What entitlement! I hit the gas, power off to my destination. No one asks me whether the trip is serious or banal, necessary or foolish, conscious or impulsive. I just go, ripping up the miles as though they were daydreams. The engine purrs. My name is Everyman, and I have the power of gods.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not addicted or anything. I can get off oil whenever I want to. On the other hand, I may be willing to sacrifice 740,000 acres of pristine boreal forest in Northern Canada -- part of one of the largest intact ecosystems left on the planet -- along with, oh, 166 million birds, and all the remaining caribou in Alberta, before I do. Tough call.
"The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, but one that does not make sense to exploit. When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the Earth's climate system and to its oceans."Now that we do know, it's imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy. As scientists, speaking for ourselves and not for any of our institutions, we can say categorically that Keystone XL is not only not in the national interest, it's also not in the planet's best interest."
This is what a group of 19 prominent climate scientists, including Dr. James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, wrote recently to President Obama, who has the authority to nix the proposed 1,700-mile, $7 billion pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to oil refineries in Texas and Oklahoma. All he has to do is deny the permit that would allow the pipeline to cross an international border. It's Obama's call alone; Congress has no say in the matter.
Hansen is one of hundreds of people who have been arrested in front of the White House recently in an ongoing protest against the construction of the pipeline, in what may be the most crucial showdown on climate change and national policy the country has yet seen.
"The stand against tar sand oil is basically about protecting God's creation and God's people," said one of the protesters, United Church of Christ minister Rev. Mari Castellanos. "The process of extraction destroys the boreal forest and wetlands, leaves behind enormous lakes of toxic waste and causes high levels of greenhouse gas pollution. To engage in peaceful protest against it is sacramental."
Everyman in handcuffs?
Can we stop the human contribution to climate change? And beyond that, can we regain a sense of the sacredness of Planet Earth, the human context?
"Mother Earth," reads the wording of Bolivian legislation that would grant legal rights to the planet and its ecosystems, "is a living, dynamic system made up of the undivided community of all living beings, who are all interconnected, interdependent and complementary, sharing a common destiny."
Construction of the Keystone XL pipeline would not only give a serious boost to Canada's tar-sands oil-extraction industry, which devastates a fragile ecosystem and produces enormous levels of greenhouse gas emissions; but also endangers, as the New York Times put it in a recent editorial, "highly sensitive terrain" along its route through the United States because of the possibility of toxic leakage.
On the other side of the issue, pushing the president to sign the permit and allow the pipeline -- indeed, without the protests, this would just have been another done deal -- is the creation of thousands of high-paying manufacturing and construction jobs, which of course are manna from heaven in the global recession.
Beyond the PR value of the jobs are the enormous corporate profits that could come from opening up the tar sands industry, pollution be damned. And Hillary Clinton's State Department, which backs the pipeline, has an allegedly compromised relationship with that industry. Friends of the Earth reported last year that the pipeline's would-be builder, TransCanada, has as its lead lobbyist for the project one Paul Elliott, who just happened to be a high-ranking aide in Clinton's presidential campaign.
And beyond the profits of the oil companies and related industries are the several hundred million passenger vehicles in the United States -- and the three quarters of a billion of them throughout the world -- which run, either efficiently or inefficiently, on gasoline, and are emblematic of civilization itself.
They aren't merely symbols of power, but power itself, indispensable for countless purposes both life-affirming and pointless. They are so thoroughly a part of the lives of so many people, and so basic to society as a whole, that oil addiction would appear to be here to stay, short of a techno-fix -- a deus ex machina -- that lets us produce fuel in near-infinite quantities from renewable, eco-benign sources.
I'm suspicious that such a fix will be found. While I believe that it must be sought, I also believe that power itself -- dominion over nature -- will always come with a shadow. I support the protests with a deep passion tangled in paradox.
Robert Koehler is an award-winning, Chicago-based journalist, contributor to One World, Many Peaces and nationally syndicated writer. His new book, Courage Grows Strong at the Wound (Xenos Press) is now available. Contact him at koehlercw@gmail.com or visit his website at commonwonders.com.
© 2011 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.
Peter Lehner: Keystone Pipeline, Tar Sands Oil, and Climate Change Are Not in Our National Interest
Hemp bio-fuel has huge potential. Hemp to Potentially Replace Reliance on Fossil Fuels
For most of human history, the hemp plant has been used as an integral crop of commerce and navigation. Cultures across the globe have utilized hemp as a source of food, rigging and building materials and paper pulp. It is, without a doubt, the most resilient and efficient..http://www.hemp.com/2011/04/hemp-to-potentially-replace-reliance-on-fossil-fuels/
One that comes from plants so is renewable. One that creates more oxygen during its growing cycle than it produces carbon dioxide in refinement and burning.
What if I said the cost at the pump would be about $1.00 per gallon. What if I could prove that this miracle plant could supply all the energy to completely replace our oil imports within five years and completely replace oil in cars by ten. This plant is able to produce between 50 to 100 times the Ethanol or Methanol of corn. We could do this by simply planting fallow fields and barren land since it will grow almost anywhere.
Has anyone guessed what plant it is yet?
Here's another hint. It's seeds contain the second highest percent of protein of any seed or bean known. Second only to Soy Bean, and actually contains more "usable protein" than Soy Bean. So, If farmers are upset with Monsanto they also have an alternative.
Surely everyone has guessed it by now. It's Marijuana. And now you know the real reason it is illegal.
Cannabis Sativa yes, Hemp is less than 1% THC, and is not referred to as Marijuana.
And, it's estimated that up to %40 percent of the prescription drug market would be replaced by Marijuana preparations with greater efficacy and fewer harmful side effects.
Of course, this has hardly resulted in an efficient transportation system, and the cost may be becoming more than we can afford to pay, but until there is another way to exercise this individual level of freedom you can't expect people to willingly part with their automobiles.
You are misinformed. Less than 1% of electricity in the US comes from petroleum. Coal, nuclear natural gas and hydro are the biggest power sources. For me, most of the power to charge my electric car comes from solar panels.
I still don't understand the other part of your argument. If we need oil to make plastics, then how does it help to burn it up in our cars? Once it is burned it is no longer available to turn into plastics.
The first tar sands pipeline had 12 spills in the first 12 months of operation, so it is a big stretch to assume the we are going to do the new one in a responsible manner.
Actually, there is!
"There has been a growing movement from plastics that are made from Petroleum based materials to Carbohydrate based plastics using materials like plants. Hemp is just one of the many plants that could be used to move this revolution forward.
Here is an interesting article found in USA today detailing the effort towards changing our paradigm of using Petroleum based products. Granted, the main emphasis is on Corn but as the idea for new plastics grows into the mainstream media we’re pretty sure that hemp will eventually lead the way." - http://www.hemp.com/2011/01/from-plants-to-plastic/
“The cost of the bottles is 5% to 10% higher than regular plastic bottles, but it’s worth it both environmentally and economically in the long run,†he says. “When you compare the cost for disposal of plastic to the cost of disposal of a compostable bottle, all of a sudden the cost levels out.â€
Where does the massive amount of fresh water come from to refine this sludge?
Pristine Canadian Lakes, The Great Lakes? Whats left of the Texas aquifers?
Fantastic.
-AJB
Why are we ruining our planet?
Because we can.
What is most inefficient is using a 4-5 thousand machine to haul around a 110 pound driver.
We continue to add lanes to the hi-ways, and build new roads (while we do nothing to repair what we have already built). In Philadelphia we have a massive transit system. But we don't make it easier to commute using the regional rail system, instead we build more parking lots, and lobby to decrease the tax on parking in the city.
Wouldn't it make sense to discourage driving into the city? People complain about the grid-lock, the lack of parking, yet tens of thousands drive into the city every day.
The IRS recently moved into a new center, built in the former central post office. Directly across the street is 30th street AMTRAK station. The hub of regional transit. ALL the trains, AMTRAK, and SEPTA come into this station.
Yet, IRS demanded that a 5000 car parking structure be built for their employees before they would move in! Wouldn't it have been better to give their employees transit passes?
Why doesn't the transit system build park and ride lots at their stations?
On a national level, why do we keep gas prices artificially low? The US has the lowest gas prices in the industrialized countries. We allow our tax dollars to subsidize the oil companies!
As an engineer, I know transportation fuels must be light enough with a large Btu value to work in transportation vehicles efficiently. Battery technology is becoming lighter and cheaper so electric motors could replace oil based transportation. Local commuters can use electric but long haul trucking, with large weights to pull, has difficulty converting to electric based power.
I hope hydrogen based fuels become popular. They emit no complex pollutions (often only water) but must not be made from petroleum hydrocarbons otherwise we've changed little in the energy resource equation.
We use NGV fuels for cars at my public works organization. It is cleaner than gasoline and fuel efficiency is comparable, but natural gas has significant pollutions from production through combusted use. And it is also a limited resource.
For either electric, hydrogren or the next transportation based fuel, we'll need to radically change fueling availability. We all assume a gas station is no more than 20 miles away. All those fueling locations have to switch to the new fuel.
Complex problems indeed. But let's solve them not rather than in crisis mode later.
For long haul, diesel electric locomotives, or electrified locomotives make great sense.
Take the time to watch "Who killed the electric Car".
Then take a look at the future.
http://www.teslamotors.com/models
"but our use of oil keeps us from developing new sources of energy!"
It works for now, and when the time comes for oil to be replaced, there will be no shortage of entrepaneurs to take advantage of the suddenly hobbled oil industry. We're not just going to run out of ideas for making our cars go vroom.
"Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds."
As the global supply-demand-price complexity, and pollutions, from oil based transportation negatively affects more people, we'll all have to make changes. Many people dislike change but it is inevitable in all aspects of life.
We need to reduce corporate lobbying within American politics so government can encourage industry change with incentives. Bush and Cheney set us back 8 years. Cut alternative fuenergy funding yet promoted fallacies like "Clean Coal" and "Clear Skies" programs that enabled corporations to maintain status quo.
Some corporations issue propoganda and astro-turf their aims and goals to keep their oil based industry infrastructure. Contrary to free market economic theory, information is not freely available so consumers can not make accurate decisions that affect markets.
The nay-sayers claim there is more oil available locally (drill baby drill) and ignore pollution impacts on the environment and human health. These nay-sayers will not stop until bad and obvious outcomes occur that show them their errors. By then, too many people will suffer.
That would be tragic. We need to change, to accept change, to accept the need for some sacrifice in freedoms linked to gasoline engine vehicles so that our chuildren and grandchildren do not suffer from our mistakes.
If the Keystone XL pipeline isn't built, oil sands extraction will continue in Canada and pipelines WILL BE BUILT to export that oil to China. This is outcome far worse for the USA.
Don't believe for a second that anything done in the USA will stop oil sands extraction in Canada.
They will simply find other markets while we pay more for oil.
Or are you just making stuff up hoping people will just believe you.