At least for now, the battle over the Keystone Pipeline -- the most visible environmental cause in many years -- has moved from the scarred boreal forest of Alberta and the Sand Hills of Nebraska to the halls of Congress. Or rather, it's moved to send button on your email application, because that's the best way we've got right now to stiffen the spines of our Senators.
Beginning at noon on Monday, the progressive community will focus for 24 solid hours on the Keystone battle. We'll try to generate half a million emails to the Senate -- the most concentrated burst of environmental advocacy this millennium. We'll know if it works if the Democrats who control the chamber do one simple thing: back their president.
Barack Obama did the brave thing. He stood up to the American Petroleum Institute (a.k.a. big oil) and their explicit threat to exact 'huge political consequences' unless he granted Keystone an immediate permit. And the GOP did the expected thing -- all along they've voted with near unanimity to speed up the pipeline. That's par for the course from a party awash in oily money -- a party whose leaders vie to denounce global warming as a hoax, and whose current frontrunner believes that thanks to the EPA Americans are living through 'a reign of environmental terror.'
But the Senate is in the hands of a Democratic majority, whose leader Harry Reid has said the right things about Keystone -- namely that the tarsands it connects to are an "unsustainable supply of dirty and polluting oil." These Democrats know that the biggest labor unions in the country are backing the president, and they know that every environmental group is firm in its opposition, from the corporate friendly Environmental Defense Fund to the corporate unfriendly Rainforest Action Network. And yet these Senators still wobble -- we keep hearing rumors that one or another of them will cut a deal with the oil industry.
In fact, one already has. Joe Manchin, of West Virginia, has said he'll vote for Keystone. And what do you know -- he's taken more money from the fossil fuel industry than any other Democrat in the chamber. Many of the rest of the Democrats have taken industry money too, but usually far less than the Republicans. My guess is that they actually want to do the right thing, but they're scared -- scared that the oil industry will run ads against them at election time, scared that no one will come to their defense. In a way it's kind of sad to see Senators living in fear, but that's how it works.
And so to the keyboards. We've been to jail, we've marched on Washington; this week it's pixels and keystrokes. This electronic blitz is an effort to show Congress that there's support out there for doing the right thing -- that the American people know the stakes and that they want to see a little bit of the president's courage on this issue reflected in the Senate. This Congress is clearly not going to solve global warming -- no one expects Harry Reid to work miracles, converting implacable Republican opponents. But they can clearly hold the line if they want to. Maybe a letter or two -- or half a million all at once -- will nerve them up.
Follow Bill McKibben on Twitter: www.twitter.com/billmckibben
Robert Redford: 24 Hours to Stop the Pipeline - Be the Solution
Look up the info on the New Keystone I pipeline & the leaks. The one in ND was 22,000 gallons. The farmer saw it spewing like 60 ft. in the air at the pump station. Obviously, TransCanada's people were unaware there was a leak. What if he hadn't seen it -- then how much toxic tar sand oil would have leaked? This is a New pipeline! This farmer & the community are Not for Keystone XL - gee, I wonder why? TransCanada does not have a good reputation with the environment. There have been other leaks on this pipeline, too. BY THE WAY--Koch wants this BAD! They're spending a Min. of $100 Million to oust Obama. They want No EPA & Obama does. They will be cutting supply so YOUR gas will cost alot---in hopes that will put Their GOP in as POTUS! More info: "AlecExposed.org" on their philosophies / agenda.
Thank you, to everyone who sent a message, sent an email to friends or shared a link.
You're amazing.
Warren Buffet owns SHIPPING railroads, not passenger railroads. Oil is not transported via rail. So you think not building the pipeline is going to force everyone into riding Amtrak? Get real!
You ignore the actual billionaires who stand to benefit the most from the pipeline being built (the ones coincidentally who have the deep pockets to fund all the pipeline propaganda) and instead focus on the right-wing boogie man of Buffet. I'm surprised you didn't claim that it was a Soros plot!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
People must check out the spills of Keystone I that is up & running as far as Oklahoma. The largest spill in ND spewed 22,000 gallons of tar sands oil, & the pipeline is New! This oil is highly corrosive. How many spills will occur as the pipe, valves, etc., deteriorate? The farmer & community in ND are NOT in support of Keystone XL after their spill & all it entailed. I have first account information in that area. (this spill occurred at the pumping station above ground. How many leaks will be small, yet continuous, underground & not be known about for a long, long time?)
AlecExposed.org ... good facts about the power of Corporations (Koch is on the executive board) AND the Politicians under their influence.
ALEC is a Powerful organization. Koch on executive board. The group is Corporations / Politicians from the TeaParty / newer GOP. I don't think any other party. They've gained alot of power. The GOP candidates are talking the same philosophies / agenda. No FDA, EPA !, etc.
If you know other good sites for people to see, post them please. Sooo many 99%ers are believing an ILLUSION that low taxes is ALL good. They don't realize the safety nets will go, along with Medicare, EPA, FDA, etc., AND the voice of the 99% will be silenced.
"Just because you find it impossible to build a cleaner energy, doesn't mean the rest of us can't do it. Just because you can't figure out how to build a clean energy economy doesn't mean that it's not possible."
This is a STRAW MAN ARGUMENT, where one assumes the position of another based on insufficient data and attacks the ASSUMPTION, rather than the actual stated position of the other.
The ASSUMPTION here is that support for Keystone NECESSARILY means that the supporter opposes clean energy. This is IRRATIONAL, POLITICALLY DRIVEN POSITIONING, and is NOT RATIONAL.
In fact, I quite logically SUPPORT BOTH. Denying ourselves needed energy will not accelerate the movement to clean energy, and we get jobs in the process by implementing a plan which the US Government has already deemed to be safe. Since no reasonable person would impede such a project, the resistance must come from IDEOLOGY; ideology has no interest group other than itself -- it certainly doesn't benefit the American People, particularly in this case.
Back to your Nintendo, Nathan. You're out of your league.
Someone who supports the massive and rising misuse of fossil fuels AUTOMATICALLY discards the investment into green energy. Because if You take what money there is and put it into building up oil production and transportation the money is gone. There is nothing left to even try to research better use of resources and cleaner energy.
It is not the assumption that anyone who supports Keystone and with it all the costs and destruction inherent in Keystone is against clean energy that is silly. It is YOUR assumption that we can have both - Keystone AND cleaner energy - that is completely free of anything resembling reality.
You act like the stranglehold that big oil has on US politics is of no real consequence.
You act like releasing an entirely new massive source of carbon into the atmosphere is of no consequence.
You act like there have been no scientific studies that show that this project will destroy more jobs than it creates.
You act like there have been no Canadian studies that show that this project will drive up the cost of energy in Canada and the US, it's one of the clearly stated reasons this pipeline is wanted according to industry insiders.
Worst of all, you act like what the MAJORITY of Americans and Canadians want, which is for this pipeline to never be built, is irrelevant, and that's the par for the course republican/conservative disdain for democracy and majority rule.
When facts are ignored in favor of false promises by the most corrupt, evil, manipulative industry on the planet, THATwww.huffingtonpost.comur position is disgraceful.
Don't let the pro-pollution lobby impose their limited ideas on you. Not only is it possible to have a clean energy economy, it's better, it's cheaper, it's smarter. Everything about a clean energy economy is better than a polluting energy economy.
One of the few I've found you can see here www.cadmusconstruction.com
"AlecExposed.org"
"At least for now, the battle over the Keystone Pipeline -- the most visible environmental cause in many years -- has moved from the scarred boreal forest of Alberta and the Sand Hills of Nebraska to the halls of Congress"
The pipeline is not a "cause". It's jobs, it's needed energy, it's national security, it's independence.
One easily envisions others like this McKibben advancing from games on their Nintendos to games in the political realm. Nothing is real to them, nothing impacts people, nothing really matters. They are nihilists, pretending that the care about the environment (in this case), but in reality, all they "care" about is WINNING the game against their foes, which they dehumanize by calling them "conservatives" (or other, more insulting imagined terms) but which are actually none other but "American Citizens."
Go ahead, Bill. Win your game. We, the people, are getting used to losing, as the political games continue.
Just because you find it necessary to pollute for profit doesn't mean everyone else is just going to follow along.
The Keystone Pipeline is a national security threat. It's a threat to human health. It's a threat to energy independence. An area of what was once pristine wilderness will be utterly destroyed from tar sands oil extraction. How much bio-fuel could be grown on an area the size of England, and grown again, year after year. 60 billion gallons per year of bio-fuel gasoline a year, that's how much.
Using fossil fuel pollutes. Using renewable energy does not.
If you're right, and it's only about winning, then guess what? You lose. You don't lose because the other side cheated, or is more politically savvy than you. You lose because your ideas are dumb. Your energy pollutes. Your ideas are not winning ideas. They are bad polluting ideas. Bad ideas lose. Good ideas win.
Is it really any surprise that your ideas are as polluted as your choice of energy? No, not really.
I want to respond to your statement about jobs, national security and independence.
While there are estimates of lots of jobs, there are also estimates of very few permanent jobs.
Primary here is your statement about national security. You are under the delusion that tar sand oil from Canada will stay in America and keep us from foreign oil. This is a wrong assumption. The tar sand oill is slated to be refined in Texas (more nasty pollution for Texas) and then it is on its way to China, or Australia or any and every other country that wants to purchase it.
There will be no independence for the American people. Yes the oil companies, the pipeline companies and the refining companies can add billions to their coffers, but it will not help the American people one whit.
I recommend doing some research from other sources than Fox News and the Koch Brothers pipeline websites. This issue is not about screaming at liberals or conservatives, it is about protecting the future of the planet and the creatures who live on it, mainly us.
I recommend you take a basic econ course. You're living in fantasyland.
Not to worry - he won't be President for but a few more months.
Keystone XL sends Tar sand to the Gulf Coast refineries to be made into diesel fuel and loaded on ocean going Tankers for Tax Free Export to Europe and Latin America.
None of these projects are in the interest of the USA, and none will lower gas prices or increase our security or create real lasting jobs for US. Both are likely to spill and will accelerate global climate change.
http://thinkprogress.org/green/2011/11/10/366171/valero-poised-to-export-keystone-xl-crude-tax-free/
http://priceofoil.org/2011/08/31/report-exporting-energy-security-keystone-xl-exposed/
http://www.northerngateway.ca/project-details/route-map/
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/08/canada-rainforest/barcott-text
If they make the argument effectively and persistently, Obama will be paying the high gas prices like the rest of his, when he starts driving his private car again after the 2012 election.
IF you're not a paid poster & want to know what the GOP's agenda is, which is Against the 99%, please check out ""AlecExposed.org"". Even if you're paid---you may want to know.
as to "Sustainability" well that is for people (investors) who are putting thier money up.
If it has no goverment subsidy, well then that is for the investors to decide sustainability.
If you believe the lies you are hearing from oil companies and the Repubicans about Keystone
you are in worse shape than you think.
It's not like it doesn't take some time to build the XL all the way to the Gulf. If Koch gets their GOP Prez., they can eliminate the EPA and get the Keystone XL underway. What's to stop them? Without an EPA to evaluate the project? Or enforce spill clean up? Is this the small government you would agree with. I wouldn't.