Pipelines are Forever: Why We Delivered the World's Dirtiest Oil to Secretary Clinton

Seeing the future is hard enough--but can you smell it? If you are talking about green energy maybe you can... We conducted our own scientific research on this very question in Washington, D.C., where we unveiled the world's first-ever "Clean Energy Smell Test." If you thought the Coke and Pepsi taste tests were exciting, this one is really going to roll your socks up and down--and there is slightly more at stake than which carbonated sugar water tastes best.

On one side we have the energy future that visionaries like Van Jones--our green collar jobs czar--have been fighting for. On the other side we have Big Oil's version of our future (can you hear the booos?). One smells like sunshine, a gentle breeze through a windmill, mountain water flowing into a micro-hydro generator. The other smells like, well, hell.

The green energy future was preferred by 99.5% of those tested (the .5% was Dick Cheney, who loved the sludge so much he started hyperventilating--it wasn't pretty.)

What is this sludge from the Tar Sands? The sticky, tar-like stuff is buried beneath one of the most carbon rich and diverse forests in the world: the Boreal Forest. Once this forest is destroyed, the sludge is basically steam-cleaned to produce synthetic crude oil, millions of gallons of toxic waste, massive greenhouse gas emissions and more. (For lots more stomach-turning stats, including Canada's plan in the '50s to melt the bitumen with atomic bombs, see Tar Sands by A. Nikiforuk.)

This is the stuff that Canada wants to send our way via new pipelines that will run straight through our heartland. And Canada is teaming up with Big Oil to make this "dream" come true. Yes, Canada. Our friends to the North are not quite as green as you might think.

One person has the power to decide whether the pipelines can cross the border and enter the US: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Only she can approve or disapprove the permits for these pipelines.

Tell Hillary to stop the proposed pipelines >>

That's why yesterday, ForestEthics delivered a sample of Tar Sands sludge, as well as a copy of the ad that we ran in Roll Call, DC's pre-eminent political newspaper, to Secretary Clinton. And we conducted our first-ever "Clean Energy Smell Test" right on the steps of her home-away-from-home, the State Department.

Normally, seeing is believing. But when it comes to Tar Sands, smelling is the real indicator. Imagine a strip-mined pit that literally looks like the dark side of the moon--a black moonscape reeking like a tarry toxic soup. The scent is Dow Chemical meets the Devil's suntan oil. That's the Tar Sands.

Canada is our largest oil supplier, and Tar Sands oil is increasingly what it's sending us. The pipeline that's currently up for Sec. Clinton's review, the Alberta Clipper, will extend like an 1000-mile long syringe into the US through Minnesota to Superior, Wisconsin, where it will plug into existing pipelines to get the Tar Sands to Chicago and beyond.

Secretary Clinton has had a few things to say about global warming (2,270,000 Google hits for "hillary clinton" + "global warming"), including:

"It is a threat that is global in scope but also local and national in impact. ... No issue we face today has broader long-term consequences or greater potential to alter the world for future generations." -- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, April 27, 2009

We couldn't agree more. And apparently there has been quite a debate going on at the State Department about this particular pipeline. One thing that's clear is that Secretary of State Clinton cares deeply about climate change. Approving or denying permits for this pipeline is one of her first major decisions as Secretary of State that will directly address the issue.

I hope Secretary Clinton does the right thing regarding the pipelines not just because it is important for our own green future, or for the people suffering downstream of the Tar Sands, or for what kind of world my children will inherit, but for a far more basic reason: shifting toward a greener, more just future is not one big decision. There is no moment that strikes and everything before is old and everything after is new, like in the Wizard of Oz. Life is not like that. We will make this turn towards a brighter future for our children only if we make a thousand smaller decisions in the direction of this larger goal. This is one of those decisions. And remember, pipelines are forever. Can you smell our green energy future? I sure hope Secretary Clinton can.

Comments

[Omoikane]

So much crap in your "article", so little time...
However, to get to the point, how do parasites like you get a job?
"Executive Director, ForestEthics"... Does it pay well?
Does "ForestEthics" have a VicePresident position open?... I have a son incapable to get a real job and I think he'll fit right in...

[BannedNBoston]

I hope Canada shuts down that rape of the land.
Global warming is caused by a sun cycle.
The problem with coal is production pollutes and its storage pollutes
even when it is scrubbed it still pollutes.
Coal power has tainted our lakes and streams and air.
And their is more coal sludge storage pools waiting to be flooded over the top.

[S1m0n]

Sadly, for historical reasons Canada is powerless to prevent the Alberta oil biz (all US owned since the low-dollar 80s) from raping the north. The US can act, but if it does, we build the pipeline to the Pacific and ship oil to China. Environmentally, that's worse, adding oil spills to the carbon.

[JXJASON]

I disagree with you, Todd. I think the pipeline is a good idea.

We should be thankful that Canada has the tar sands, oil and natural gas. It means that the US does not have to rely as much on oil from the mideast.

What Canada is doing is developing a resource that they have. We should do this here too. But you misguided environmentalists are causing trouble for the economy with the loss of jobs and higher energy prices.

I would like to see how the Chinese government will supply their people with more electricity without using coal. I am also in favor of developing our coal resources.

I have no respect for the people who are going to benefit from the trading of carbon credits and I have no respect for you.

[wkcraven]

For those of you less enthralled by conspiracy theories about carbon credits (wtf), I'd like to address the mideast oil thing...

Clearly, we're going to be using oil for some time to come. But I think most of us agree that the long-term answer to the question "Canadian tar sands or Mideast oil?" is "Neither".

The US is making huge investments in green jobs, a green economy, and clean energies. Increased reliance on the tar sands will undercut the cost-competitiveness of these investments-- and for the sake of our economy, as well as our future sustainability, we need them to pay off.

Unfortunately, we're already using some tar sands oil. But we don't need Hillary Clinton to permit permanent tar sands pipelines to come into the US. That will only back us into a dangerous corner, and lock us into dependence.

Also, Tar sands' production demands that conventional crude prices be very high, because the tar sands are so expensive to mine and refine. So if the market is ripe for the tar sands, you know that oil has gotten way too expensive for the rest of us!

[Joe Minten]

Todd, have you considered worrying about your own backyard first? The tar sands currently produce about 3.3 million tons of CO2 relative to your coal fired electricity generators producing 1.9 BILLION tons of CO2. For the mathematically challenged, that's 575 times as much.

[Fredfighter]

Dear Joe Minton,

What is the ratio of carbon dioxide to usable energy produced using tars sand vs coal?

[S1m0n]

Oil wins, big time. Part of the problem is that the coal gets turned into electricity, which then gets transmitted over sometimes substantial distances to market, meaning that every kilowatt actually used had one or two twins wasted on transmission loss. Some oil is lost by pipelines, but much less over similar distances.

[wkcraven]

First, ForestEthics is as much a Canadian organization as it is a US organization, so this is pretty clearly their backyard.

Second, the US is the intended marketplace for nearly all tar sands oil. The tar sands industry openly admits that the US market is critical for the viability of such a cost and energy-intensive resource.

So when it's coming to America, it's the US's business. Tar sands oil will undercut any new fuel efficiency standards we implement. It will undercut the average consumer's switch to, say, a hybrid vehicle. It's already single-handedly caused Canada to miss its Kyoto protocol targets. Which, for a country respected for its environmental consciousness as Canada, is flat-out embarrassing.

While everything is headed toward more responsible resource use, the tar sands is pushing violently against the tide.

Yes, coal is a monumental problem. But if we're looking to reduce the environmental impact of transportation-- and I'm pretty sure that the world is trying to do just that-- then we can't increase our dependence on things like the tar sands.

[lbicomber]

"The campaign is over"? From someone who obsesses constantly and continually with the Clintons, even mocking HC because she (gasp) colors her hair?

Good one.

[Henry]

Todd,
From reading your article it seems as though you think Canada is sending us tar sand sludge. This is not the case and you might think about the ethics of your presentation. The pipeline per se poses no hazard specific to this type of product that does not exist for current product. Eh?

[Fredfighter]

Henry,

It didn't look that way to me, but I suppose Todd would be well-advised to keep in
mind that literacy may not be a strong point among many of his readers.

[Know-some-secrets]

Interesting and helpful overview.

But you are making a case based on noble values. Admirable, but is it practical?

To get a better indication of what Hillary Clinton's decision may be, you might look at corporate interests who have contributed to her campaigns, corporate interests who have hired Bill Clinton at huge fees as consultant or "speaker", and donors to the Clinton "Foundation" or Global Initiative.

The key is not to advocate for what is just and right for the environement and society, admirable as that is, but to determine what is in Hillary's best short term self-interest.

[lbicomber]

Interesting innuendo and speculation. Predictable, but is it nothing more than that?

To get a better indication of what partyofone's opinions may be, you might look at corporate interests who contributed to the candidate that he claims was sent from Heaven, as compared to the candidate he is still obsessed with. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/indusall.php?cycle=2008

The key is not to advocate what is factual or just in reality, but to speculate and make innuendo based on a bitter, obsessed jealousy.

[Know-some-secrets]

I think the campaign is over. The nation elected a president. The blog and my response were about what decision the Secretary of State might make.