29 Sep How To Beat Billion $ Oil Power

From an environmental perspective there are three concerns about the expansion of the Keystone XL "Tar Sands" Pipeline: Air, Water and Habitat.

• Air. Increasing use of tar sands oil (aka bituminous sands) means relying on the dirtiest, most carbon intensive, and most energy expensive transportation oil known today.
   
• Water. Running hundreds miles of tar sands pipeline over America's most important water supply puts American drinking and agriculture at risk. 
   
• Habitat. Harvesting and transporting tar sands oil is coercive. Giant machinery, high heat, heavy water, and toxic chemicals will be used to clear cut thousands of acres of Canada's Borreal Forest, and other wildlife habitats, with the hope that native and migratory animals, natural resources, and native vegetation will be able to compensate. Tar sands materials are known to cause instantaneous ecosystem and public health damages when leaked or spilled.

From a short term economic perspective, there are two primary concerns:

• Jobs. The pipeline's expansion might bring as many as 20,000 jobs to the USA.
   
• National Security. There's enough tar sands oil in Canada to effectively replace America's reliance on Middle Eastern and other oil producing nations.

Yesterday's comments at the public hearing considering expansion of the Keystone XL "tar sands" pipeline were dominated by two groups of citizens: Local environmentalists and Jobless union members. The Enviros were largely self-motivated, without any training, having come on their own volition. Some rallied outside unbeknownst to those inside the public hearing, some spoke inside to representatives from the State Department.

The jobless Union members arrived mostly by bus. These folks were on deck and on the clock, literally. They got there early. They wore color coordinated t-shirts, spoke mostly from well-prepared talking points, and displayed high levels of confidence. They outnumbered the environmentalists. One of the day-glow shirted supporters told me they were on tour. He was being paid to get on a bus with his comrades, travel around Texas, and show his support. If Democracy is a team sport, their team is better equipped.

The Canadian Tar Sands is estimated to be worth trillions, and I mean TRILLIONS — of dollars. With a total supply about 8 times larger than that of Saudi Arabia, Canada's recoverable oil products are estimated to be capable of providing over 170 Billion barrels of oil at today's prices, an additional >1 Trillion barrels at higher prices. The U.S. consumed about 18.7 Million barrels of oil per day in 2009. This business has "long term potential."

So — based on yesterday — here are five ideas:

1) Reframe the Debate. The environmentalists were pitted against the jobless on this very public stage. We can't afford any more representations to this effect! It's disingenious, politically disastrous, and demonstrative of our lack of awareness of today's social issues. We need to: a) use the power of our environmental organizations to aggressively engage in finding or creating green jobs for Union workers and others, b) use our collective power to call on the State Department to find these people greener jobs, or c) better define which jobs we're fighting against (large corporate interests who profit wildly from environmental destruction), or d) all of the above.

2) Rethink Organizing. We need more resources invested in campaigns that promote the most effective actions, statements, and coordinations environmentalists and other volunteers from the community can achieve. I attend church and I attend rallies, but these activities (when pitted against well organized pro-business campaigns) seem to maintain the status quo.

3) Educate the Opposition. We need education that's directed at the people who understand us the least. "The media" won't help. (The media's first role is to stimulate, not educate.) In a public forumn, educating the opposition might be a great way to start, e.g., "Did you guys know that…insert quantitative and qualitative anecdotes here." …. The folks in those pipefitter unions want to earn money to cover their costs of living, having a family, enjoying their social lives, supporting their community, having fun, and keeping up with the Jones's. They're just like us. However, when they look out at the world they don't see environmental problems that threaten what they hold dear. Totally different channel, totally different language. People everywhere are saying corners need to be turned, but which ones, when, how, and at what expense to whom are the conversations we environmentalists must be prepared to engage in. Last night occasional applause did come from the Unionites for the environmental logic courageously expressed by Austin's leading environmentalists. But in general the Unionites cheered the side they were paid to be on. From an environmental campaign perspective, these Unionites are not aware of what they're fighting for.

4) Spend Your Money. We need to get serious about investing in the solutions to the issues we're passionate about. The best pro-pipeline criticism of the environmental position last night, "I hope you didn't drive here in a car, or use electricity today, or rely in any way on any of the fossil fuels that have made this country the greatest country the world has ever seen." Meeting that standard can be done, but it costs money. I drive a 100% veggie fueled diesel vehicle. No mods, just put in the fuel. My car also uses 100% animal fat based engine oil. My car requires a fraction of the fossil products of most cars depend on. This was easy to do. I eat and wear local and organic. We recycle everthing we can and minimalize packaging waste. We've kept our electricity use minimal during daylight hours this summer. We're on green electricity. . . and so on. Environmentalists need to: a) stop funding the opposition, b) support the economic growth of the alternatives to their opposition (this is an imperative), c) demonstrate the related solutions they use in their own lives every time they speak publicly ("I'm Chris and I drive a non-fossil fuel vehicle. It gets 35 mpg and runs on locally sourced biodiesel and biooil. When traveling across country I can refuel it with regular diesel or biodiesel depending on what's available…etc…").

5) Respond to the Opposition's Logic. In the case of last night Jobs & National Security. Jobs: Are the 20,000 new jobs claims overstated? Cornell University thinks so. National Security: 1) Presidents Obama and W. Bush have each stated "America needs to end its addiction to oil." From a climate perspective tar sands oil production and consumption is 1.3 to 1.7 times more carbon intensive than current oil production and consumption. Using tar sands means increasing CO2 emissions related to transportation by at least 1/3rd. Climate scientist James Hansen calls this game over for the climate. 2) The pipeline would put America's most important water source for agriculture and drinking water at risk to: human error during design, human error during installation, environmental or landscape changes, natural disasters, terrorism, and sabotage. Today's Keystone pipeline has had 12 incidents of leakage in 12 months. 3) At this scale, one mistake or accident can affect a lot of people's jobs, way of life, food chain, and well being. Think Fukushima (March 2011) and Deepwater Horizon (April 2010).

###

All in all, the argument is simple. It's dirty job creation for a very specific population (maybe 20,000 people) vs. the fate of the United States of America. The choice should be clear.

Union Supporters for the Pipeline.

Info graphics.

Ogalla Aquifer.

 

###

Submit your comments via email to the State Department.
Read Faith-based and Secular statements here on the AEN.
Images courtesy Statesman.com & Creative Commons.
See a tar sands photo gallery.