel (at no real extra cost) coming off the production lines in a tiny trickle.
An Imperial Edict requiring a phased switched to 100% flex-fuel automobiles sold in the U.S. could ease the burden of fuel price fluctuations and give people a better option before the buses and trains really get rolling.
And after the better transit systems are in place, flex-fuel engines could provide a bridge between simply using petroleum more efficiently and getting truly off petroleum.
Anyway, food for thought.
Hopefully the 350.org folks will be clever enough that their "brainstorms" will result in some "Hey that sounds good!" ideas like flex-fuel and transit/jobs-based stimulus, and not merely the same old "Punishment for your sins" ideas like a gasoline tax full stop, and the rest.
ethanol? that's the only thing you could use really more destructive than petroleum. As long as 24,000 people die of hunger every day, not one square centimeter of arable soil can be used to feed cars. Feed people first.
"The majority of people don't live near enough to public or mass transit sevices (or the ones they live near super-suck and are of no utility) to use them."
Actually this is a myth perpetrated for years by the Oil/AutoAddiction Lobby and their
paid lackeys!
In fact according to a seminal 2 year study combining Census Data with transit data
with jobs by the Brookings Institution 70% of working age Americans in 100 US Metro
areas already live only 3/4 ths mile from a Transit Stop!
Also according to the Federal Highway Administration themselves 79% of Americans
already live in Urbanized areas.
The Auto /Oil Addiction shills will always say that the US is "too vast" or not dense
enough to support the Green public transit of Europe, Japan, Korea, Taiwan who
use 1/3 of the oil of the US per capita primarily due to Green public transit vs Auto
monopolized transit. Yes there are huge rural spaces in the USA.
But until the Auto Lobby destroyed it rural areas like Wisconsin and many others
had thriving and viable public transit 50 years ago with less population than today.
It is also NOT TRUE that the majority of Americans do NOT want public transit!
Even in conservative North Carolina, citizens voted for taxes for public transit
which has been very popular since then.
70% of Americans agree that public transit should be increased NOT highway lanes...
See Transit for America http://t4america.org on this...
The irony is that as gas prices rose past $4 per gallon in 2008 over 150 public transit systems actually CUT service just when ridership was increasing by double digits.
We waste $140 Billion on roads in the auto addicted USA.
If we just stopped any more highway expansion, and redirected that towards RUNNING existing public transit, adding shuttles and last mile connections via safe
bicycling or walking we could easily cut our oil usage and greenhouse emissions by
20% in a year.
What needs to be clear is that increased gas taxes are DIRECTLY benefiting peoples
transit options. A great success story is the city in the Netherlands which instead of
providing "cash for clunkers" to buy new cars, providing "cash for public transit passes" to turn in gas guzzlers.
Out of 30,000 who signed up only 800 went back to their cars from Green public transit..
Good comment.
Anyone who has lived in a walkable, bikable transit-served community can attest how liberating it feels to be free of dependency on a car. I use to point out some neighborhoods here in Pittsburgh, but service cuts have been so severe, due to a reactionary state government, that i can no longer recommend them. The best North American place right now for someone wanting to live car-free is probably Toronto.
Thank you to all those who have fought against Keystone XL in the US. The battle is not yet won. Fight on!
I will be fighting against the Northern Gateway project up here in BC.
This is the fight of a lifetime. If we can win these battles who will say there is a battle we can not win.
As mayor of Salt Lake City, Rocky Anderson was named by Business Week as one of the top twenty activists in the world on climate change. If you care about the environment, vote Rocky Anderson for President. Look him up on wikipedia. The man is a treasure.
If you care about the environment, vote Rocky Anderson for President. Look him up on wikipedia. The man is a treasure. ..by Tuscany
i did that just last week. here's an excerpt
Wikipedia
He is the Executive Director of High Road for Human Rights.[2] practiced law for 21 years(SLC), As Mayor, Anderson rose to nationwide prominence as a champion of several national and international causes, including climate protection, immigration reform, restorative criminal justice, GLBT rights, and an end to the "war on drugs". serving on the Newsweek Global Environmental Leadership Advisory Board[6], “(t)he Constitution has been eviscerated while Democrats have stood by with nary a whimper. It is a gutless, unprincipled party, bought and paid for by the same interests that buy and pay for the Republican Party."
also 'alternate_id' provided a link for anderson's justice party homepage:
http://www.justicepartyusa.net
Here is some Christmas verse to share:
Back in the USSR you don’t know how Harper you are ePie Dec. 24th, 2011
Back in the USSR you don’t know how Harper you are
he is our corporate star of the big bear bazaar
and guess what he pushes? .... tar
that’s tar baby tar
and from afar:
satellites over head say: “good grief”
can’t we put this fellow on relief?
black tar that is
black sands tar that is
the scar of the boreal
he also pedals to slap shot stars
to push the tar and jets
F=35s obsolete by all measure
to waste our national treasure
Back in the USSR you don’t know how Harper you are
The Bed Wetter Eurozone ePie December 17th, 2011
Looks like a debt wetter to me
them ratios of: ‘Debt to GDP’
That’s Debt with a capital D
as assets vanish with a capital V
the spoils for the Victors and handsome Hanks
and other Bankers to whom we should say: “thanks”
What are the odds on more Meltdowns or Surges
as Think Tanks and Banks circle their ‘I Owes’
with posse’s of Repo men
while wagons of stimulus come in the back door
to stage a ‘what for?’
What a tangled mess, ... this
like stained sheets blowing without balance in the winter breeze
freezing assets and smells stiff while still on the line
It’s safer to wager on a dead horse, or soap and tallow
with bubbly baths wafting in cigar smoke and smelling of cheap perfume
than to trust your money to some Affinity scalpers mint
You don’t need to take heed of some gautch soilers mark for a market hint
or spark up a flint lock since it’s the big “You” on the hock
which brings up the ratio:
Foreign Debt per Person
It’s more than one’s worth dead or alive
Hundreds of thousands per head
“holy sakes alive!”
and we ain’t livin in no lap of luxury dive.
for we’ve been marked with a capital M
and now it’s time for the chill
while we all take that bitter pill
Kyoto clobbering Canuk .... Oh yuk ePie Dec. 13th, 2011
Embarrassed to be Canadians everywhere
moon the latest corporate carper caper
from the slimy slick oily schtick Harper
who panders to the gaping jaw
of Murphy’s Law
an apologist like Rex
to speak from banker’s jaw
Ah ha he says “jobs, jobs. jobs”
but what he means is: “debt, debt, debt “ to let and there’s more to bet
as unpriced obsolete fighters role off the line
to fend off the Big Bear and scary Asian friends
from Timor to Tibet to Timbuktu ...
while barrels of cash for the Defense big five jive too:
“we don’t need another Hero”
just a few more corporate Harpers
and bean counting pencil sharpers.
The CEOs of Northrop, Boeing, Grumman & General Die
all shake Harper’s hand as they look for new markets in Stan - lands
everywhere ... from Pack your stan ... to boil in oil Stan
as the colonizers of the Trump hand
plan to bomb ya all to freedom come
Canuk? ..... Oh yuk.
"The New York Times is right: if it was let up to economics, tar sands development (and the planetary destruction that comes with it) would be inevitable. Good thing we’re not leaving it up to economics."
WRONG! We desparately need to re-examine and reappropriate our vocabulary.
It's PHONEY "Economics" in the first place that refuses to acknowledge a Social Bottom Line -- i.e, the REAL cost to society and to communities. What they refer to as "Economics" ONLY quantifies profits for shareholders, as though those folks somehow live OFF this planet, outside our Common EcoSystems!! It is glorified BS with titles, certifications, diplomas, theses, and projects -- with little or no human conscience or concern for Consequences outside of their own bank accounts!!
Some would consider that kind of thinking as "criminal."
Keystone XL victory? What victory? It's not over till the fat lady sings and the fat lady hasn't even begun to open its big mouth yet. I have 5 bucks riding on Obama's approving this hellish project as soon as he is re-elected. The fact that he temporarily stopped it is only an election ploy nothing more, nothing less. The guy is a shill and a corporatist at heart...if he had a heart that is.
My God, what a bunch of great, insightful comments....and you're all on the right track. Just one question: Take a look at the photo that accompanies the mani article. Should the placard read: "We = Oil"? Afterall, the Supreme Court says so!
So when the president forces sanctions on Iran and countries and companies doing business with Iran(unless you're Haliburton) and Iran threatens to close the Strait of Hormuz, the value of the tar sands deposits increases, making it easier for the president to give in to the industry.
By the way, the tar sands deposits are not oil. Oil is extracted using the most carbon and water extensive means in an almost nightmarism process. The digging up of the tar sands has ruined forever large swaths of boreal forests an area approaching the size of the state of New Hampshire.