The key political fact about the proposed Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico is this: at the end of the day, the decision of whether to approve the permit for the pipeline or not will be a political decision wholly owned by President Obama.
The final determination on the permit will be based whether approval would be in the "national interest" of the United States. This is an inherently political determination. By denying the permit for the pipeline, President Obama can take a concrete action against climate chaos without securing one Republican vote, without spending one tax dollar, without getting approval from the Tea Party.
If, on the other hand, President Obama were to approve the permit for the pipeline, then he would be acting to promote climate chaos, and this decision could not be blamed on the dispute over the nation's projected debt in 2021, Republicans or the Tea Party. It would be President Obama, standing alone, breaking a campaign promise to act to protect the climate from chaos induced by human action.
This is a global justice issue, because climate chaos is inherently discriminatory against the poor and the weak. A hurricane that strikes Haiti and Florida with the same force is virtually guaranteed to hurt Haitians more, because Haiti has fewer resources to protect its citizens against hurricanes. More Haitians have inadequate shelter to start with; the infrastructure for emergency response is weaker; the health care system is weaker. So any action which has the effect of making hurricanes more intense is going to have disparate impact on Florida and Haiti, for the future as far as we can see.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has noted:
Globally, estimates of the potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s, with a trend towards longer storm duration and greater storm intensity, and the activity is strongly correlated with tropical sea surface temperature.
Actions taken by the U.S. that promote climate chaos are fundamentally unjust -- and also economically inefficient -- because of the fact that significant costs from such actions will be "externalized" -- felt outside the United States.
It is beyond reasonable dispute that actions that contribute to the exploitation of the Alberta tar sands will contribute to climate chaos. As the New York Times noted in an editorial last week urging President Obama to reject the pipeline, this has been documented by Canada's environment ministry.
The counter-argument made by the State Department in its environmental assessment made public Friday is that this concern isn't relevant, because no matter what the U.S. does, Canada will fully exploit the tar sands anyway:
At the heart of the Obama administration's arguments is the contention that Canada will expand strip mining and drilling for the very thick oil in Alberta whether or not the Keystone XL pipeline to the Gulf Coast gets built.
But this dispute simply points back to the fact that at the end of the day, it's a political determination. To say that Canada is going to do whatever it's going to do, regardless of what the U.S. does, is one way of looking at it.
The other way of looking at it is this: the political struggle in Canada over the exploitation of the tar sands is fully joined. A proposed pipeline to the Pacific through British Columbia is hotly contested. Some Canadians want to exploit the tar sands to the maximum; other Canadians strongly oppose this. Because of the permit application, the U.S. cannot avoid taking sides in this dispute. If he were to approve the permit, President Obama would be taking sides with the Canadians who want to exploit the tar sands to the maximum, against those Canadians who strongly oppose doing so.
And if you want to take sides in the dispute over whether President Obama should approve the permit for the pipeline, you can do that here.
Follow Robert Naiman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/naiman
Keystone XL Pipeline Obama's 'Biggest Climate Test,' Green Groups ...
Keystone XL Pipeline: Obama Campaign Writer Arrested In ...
Daryl Hannah Arrested At Keystone XL Pipeline Protest (VIDEO)
Tell President Obama: Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline
Scientists to Obama: Keystone XL Pipeline Sucks | Mother Jones
Over 1200 arrested outside the White House these past 2 weeks.
Now, for phase two...
On this issue , you've drunk the Kool Aid of "climate chaos" which is even stupider than the notion that CO2 , the very building block of life , significantly effects our temperature at these minimal levels which support life .
Nothing can be more against the welfare of the poor than purposely , on the basis of grotesque falsehood , increase the cost of energy .
“Tar Sands Impact on Climate Change,” Skeptical Science, Aug 23, 2011
http://www.skepticalscience.com/tar-sands-impact-on-climate-change.html
As you know, Trans Canada Pipe, has just hired her to convince people about the importance of the Keystone project. Conoco was just bought out by Trans Canada Pipe. Conoco was charged with colluding to convince the President of Georgia to allow the Ceyhan pipe project to Israel, and made a poor environmental study. Now Conoco is out of the picture, with it's bad reviews including some oil spils on the Ceyhan project. Tamila Ahmadov is a very professional addition to Trans Canada Pipe for Keystone XL.
Stopping the pipeline is worth countless car trips.
Face facts: Westernized cultures are not willing to give up this oil-based lifestyle to which we have all become so accustomed. Petroleum products are used for such a vast array of items it would astonish most to even consider the list.
There is also complete omission of the use of unethical oils. Where is your mention of the former government and its alliance with OPEC? Need we begin the conversation over how those countries treat their citizens, hoard profits and disrespect the earth or should we just scroll through the news headlines of the middle east for today?
You want to blame Obama for whichever decision he makes, but you put him in that position. By demanding your cars/buses be fuelled, your internet function, you have created the problem and imparted nothing to the solution.
So instead of sitting on Capital Hill on your high horse preaching about climate change, take off those shoes with petroleum-produced rubber soles, toss out your Levi's made with petroleum-consuming machines, and stop snacking on your organic apples which were shipped by a gas-powered vehicle. Understand the issues, not the symptoms.
Does he simply want us not to have this pipeline? Why? Does he know that if we don't get this oil, China will? Does he imagine that not building this pipeline would at all diminish hurricane intensity?
But, the bottom line is this: climate change is going to happen, regardless of human efforts. Get used to it.
Scientific American, "Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?": "Data gathered earlier than the 1970s, although unreliable, show cycles of quiet decades followed by active ones. The quiet '60s, '70s and '80s ended in 1995, the year that brought Felix and Opal, among others, and resulted in $13 billion in damages and more than 100 deaths in the U.S."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-category-6-hurricanes-coming
Denver Examiner, November 19, 2009: "Hurricanes and tornadoes at below normal levels in 2009"
http://www.examiner.com/weather-in-denver/hurricanes-and-tornadoes-at-below-normal-levels-2009
Watts Up With That? March 12, 2009
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/12/global-hurricane-activity-has-decreased-to-the-lowest-level-in-30-years/
USA Today, 11/12/2008: "30-year low for N. Hemisphere tropical cyclone activity"
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2008-11-12-northern-hemisphere-hurricane-activity_N.htm
Your statement that "potential destructiveness of hurricanes show a substantial upward trend since the mid-1970s" is grossly misleading, because we were in a natural hurricane low in the '70s, and now are in the middle of a natural hurricane high that began in 1995 and is supposed to end about 2025.
You environmentalists are obviously trying to take advantage of the recent hurricane to pawn your agenda by distorting facts with emotion.
When did you read it?
And so what if the jobs go to china we need green jobs not jobs that are irresponsible to what we need to do which is get off OIL
Back in 1981Hansen predicted that in the 21st century Texas and Oklahoma would suffer devastating drought and heatwaves. How is that working out?