More

TransCanada Pipeline Protesters: Who They Are, Why They Came

Tar Sands Protest

First Posted: 08/24/11 03:05 PM ET Updated: 10/24/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- The debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline reached a fever pitch this week as activists led by author and environmentalist Bill McKibben called on Barack Obama to deny presidential approval to the TransCanada project, which would stretch from tar sands in Canada to oil refineries in south Texas. Tuesday marked the fifth day of protests as well as the arrival of dozens of Gulf Coast residents to sit-ins before the White House.

The protests, slated to run through Sept. 3, have drawn a geographically diverse group of activists from as far away as California and Montana. As of Wednesday morning, 275 had been arrested by the U.S. Park Police. Hundreds more are on their way to Washington.

HuffPost spoke with some recent arrivals about who they are and why they came.

"Our Gulf Coast is very fragile, and to keep polluting and doing the things they're doing and dumping on our Gulf Coast needs to come to an end there. We can't go back and repair it, we can't go back and rebuild it, once they destroy it," said Paul Nelson, a commercial fisherman from Alabama. "That's why I'm here."

Nelson had a simple answer to those who suggest the Keystone XL will bring jobs and economic development to the Gulf Coast. "If the public believes that," Nelson said, "I'll sell them some ocean-side property in Arizona."

Other activists came to Washington to protest what they describe as the devastating health effects of oil refining and processing in Gulf Coast communities. "The communities that I grew up in and that we've been organizing and fighting for are lined along the Houston ship channel, where we have 15 to 20 miles of petrochemical plants," said Bryan Parras, co-founder of Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services, "and we've seen how that has affected the health of the community."

"In fact," Parras continued, "there was a study done that said if you live within two miles of the Houston ship channel, that you have a 50 percent higher chance of contracting childhood leukemia." He said he fears these adverse health effects will only intensify if this pipeline reaches the Gulf Coast in Texas.

Michael Greenberg, a 17-year-old from Potomac, Md., said he came because he felt the proposed pipeline project, which would add an additional 700,000 barrels of heavy crude per day pumping across the Canadian-U.S. border in Montana, poses a long-term environmental threat to the planet.

"There's just so much carbon locked up in Canada's boreal forests, and if this pipeline goes through, so large an area will be clear-cut that billions of tons of carbon dioxide will be released into the air," said Greenberg, president of the Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School environmental club. "I'm just really fearful about what that could mean for me and my generation."

Ann-Elizabeth Barnes, a writer from Massachusetts, said she came so that others could stay home.

"I'm at a time in my life when I have the time and the money to come and protest, and there are a lot of people who are affected by the pipeline all the way from Alberta down through North Dakota, South Dakota and all the way to the Gulf of Mexico, and they don't necessarily have the time and the money," said Barnes, who was one of around 50 people arrested in front of the White House on Tuesday. "For the rest of my life I want to be protesting and making people's voices heard."

Organizers say more than 2,000 people have signed up to travel to Washington and protest the pipeline. Many wore campaign buttons indicating they had supported President Obama in 2008, but organizers were quick to emphasize that opposition to the pipeline does not break along party lines.

At Monday’s sit-ins, an anti-pipeline message from Nebraska landowner Randy Thompson was read aloud to activists. Thompson, who is fighting to keep the pipeline from running through land which has been in his family's hands for generations, said the protests were not just about protecting the nation’s land and water, but also about preserving a collective heritage.

Thompson is not the only one concerned about having an expanded pipeline with the capacity to carry 1.3 million barrels of crude a day running through his backyard. At a town hall meeting in Abilene, Kan., David Daniel of east Texas said pipeline officials tried to coerce him to accept an offer of $2,440 for the rights to install an easement on his property. Daniel accepted a final offer of $13,970 rather than trying to fight TransCanada over the pipeline, which would split his property in half.

"They make me feel like a lab rat on my own property," he told the Salina Journal's Tim Unruh.

The efforts of people like Daniel, who’s collaborating with two other Texans and one Nebraskan on a cross-country speaking tour scheduled to conclude in front of the White House early next week, have taken an issue that was once considered regional onto the national stage.

But with the president on vacation and the media focused on developments in Libya, it remains to be seen whether the sit-ins can command the spotlight. There’s been no coverage yet from cable networks or broadcast TV.

Protesters, for their part, are more concerned about getting the attention of the White House.

"TransCanada, the mega-corporation that wants to build this $7 billion dirty pipeline, they need a presidential permit to build that pipeline across our border," Mike Tidwell, founder of the Chesapeake Climate Action Network, told a crowd of protesters gathered at the White House on Monday, "and President Obama has the ability to say yes or no."

McKibben concedes it won’t be easy politically for Obama to block the pipeline.

“It’s not like there’s not going to be enormous pressure on Obama to approve this pipeline: There will be,” McKibben told HuffPost on Monday. “The oil industry is the most powerful lobby in the world,” he added. “What we want to show is that there will also be enormous support and jubilation if he does the right thing.”

The White House says it expects the State Department to reach a decision on the pipeline by the year’s end, following the release of an environmental impact statement later this month and a planned additional public comment period.

"We consider the input and feedback from the public an important part of the determination process, which is why in the near future we will begin an additional public comment period following the release of the Environmental Impact Statement," a State Department spokesperson told HuffPost in a statement on Tuesday.

Proponents of the pipeline have touted it as an engine for job growth and the further development of North American energy resources, while critics cite concerns over greenhouse gas emissions, with NASA climate scientist Dr. James Hansen going as far as to call any significant effort to tap the tar sands "game over" for efforts to curb carbon emissions.

An existing TransCanada oil pipeline known as Keystone 1 leaked 12 times in its first year of operation, according to Friends of the Earth. In the most recent spill in May, hundreds of barrels of oil leaked at a pump station in North Dakota.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- The debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline reached a fever pitch this week as activists led by author and environmentalist Bill McKibben called on Barack Obama to deny presidential app...
WASHINGTON -- The debate over the Keystone XL oil pipeline reached a fever pitch this week as activists led by author and environmentalist Bill McKibben called on Barack Obama to deny presidential app...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 304
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeCanDoMore
Enjoying a fact based reality.
12:27 PM on 08/28/2011
The oil economy is rife with corruption, the Kochs are trying to remake the world into a funnel raining gold and perpetual power on to themselves. The oil industry funds climate change deniers, and the obstructive hard right. They fund propaganda to enlist armies of religious to fight for oil profiteers. Anything that benefits the oil industry, is at this p oint, bad for the world, and makes our battle against corruption, and end of world religious extremist, all the more difficult. There are many reason to be against Tar sands oil pipeline. Why should we all pay, environmentally and tax funds, when the same few billionaires just get richer. This pipeline is not for the good of humanity. More like the opposite, but, a few billionaires make some more bucks. This line is supposed to bring oil to Texas. Why not build a refinery where the heck it is, and let someone other than oil corrupted Texans make the huge profit from earths billion year bounty, that is oil.
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
07:02 PM on 08/28/2011
Any proof of any of that blarney?
Or am I being naive to think that it would matter?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WeCanDoMore
Enjoying a fact based reality.
03:09 PM on 08/29/2011
There is nothing but proof of this, every where you look, other than outlets funded by, or tight buddies with, oil billionaires, such as Americans for prosperity, Fox news monopoly, the admin Bush/Halliburton. I only care as these folks are destroying our planet and our democracy, for the almighty buck.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rfshunt
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
EthnicHeart
04:46 PM on 08/29/2011
F&F
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Just say no to gasoline
06:34 PM on 08/27/2011
We can cure this problem easily with a $5 a gallon gasoline tax. There would be no need for this pipeline if we didn't demand it. We were warned 40 years ago to get rid of inefficient gasoline-powered vehicles. We have had other choices all along. There are no surprises.
09:46 PM on 09/04/2011
The over priced, limited range plug ins. Except the plants (most not all) use fossil fuel as there energy source. Hybrid as better, but they still use gas, they are expensive, and the fuel economy isn't that great.

We are going to need oil, now and into the distant future. I would rather see a pipeline from Canada to America than see Chinese or Russian tankers filling up north of the boarder. The Canadians are going to export this one, to us or someone else.
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
09:14 PM on 08/26/2011
Clean wind power?
I guess I depends on what you mean by clean:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350811/In-China-true-cost-Britains-clean-green-wind-power-experiment-Pollution-disastrous-scale.html

"This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what's left behind after making the magnets for Britain's latest wind turbines... and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem

snip

The lake instantly assaults your senses. Stand on the black crust for just seconds and your eyes water and a powerful, acrid stench fills your lungs.
For hours after our visit, my stomach lurched and my head throbbed. We were there for only one hour, but those who live in Mr Yan’s village of Dalahai, and other villages around, breathe in the same poison every day."
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dclintn648
Better a pro than a con
04:22 PM on 08/27/2011
Boy, you must really, really envy the Chinese! They can do anything they want and get away with it, so you think that Canada and the U.S. and everywhere else should just join in and get in on the profits, regardless of whether it's KILLING THE PLANET AND EVERYTHING ON IT!!!

Spare us the "they're worse than we are" as a justification for your bad behaviour. Nobody's falling for it but those who are trying to get away with it along with you!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WESmith
Just say no to gasoline
06:25 PM on 08/27/2011
Gasoline-powered vehicle owners not only are spilling more oil, gasoline and antifreeze in our environment than the industry does, they are killing 40,000 Americans at the same time.
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
11:26 PM on 08/27/2011
Huh?
Try logic.
Childish emotion is best left to children.

The supposedly clean windpower is far worse than oil when you look at the facts of the huge pollution problems and the fact they kill huge numbers of birds.
Syncrude was fined millions of dollars for allowing 1600 ducks to die but the wind producers kill many times that.

Where are the fines for the windpower companies?
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
04:41 PM on 08/26/2011
Who are they?
Woefully ill informed simpletons.
Funded by the oil sands competition.

It isn't a choice of oil sands oil or no oil, it's a choice between oil sands oil and much worse oil.
Nigeria has a BP sized oil spill, every year.
And their oil has a higher carbon footprint than the oil sands oil.
That's where you will be getting more oil from if the pipeline is blocked.
Mid east oil producers import coal to burn to free up more oil for export to eastern Canada and the US.
How clean is that oil?

Who funds these protesters?
Saudia Arabia has lost a huge chunk of their market share to Canada, do you think they might want their market share back?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
11:13 AM on 08/27/2011
There is no clean oil. We need to stop using oil and coal if we are too survive. If we extract the oil in the Tar Sands then eminent scientist Jim Hansen say we have no chance of avoiding runaway global warming and all the disasters that that implies. The water being used and polluted to extract the tar sand is an obscenity.
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
03:04 PM on 08/27/2011
Hansen?
Why not quote Goofy?
He's got more credibility than Hansen.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dclintn648
Better a pro than a con
04:24 PM on 08/27/2011
Speaking of "Woefully ill informed simpletons­"... your position is that Canada and the U.S. should "get in on" all this dirty energy because there are lots of profits and jobs to be had from it.... at least until we're all DEAD from the pollution, but of course, you won't be around by then so who gives a crap, huh?

Sickening...
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
11:53 PM on 08/27/2011
This oil is cleaner than the oil the US imports from Nigeria and Venezuela, omong others, and it has a smaller carbon footprint per barrel than California's heavy oil.

You want more pollution?
Keep using Californian oil and keep importing oil from African and the mid east thugs.

Your choice, if this pipeline isn't built we'll just build one to the Pacific and export it to China and India.
Or we can go east with a pipeline to supply central Canada instead of them importing oil...

You like it when the US navy has to spend billions protecting your mideast oil suppliers?
That adds about $54.00 per barrel to it's cost.

Look it up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeftHandUTurn
How long have I been out?
12:25 AM on 08/26/2011
This is a long-azzed pipeline, don't think it's a good idea, but if it could lead to lower fuel costs somehow, then Obama likely HAS to approve it, or at least not interfere. JMO
11:19 AM on 08/25/2011
http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/watch?v=0SDrqa-eTXU

Blame Canada
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dclintn648
Better a pro than a con
04:27 PM on 08/27/2011
I blame us... and I'm Canadian! This is a sickening industry led by greedy people who see an opportunity to get rich at the expense of the environment. Our government, led by Stephen 'Harpoon' Harper, is the George Bush Administration of Canada, and will no doubt lead us to the same kind of success that despicable regime produced...
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
12:08 AM on 08/28/2011
Another Layton loon....

The US imports huge amounts of oil from Nigeria.
That oil is far far worse than oil sands oil.
They flare so much natural gas that it has a bigger carbon footprint than oil sands oil and they have a BP sized spill every year.
We aren't going to quit using oil anytime soon, so when you fill your gas tank tomorrow, where would you want that fuel to come from?
01:20 AM on 08/25/2011
The more I surf on this project, the more I think it should be approved.
There are thousands of miles of pipelines already in the US. The builders have extensive records of safety with the spills that do occur usually being less then 50 barrels of oil. Russia, Canada, Alaska and the rest of the US all have extensive experience with pipelines. They seldom leak.
Oil that is shipped to the US do not have any better record. Ships also have oil spilled on their decks, tanks to be flushed out while at sea and the occasional serious spill such as the "Exon-Valdez" spill of some years ago.
We do not need the deep water drilling such as occurred in the Gulf and like Brazil is doing now.
We do not need to be dependent on Middle Eastern oil. Propping up Countries that would prefer to destroy us is not in our national interest.
The benefit to our economy would be a half million jobs, and these jobs usually pay rather well.
Until we have a really workable alternative source of energy bringing the oil in from Canada seems like the best solution.
03:53 AM on 08/25/2011
you are foolish, the amount of energy put in is more than the energy that we gain, this is suicide, it is as if you walk into a casino with a hundred dollar bill and at the last dollar you win 33 and call yourself a winner. never mind the 67 you are minus. It is not sane, as you have proven you are not sane.
07:08 AM on 08/25/2011
Sorry, could you explain !!
04:00 PM on 08/25/2011
Oops wrong link. Try this one:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/dr-james-hansen/tar-sands_b_871362.html
photo
socalcde
My micro-bio is empty.
09:55 AM on 08/25/2011
Research info on just the amount of extremely polluted water this would cause.
06:35 PM on 08/25/2011
I understand that it may result in deformed fish in Oklahoma !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
08:56 PM on 08/24/2011
Dear Americans: approve our pipeline or we turn off your gas this winter and take the keystone name form your crap beer, thank you.

All Canadians
photo
socalcde
My micro-bio is empty.
12:57 AM on 08/25/2011
We don't need or want your stinkin oil! Go frack yourself!
11:43 AM on 08/26/2011
and we'll take our troops out of Iraq too! Good luck by yourself USA
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
08:26 PM on 08/26/2011
Canada doesn't have troops in Iraq...
07:14 PM on 08/24/2011
I am happy to see this big turn-out!
I live near where they plan to put this pipeline so have a stake in it. This pipeline will go over the Oglala aquifer, the large body of water that provides drinking water for millions.
Leaks always happen and could lead to contaminating the drinking water . Water is more valuable than this oil is.
Water is becoming harder to find and harder to keep from depleting aquifers. If we run out of fuel we can manage somehow but without drinking water that is safe to drink, there would be big trouble.
08:29 PM on 08/24/2011
I am not in favor of this pipeline either, but not as much for the environment, but drilling on our own soil. Think of the jobs created here, whether it be drilling and maintaining the oil wells, or building and maintaining the pipelines, hopefully building and maintaining more refineries near the oil wells. I'm sure you get might point. And as you know, we already have regulations through the epa to make all this happen. Canada can keep their tar sands for all I care.
03:58 AM on 08/25/2011
Where you from? NP originally, this is ridiculous, the nimbys are all over, the fact of the matter is that a canadian corp, wants to dictate us policy into using eminent domain on sovereign us citizens. that is effed up, than add to that the environmental issues, shite no one on the the left or right coast would let this take place if it were the hundson valley or the san fernando valley they would fight to the bitter end. Rise up!
05:08 PM on 08/27/2011
It's so bad, the TX Teafolks and environmentalists are banding together to stop this nonsense!

The bottom line even for you oil folks should be......are you going to let a Canadian corporatio­n come pollute American soil or let an American company pollute our country? I would hope tar sands would lose in that horrid scenario. At least, that's the America I know no matter what race/culture/sex they are. This is America! If anyone gonna destroy our land, it better be us!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:54 PM on 08/24/2011
I can understand their not liking the tar sands because it is controversial and it is causing damage (they are getting a better grip on it) but there are thousands upon thousands of miles of pipelines all over N America and have been for decades and all and all with very few problems with most spills being quite minor and dealt with quickly. One of their talking points is that we, little ol' Canada are bullying the US into it and I laugh out loud everytime I do. What planets have these people been living on? Writing a S14,000 check for a easement right is a pretty poor example of "bullying". He did take the money right?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lbsaltzman
Permaculture and Sustainability
07:21 PM on 08/24/2011
Canada used to be a great country until they were seduced to the "dark side" by greed for money from the tar sands. The real issue, far beyond what damage a leaking pipe will do, is how much the tar sands will contribute to global warming. It will take enormous amounts of energy to extract the nasty stuff and the net return of energy will be small. The burning of the end product will release unacceptably large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere worsening the global warming crisis enormously. The effort should be going into sane renewable energy like wind and solar. If we keep burning fossil fuels at the rate we are doing it, we will be lucky if civilization survives let alone the human race.
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
08:29 PM on 08/26/2011
The oil sands oil has a smaller carbon footprint than California's heavy oil...
02:52 AM on 08/25/2011
I dont understand how they could possibly ever "get a grip" on that project. The truth is, they arent. The oil companies are spending millions of dollars on ads to tell people that what is happening there is alright, or that they are getting better.
Yes, there are pipelines all over north america. Does that mean that we should be building two new major pipelines at the expense of even more land, eco systems, waterways and peoples health? No. By having those pipelines it is EXPANDING the tar sands and harper's way of basically saying a big F-U to all canadians futures, as well as another F-U to the global community that he is harming with his terrible and selfish decision making.
The Boreal Forest, what the tar sands are completely devastating contains close to 40% of the entire planets carbon which is essential to fighting climate change. Also 80% of the earths unfrozen fresh water is found within the Boreals ecosystems.
And don't even get me started on the many native communities who are being threatened by this development and where the cancer rates are soaring as a result of the toxic runoff.
And there was an oil spill in alberta just before the canadian federal election in the spring. 30,000 barrels of oil were spilled. The largest spill Alberta had seen in 35years. It was hidden until just after the election results....Native communities reported mass nausea, dizziness, etc, and it was hidden from them.
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
08:39 PM on 08/26/2011
What percentage of the boreal forest will be mined for oil sands?
A very small fraction of a percentage.
And what will be mined will be reclaimed and replanted with trees.
The oil sands only are a very small portion of the boreal forest.

These are readily available facts, if you truly value the environment why not learn them?
California's heavy oil has a higher carbon footprint than the oil sands oil.
Etc etc etc.
photo
NoLeHace
Thieves want your money and Dems want your money
06:42 PM on 08/24/2011
"David Daniel of east Texas said pipeline officials tried to coerce him to accept an offer of $2,440 for the rights to install an easement on his property. Daniel accepted a final offer of $13,970 rather than trying to fight TransCanada over the pipeline, which would split his property in half."

----------------------------------------------

I wonder if this guy is telling the truth. First you don't install an easement. Second, you still own the property as one peice.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mary Beth Plotts
06:35 PM on 08/24/2011
IF O TURNS HIS BACK ON THE UNION PEOPLE,dont come looking us up for donations pal.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SMBrown2
99% of democrats give the rest a bad name.
06:33 PM on 08/24/2011
I think I support these protesters. Whoever the new president is, is going to overturn Obama's decision here, and think of all the union worker's votes he/she is going to get in the election because of this.

Obama can alienate a whole bunch more voters like he did with his immigration pandering here.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mary Beth Plotts
06:30 PM on 08/24/2011
maybe my union brothers and sisters need to march on washington to protest the protestors,US UNION MEMBERS ARE ALL FOR THE XL PIPELINE,THIS WILL BE MANNED WITH UNION PEOPLE
07:25 PM on 08/24/2011
I am very pro union and have contributed to AFL-CIO to help in wisconsin. I am against this pipeline even more. It will be right over the Oglala aquifer which provides good drinking water to millions living in at least 7 states. So I had to ask myself, which is more important? I decided the aquifer was. I will continue to send in some money when I can to keep Unions strong.
04:13 AM on 08/25/2011
thank you this idea that unions are for this is total buh-larky as my aunts, mom, grandma would say, this is bad. REAL BAD, I am from Nebraska, where we dont have a right to unionize, probably would if we could, but this is our home and...THIS IS BAD!
Mine is a state that, despite development in the eastern part of the state, still holds a very unique world, it is an ecosystem, and a socio-econo-politico environment that allows for a very old way of life of ranching, open land, etc. because this land has been "untouched" we as a people have a strong duty to make sure this land remains what it is. We have already seen our farm communities diminishes to the overhanded reach of corporate farming conglomerates, the last thing we want is a Canadian company taking our land and environment for granted, and using our politica system to use eminent domain on its sovereign citizens. This is crazy.
the last time a foreign nation tried to take our soil was world war II and the Japanese took a small part of us territory, today we want a canadian company to develop large tracts of land to ship their inefficient oil to us? I call shenanigans.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dclintn648
Better a pro than a con
04:50 PM on 08/27/2011
I am very pro-union, but not a member of a union. I am also Canadian. And I am NOT for the pipeline, either. The fact is, it has the ability to damage the environment i a multitude of ways, and we simply cannot trust the corporations or the government to ensure that safety regulations are in place and followed. We KNOW how the world works, and we KNOW that nobody is minding the store while many are getting rich robbing it.

Green power investment is required, and until both countries stop taking the "cheaper" route (in the short-term, but MUCH more damaging in the long-term) then the planet is doomed.
photo
Chassis
Searching for any liberal's brain
12:22 AM on 08/25/2011
Geez, protest the protestors, how about waking up and worry about people that can't find a job rather than bitchin' about a pipeline. I guess the protestors won't miss any work in any event.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dclintn648
Better a pro than a con
04:52 PM on 08/27/2011
Yes, having jobs NOW is more important than having a planet for those precious children and grandchildren the right are so fond of using as their excuse to end help to the poor...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Damon Coburn
Faith, hope, and love.
06:23 PM on 08/24/2011
Do these people want to keep higher oil and gas prices which help the big oil companies and harm the poor and middle class? Do they want to import more oil from countries that are hostile to the USA? Do they want all the oil produced in countries that are terrible at protecting the environment, where there is little accountability to keep the environment clean? It certainly looks that way from here.
06:28 PM on 08/24/2011
No, they just hate Canada.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
chemguy
Liberal, but not Democrat
06:42 PM on 08/24/2011
Did you deliberately omit "develop alternatives to oil" as a possibility? The one guy is holding up a windmill, so that should be obvious.
photo
Chassis
Searching for any liberal's brain
12:25 AM on 08/25/2011
The windmills are a "scam", They can not sustain their existence without huge government incentives. They produce < 2% of the energy needs of the US.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Damon Coburn
Faith, hope, and love.
08:33 AM on 08/25/2011
Most alternative fuels or means of energy production are not as cost effective as oil, or they are incapable of producing enough energy. If they were, then companies would be producing much more of them. The best alternative is nuclear power which has its own environmental concerns and opponents too. Let the free markets decide which is best; just hold companies accountable to keep things clean and efficient. Forcing alternatives rather than letting them compete only increases energy costs on the poor and middle class.