Canada-To-U.S. Pipeline Project Newest Front in Climate Clash

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Protest Makes Canada-To-U.S. Pipeline Project Newest Front in Climate Clash

In the year since a cap-and-trade climate bill failed on Capitol Hill, a funny thing happened -- gradually but unmistakably -- to the U.S.-Canada pipeline project known as Keystone XL: It became the global warming fight's new guise.

Keystone XL's ascension from little-known commodity to fodder for a marquee bout between industry groups and environmentalists is set to start its last leg tomorrow, as green advocates converge on the White House for a two-week demonstration against the $7 billion proposal. For conservationists, the pipeline push back marks a new evolution in their battle to curb carbon emissions as well as a potential moment of unity following the brutal political defeats of 2010.

"The climate bill stuff was messy in every way -- the bill was messy, the politics were messy, relations in the environmental community about it were messy," climate activist and 350.org co-founder Bill McKibben, a lead organizer of the White House protest, said in an interview. "The end result was pure cowardice on the part of Congress. ... In this case, things are much less ambiguous."

To be sure, many of Washington's major green groups have aligned against Keystone XL, which would nearly double U.S. imports of Canadian oil sands crude if it wins approval, with a vehemence that surprised pipeline supporters.

TransCanada Corp. CEO Russ Girling, whose firm first sought a border-crossing permit for the project almost three years ago, recalled in a recent interview that the similar Alberta Clipper oil sands link won U.S. approval in 2009 amid softer complaints from environmentalists. Girling did not hide his frustration with critics, who he said "have stretched or manipulated facts" to argue that "if you just shut [the oil sands] down, we wouldn't have problems with greenhouse gases."

"I don't think they have a particular dislike of Canadian crude oil relative to other crude oil," Girling told Greenwire in his office overlooking downtown Calgary. "From what we've seen, they don't like crude."

In fact, the more than 2,000 protesters who have signed up to join this month's White House civil disobedience tend to view oil sands fuel as a special case. Federal climatologist-turned-climate activist James Hansen helped plant the seeds for the protest in a June column that warned of an irreversible effect on the Earth's climate if "unconventional fossil fuels" such as Canadian bitumen are extracted and burned in addition to conventional crude reserves.

"Phasing out emissions from coal is itself an enormous challenge," Hansen wrote. "However, if the tar sands are thrown into the mix, it is essentially game over."

Hansen is no stranger to the environmental picket lines, having testified twice in two years on behalf of British climate activists and gotten arrested last fall on President Obama's doorstep during a demonstration against mountaintop-removal coal mining (E&ENews PM, Sept. 27, 2010). He, McKibben and other planners of the Keystone XL sit-in hope to see this month bring still more arrests and attention to their cause while putting a new face on protest movements often derided as driven by naive youngsters.

Enlisted participants in the White House anti-pipeline event are "not typically who people think of as activists -- it's farmers, doctors, lawyers, church and faith leaders, not the cliche college student out there protesting in the streets," said Matt Leonard, coordinator of the demonstration and a veteran environmental protester, in an interview.

"It's a cross section of average American citizens who realize that they have an obligation to address climate change for their sons and their daughters."

To that end, Leonard said, demonstrators are being encouraged to dress professionally. The spirit of the event, he explained, leans "toward the civil rights movement, lunch counter incidents, rather than the hippie movement."

Among the groups signing up to head to Washington are representatives of indigenous First Nations communities in Canada and landowners along the pipeline's planned six-state route from Alberta to the Gulf Coast. The event is set to start tomorrow with a march led by McKibben and Gus Speth, a former administrator of the U.N. Development Programme and top Carter administration environmental adviser.

The protest has drawn early support from green-minded celebrities, including actors Mark Ruffalo and Sophia Bush and Thom Yorke, frontman of the band Radiohead. One of those famous names -- Canadian actress Margot Kidder, best known as Lois Lane from the 1980s Superman movies -- is planning to protest in person.

Industry decries 'protests against jobs'

Oil-industry backers of the project are countering the sit-in by emphasizing the economic benefits of Keystone XL, charging the activists with pushing to reject a "shovel-ready" infrastructure project during an economic downturn.

"While respecting the open process and encouraging it, we believe the efforts planned are really protests against jobs," American Petroleum Institute refining issues manager Cindy Schild told reporters yesterday.

Despite its scheduling during a monthlong congressional recess and President Obama's vacation, the White House event is coming at a pivotal moment for the debate over Keystone XL. The State Department is expected to release a final environmental review of the pipeline by month's end, teeing up a 90-day window for other federal agencies, such as U.S. EPA, to weigh in ahead of a decision on the pipeline's permit (E&ENews PM, July 22).

The president's absence also may help set a tone for the sit-in in line with the vision of its organizers. As McKibben described it, the event is geared not at protesting Obama's environmental record but at stiffening his spine to reject a permit for the pipeline.

"Most of time, President Obama can't really get all that much done on climate change" thanks to "an irresponsible Congress that has prevented him from acting," McKibben said. That criticism of Capitol calcification echoes some of the administration's internal laments during last year's bruising battles on the issue.

"[O]ne suspects that at a certain point he gave up being interested in the whole thing," the activist added. "At one level, one can hardly blame him, I suppose. But in this case [of Keystone XL], he gets to make the call, and it will be an exceptionally interesting moment."


Protest Makes Canada-To-U.S. Pipeline Project Newest Front in Climate Clash - NYTimes.com[]
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,901
11,182
113
Low Earth Orbit
I think it's cute. I don't oppose protesters but when their point couldn't pop a fart bubble it becomes annoying.
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
It's a useless protest, the line is going thru no matter how much you protest. Way too much at steak !!!
 

Durry

House Member
May 18, 2010
4,709
286
83
Canada
We can always build more refineries up here and truck even more gasoline, diesel and jet fuel to the US.
Nope, it doesn't work that way.
You gotta learn more about the industry before making such simplistic statements.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
Mmm steak. I thought it was an oil pipeline not a beef pipeline. Just teasing your durry.

Yup Lucifer is going to push the permit no matter what.

Of course Lucifer Clinton will push it through. It's part of the Economy > Environment agenda.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,336
113
Vancouver Island
So where do these protesters think the fuel for the jets to fly them to Washingtoon to protest burning carbon comes from? Other than the local gas station.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
I think we should be more careful than that. It should be determined who can afford to buy our
oil at the highest price and build the pipeline to either a refinery in America or build new ones in
Canada using government investment. Or better yet, build the pipelines and connect them to the
sea ports and sell the oil to those who can pay up front. I wouldn't take a check or an IOU from
Uncle Sam you might not get paid.
Hard times are coming soon, institute a cash and carry policy. Inside of ten years only three things
will matter, who has the oil, water and food everything else will be classed as frills.
Yes the pipeline will be built, so will the one to Kitimat BC for shipping crude to Asia. Canada now
has options for Wood, for minerals and for Oil, We don't need to sell are bargain basement prices
anymore and our price structure should reflect that.
But hey, I am an economic nationalist, I think we should ensure we have all we need for a long period
of time and sell the rest at very high prices, and use legislation to keep the companies in line.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
108,901
11,182
113
Low Earth Orbit
I think we should be more careful than that. It should be determined who can afford to buy our
oil at the highest price and build the pipeline to either a refinery in America or build new ones in
Canada using government investment. Or better yet, build the pipelines and connect them to the
sea ports and sell the oil to those who can pay up front. I wouldn't take a check or an IOU from
Uncle Sam you might not get paid.
Hard times are coming soon, institute a cash and carry policy. Inside of ten years only three things
will matter, who has the oil, water and food everything else will be classed as frills.
Yes the pipeline will be built, so will the one to Kitimat BC for shipping crude to Asia. Canada now
has options for Wood, for minerals and for Oil, We don't need to sell are bargain basement prices
anymore and our price structure should reflect that.
But hey, I am an economic nationalist, I think we should ensure we have all we need for a long period
of time and sell the rest at very high prices, and use legislation to keep the companies in line.
It's all already in the works.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Petros I know that its why I highlighted it. I have family that works in the oil industry and
in the engineering sections as well. I know some of the people who bought the pipe for
Kitimat a few years ago. About two years ago some of the oil companies bought or set
in motion the purchase of an old abandoned airport somewhere near Battlefield Sask.
The reason the oil sands in Saskatchewan may be even larger than that of Alberta.
America downgrade thanks to the Tea Party are sending them on a downward spiral
and we do not want to hitch our wagon to a future loser in the economic theatre of the
world. Europe and Asia can afford to buy, and we should be selling to them for real money
not taking IOU"s from friends. Remember in business there are no friends there is only
disposable cash.
WE should insist on secured payment for everything we sell them because I think America
is going to sink almost to the level of Greece before they wake up to the fact they are broke
and the new middle classes of the world are somewhere else. But hey they thought and think
Ronnie Reagan was a nice man who did a lot for them. Its what he did to their country they
should be upset about, the worst thing that happened was allowing Gilligan to take over
I should say George Bush as in W what a mess he created.
There may be a pipeline but it may send a lot less oil than some people think in the long run.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,778
454
83
I think the problem with the back and forth on this is that the critics are simply painted as hippy, environmentalists - but a lot of people are not really aware that there are some pragmatic issues with this pipeline that could severely impact not just the environment, but the economy (negatively) as well.

The pipeline will cross the Sandhills in Nebraska, the large wetland ecosystem, and the Ogallala Aquifer, one of the largest reserves of fresh water in the world. The Ogallala Aquifer spans eight states, and provides drinking water for two million people. A major leak could ruin drinking water and devastate the mid-western U.S. economy.

Also, portions of the pipeline will be crossing an active seismic zone that has had earthquakes as recently as 2002.

So there is a pretty reasonable chance that disruption could occur, and if it does, we're all going to be worse off.