Last fall, Bill McKibben, Phil Radford and I issued a letter calling on people of conscience to take direct action to amplify the demands of the climate movement. Of course, we were far from the only people making that call -- the outcry for solutions to the climate catastrophe looming over us has been loud and clear for years. But what I'm witnessing in D.C. right now is on a different level altogether: The outcry has become an uproar.
In mid-June, when organizing started for what would become the Tar Sands Action at the White House, I thought it would be an important act of protest. But this has become something much more. It is the largest act of civil disobedience on the environment this generation has ever seen and a pivotal moment for the U.S. on climate change.
Today I spoke to a woman named Julie, a landowner from Nebraska who is the last person in her county to refuse to sign over her land for the pipeline. She's never been to a protest, much less been arrested. But she told me that she just had to come because the stakes are so high. Likewise Eleanor, a landowner from Texas, who said defiantly: "I am much more worried about the Keystone Pipeline and the damage it could do to our climate than I am about my children being left with a deficit."
By some estimates, as many as two-thirds of the folks who have been arrested since the sit-ins began two weeks ago have never participated in anything like this -- and yet they gave up their own time and spent their own money to voice their opposition to Keystone XL and tar sands oil. This is what a movement looks like.
The movement to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline has become symbolic of our struggle to avert climate catastrophe, and it's breaking through and gaining momentum. Here's how we know that the tide is turning:
Stopping the Keystone XL pipeline is an essential part of transitioning this country off fossil fuels. American citizens are voting for green energy with their dollars in increasing numbers. This month, California-based Sungevity sold 2MW of solar systems. To put that in perspective, 10 years ago the entire State of California had just 10MW installed. Total. The clean energy revolution is underway -- now we need our government to do its part.
With these protests, the Keystone XL pipeline has become the current symbol, the line-in-the-sand for the climate movement. If we stand on that line together, and succeed, I believe it will have ripple effects across our entire struggle.
Follow Rebecca Tarbotton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/@beckytarbotton
Bill McKibben: Arrested at the White House
Tar Sands Action Protests In Washington, D.C. (PHOTOS)
The Syncrude extraction facility is one recipient of Chinese investment
Chinese state oil company CNOOC has agreed to buy Canadian oil sands producer OPTI for $2.1bn " http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14214771
Btw, WHO is putting up the 7B$'s for the pipeline? Is any of that USA money?
Wouldn't an investment of 7B$ in rooftop solar, offshore wind and waste bio char bio fuels produce more fuel and energy?
Canada and the US are the coming OPECs of the next centuries. It is coming soon, like it or not.
Carbon is king. It is portable, highly concentrated in potential energy, and we have huge investment in its manufacture and distribution systems.
If we exploit the sands and shale, and work with Brazil to develop their massive reserves, we will be able to undercut the influence of OPEC, Nigeria, and the Hugo Chavez's of the world. We will be far better off in both wealth and security.
The tar sands and shale oil represent huge reserves that are located in Canada and the US. Tapping those sources enhance our national security and reduce the chances of an oil tanker spill disaster to the environment. Whether you know it or not, alternative energy sources are not economically viable, Not reliable, and are so weak in generating capacity as to require wholesale coverage of vast tracks of land and buildings to achieve even modest generation output.
Unfortunately wind power is weakest during the hot summer months when demand peaks. A good example of solar problems was the CA University regent plan to go completely solar on all campuses. It was found that covering every square inch of the ground and buildings would not even come close to providing the necessary generation capacity.
As the price of oil stays up above $90 a barrel, tar sands, shale and coal gasification all offer positive Internal Rates of Return, upon which long term investment can be made to exploit them. A handful of NIMBY protestors will not nor should not stop these projects that employ American workers and enhance our security. The use of tar sands and shale will stop the upwards march of oil prices and will help to limit inflation.
Too often the environmental proposes solutions that are simply neither of scope nor practicality to make a difference and suffer from failure when a critical light is placed on the subject. Ethanol is a perfect current example. It is not only wrong-headed, but it requires that import oil for fertilizer to actually inefficiently produce an alternative fuel. Project after project has been based upon federal subsidize that do not produce economically long-term viable solutions.
Another example is nuclear. The cost and time of siting a plant has become so prohibitive that it is not practical much less the ridiculous fight over Yucca mountain which has resulted in keeping liquid waste all over the country.
Why doesn't he do the right thing and switch parties?