environment Politics: corporate irresponsibility fossil fuel idiots Tar Sands
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 9: The Rent Is High But It’s Not So Bad If You Don’t Pay It
The Sept. 5 Daytona News-Journal has a piece of predictable, mealy-mouthed, pipeline advocacy:
According to the Houston Chronicle, the pipeline builders have agreed to 57 provisions beyond federal environmental law that will enhance environmental protections. The Chronicle reports the extra provisions include dropping the pipeline to greater depth at river crossings and in the Ogallala Aquifer region.
Piping the oil is safer than deep-water drilling, as the spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 proves. Drilling on land and in shallow water allows for quicker resolution of spills and pipeline problems.
In Alaska, the 800-mile Trans Alaska Pipeline System has had minimal problems, transferring 16 billion barrels of oil since 1977.
Canada is already our No. 1 source of foreign oil, and our northern neighbor is booming with new finds of oil. If the U.S. turns away the 700,000 barrels a day from the tar sands, the oil is likely to be sold to China — and that won’t help the price of gasoline here.
It sounds really plausible for a moment or so. Then you remember they’re speaking on behalf of some of the world’s most notorious liars and criminals. Sent September 5:
Careful scrutiny of the claims made by advocates of the Keystone XL pipeline is revealing. For example, saying that “the project would decrease American reliance on Middle-Eastern oil” doesn’t make it so — according to a recent study from Oil Change International, the tar sands oil is destined almost entirely for overseas markets. Without stringent enforcement mechanisms, the pipeline builders’ “57 provisions beyond federal environmental law that will enhance environmental protections” is a meaningless cosmetic gesture. The oil industry’s history is chock-full of legal malfeasance, bad intentions and simple incompetence — why would any sane person trust their bland assertions that the pipeline will be completely safe? And then there is the statement, offered without qualification, that “America needs the oil.” Yeah, we need that oil — and an addictive smoker needs that cigarette. But what America (and the rest of the world) really needs is to kick the habit entirely.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: James Hansen Tar Sands
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 7: The Odds Are Better In Russian Roulette
Rebecca Buckham and Samuel Smith write in the September 1 Pennsylvania Patriot-News about their experience and motivation for committing civil disobedience at the White House over the tar sands issue:
We were arrested just before noon on Aug. 26 in Washington, D.C. What did we — two normal, law-abiding citizens — do to merit being handcuffed, searched and trundled into police wagons in front of hundreds of people at Lafayette Square?
We joined 57 other normal, law-abiding citizens in a nonviolent act of civil disobedience protesting the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline designed to bring toxic tar sands oil from Alberta, Canada, to U.S. refineries in Texas. In the week before we were arrested, 322 other citizens were arrested for participating in this tar sands action.
Approving this pipeline will reflect a decision to commit our nation to deadly fossil fuels well into our future.The nation’s foremost expert in climate science, former NASA chief James Hansen, has said that going forward with toxic tar sands oil means “game over” for our planet. If we commit ourselves to toxic tar sands oil, we put ourselves on a trajectory to turn Earth into a Venus within a few centuries.
I’ve been using that quote for a while now…and I started thinking about it a little differently. Sent September 3:
James Hansen is an exceptional public figure — a scientist of recognized integrity and towering intellectual achievement, and an unimpeachable sense of ethics and responsibility. But his recent statement that burning the oil of the Canadian tar sands would be “game over” for Earth’s climate is profoundly wrong.
Why?
Because a game can be replayed if the outcome is unsatisfactory, while a shattered climatic equilibrium will require recovery times on the order of tens of thousands of years. Dr. Hansen’s words are perhaps an attempt to convey a terrifying truth in language that’s easier for our politicians and media figures to grasp — and for that he is to be commended; America’s ADD-formed political culture is ill-equipped to deal with long-term threats. But if Earth’s future is a “game,” then our lives and those of countless generations to come are at stake — and our opponents are cheating.
Warren Senders
environment: corporate irresponsibility Tar Sands
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 6: Y’all Are A Buncha Sissies!
The September 1 issue of the Ithaca Journal (NY) has a guest columnist whose take on the Keystone XL is shrill:
The Keystone XL Pipeline Project is being proposed as a way to bring oil from the tar sands of Alberta to the refineries of the Gulf Coast. It is a project that has alarmed thousands of environmentalists and launched one of the largest acts of civil disobedience in the history of environmentalism in this country. As of Aug. 28, 381 people have been arrested and 2,100 have committed themselves to do likewise.
What has caused this concern? In the words of NASA scientist James Hansen, the pipeline is “a 1,500-mile fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet.”
Simply being another source of non-renewable petroleum is not the only concern. Turning the tar sands into usable energy makes it one of the world’s dirtiest fuels. It takes three barrels of water to create one barrel of oil. The amount needed is staggering: 400 million gallons of water per day, with 90 percent of that water going into tailing ponds which become home to a toxic sludge containing, among other things, cyanide and ammonia.
Indeed. I took advantage of their 200-word limit and let myself stretch out; I’m in a hurry tonight and didn’t have time to write a shorter letter:
The Keystone XL pipeline is much, much more than just a disaster waiting to happen. This ill-begotten project has potential for short-term environmental impacts (spills, leaks, aquifer contamination, habitat destruction), medium-term damage (deforestation and loss of carbon sequestration capability), and devastating long-term consequences (climatologist James Hansen puts it simply, saying that burning the oil in the Alberta tar sands would be “game over” for the climate). In other words, the pipeline offers us a chance to trigger catastrophes on multiple time scales, ruining lives and ecologies for years, decades, centuries and millennia.
Gosh. We must really need that oil if we’re willing to risk so many levels of destruction. Well, actually, it turns out TransCanada isn’t planning to sell that oil on the American market; a recent study from Oil Change International shows conclusively that it’s headed for overseas markets, leaving America nothing but irreversible environmental damage.
On the other hand, a few extremely wealthy oil-industry magnates are going to get even richer. Perhaps they’ll let some of that wealth trickle down on the rest of us. What could possibly go wrong?
Warren Senders
environment: assholes corporate irresponsibility idiots Tar Sands
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 5: No Problem. We’ll Do It Fast And Cheap. Just Sign Here, and We’ll Be Back At The End Of Next Week. Don’t Drive On It Until Then.
The Sept. 1 Great Falls Tribune (MT) notes that:
HELENA — A new report from a Washington, D.C., oil policy advocacy group claims that much of the oil that would be pumped through the planned Keystone XL pipeline that would pass through Montana would be bound for overseas markets rather than shoring up America’s domestic fuel supply.
(snip)
TransCanada disputes those claims, dismissing the report as “the latest concoction by activists who are trying to stop the oil stands.”
Well, they would, wouldn’t they?
Honestly, this whole project is the most obvious scam I’ve ever seen. These people remind me of fly-by-night driveway repair guys.
Sent Sept. 1:
And now there’s yet another reason to oppose the Keystone XL project. If the Canadian crude is meant for foreign sale, as the Oil Change International report states, then the only Americans likely to benefit are oil company executives and refinery operators. TransCanada’s vehement denials are hardly persuasive; the whole fossil fuel industry has a long and ugly record of mendacity, malfeasance and misrepresentation.
Extracting oil from Alberta’s tar sands is a hideously destructive process involving the destruction of huge swaths of boreal forest; the potential impact on the Earth’s climate is devastating (climatologist James Hansen simply says that the project would be “game over” for the climate). Factor in the likelihood of spills, leaks, and aquifer contamination as the crude is piped to refineries thousands of miles away, and it’s obvious: the Keystone pipeline is a recipe for short-, middle- and long-term disaster. President Obama should say no.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: aquifers corporate irresponsibility Nebraska pollution Tar Sands
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 4: My Hen Has A Tooth.
Nebraska’s Governor is a Republican, Dave Heineman. He appears to have a modicum of sense, according to the August 31 Lincoln Journal-Star:
Gov. Dave Heineman is calling on President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to deny a permit to TransCanada to build a 36-inch petroleum pipeline through the Nebraska Sandhills.
In a letter sent on Wednesday, Heineman cited concerns about potential oil spills and contamination of the Ogallala Aquifer as grounds for denial.
“I want to emphasize that I am not opposed to pipelines,” the governor said. “We already have hundreds of them in our state. I am opposed to the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline route because it is directly over the Ogallala Aquifer.”
Perhaps this will give President Obama the necessary “bipartisan” cover to do the right thing. We can hope. Sent August 31:
Governor Heineman is right on target. The Keystone XL pipeline has no business in Nebraska. While the Governor specifically cited issues of aquifer contamination and the potential for oil spills in his letter to President Obama, there are so many other arguments against the tar sands oil project it’s mind-boggling: the destruction of vast areas of Canadian forest along with its capacity to absorb carbon dioxide; the devastating environmental impact of the extraction processes; the long-term consequences for Earth’s climate (Dr. James Hansen has stated flatly that the pipeline’s impact would be irreversible and catastrophic); America’s urgent need to end its addiction to fossil fuels; the oil industry’s long history of malfeasance, incompetence and venality (why trust a proven liar?) — the list goes on and on. On the other hand, there’s exactly one argument for the pipeline: money. It’s going to make a few extremely wealthy people even richer.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: denialists idiots Republicans
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 3: If wishes were horses, there would be lots of wish-poop on the street.
The August 30 Kansas City Star reprints a column from the LA Times by Eugene Linden, called “Betting The Farm Against Climate Change.” Good stuff:
Leon Trotsky is reputed to have quipped, “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.” Substitute the words “climate change” for “war” and the quote is perfectly suited for the governors of Texas, Oklahoma and New Mexico, all of whom have ridiculed or dismissed the threat of climate change even as their states suffer record-breaking heat and drought.
In his book, “Fed Up!” Texas governor and presidential aspirant Rick Perry derided global warming as a “phony mess,” a sentiment he has expanded on in recent campaign appearances. Susana Martinez, the governor of New Mexico, has gone on record as doubting that humans influence climate, and Mary Fallin of Oklahoma dismissed research on climate change as a waste of time. Her solution to the extraordinary drought: pray for rain (an approach also endorsed by Perry).
Heh heh heh. Sent August 30:
The exigencies of Republican electoral politics have been biased toward the surreal for decades, but the current season is by far the most bizarre. Even at their most anti-intellectual moments, GOP aspirants have always offered some form of glib lip-service to American scientific achievement and technological progress. No more; the new standard is a vehement rejection of anything that requires logic, analysis or the interpretation of facts. The irrelevance of actual data to conservative philosophies of governance is unsettling; traditionally, politics is called “the art of the possible” — surely a reality-based way of putting it.
While these politicians don’t believe humans are influencing the earth’s climate, they’re absolutely certain that the inconvenient reality of catastrophic global warming will vanish if we deny it strongly enough. If refusing to accept facts actually makes them go away, perhaps we should all deny the existence of Republican politicians.
Yeah. That oughta work.
Warren Senders
environment Politics: assholes denialists idiots Republicans
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 2: Mirror, Mirror On The Wall
The August 29 Houston Chronicle reprints Paul Krugman’s shrill analysis of Republican epistemic closure:
Jon Huntsman Jr., a former Utah governor and ambassador to China, isn’t a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination. And that’s too bad, because Hunstman has been willing to say the unsayable about the GOP – namely, that it is becoming the “anti-science party.” This is an enormously important development. And it should terrify us.
To see what Huntsman means, consider recent statements by the two men who actually are serious contenders for the GOP nomination: Rick Perry and Mitt Romney.
Perry, the governor of Texas, recently made headlines by dismissing evolution as “just a theory,” one that has “got some gaps in it” – an observation that will come as news to the vast majority of biologists. But what really got peoples’ attention was what he said about climate change: “I think there are a substantial number of scientists who have manipulated data so that they will have dollars rolling into their projects. And I think we are seeing almost weekly, or even daily, scientists are coming forward and questioning the original idea that man-made global warming is what is causing the climate to change.”
Unbelievable (facepalm). Sent August 29:
Rick Perry evokes a terrifying form of nostalgia for those of us who remember another science-hostile Texan politician who occupied the White House not too long ago. His assertion that climate scientists “manipulate data” to keep “dollars rolling into their projects” may be a grotesque misinterpretation of how science works and how scientific consensus is established, but it is a perfect example of what psychologists call “projection.” Since manipulating data is how conservative politicians maintain a steady flow of cash for their own interests, he assumes that scientists are equally venal and mendacious. While there are unscrupulous climate scientists, they turn out to be the ones on the fossil fuel industry’s payroll.
In attributing his own motives to members of the scientific community, the Governor insults countless dedicated researchers who are still trying to warn an increasingly oblivious citizenry of grave and imminent dangers. Shame, shame, shame.
Warren Senders
environment: analogies hurricane media irresponsibility
by Warren
2 comments
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 9, Day 1: Variations On A Theme II
The August 28 Boston Herald addresses Irene with an AP article listing the people who’ve been killed so far along the storm’s path.
Too bad the planetary environment isn’t a missing white woman. So I sent them this version of the same concept on August 28:
If our media handled hurricanes as they’ve handled climate change over the past few decades, we’d be deafened by choruses of “hoax,” gratuitous mockery of storm warnings, and bland assertions that “scientists disagree” on the existence of tropical storms.
And if we discussed climate change the way we’re discussing Irene, our media would regularly update current threat levels, we’d disseminate advice on preparation, and plans for handling the future’s extreme weather events would be on everybody’s lips.
Extreme weather is short-term, fitting the needs of our 24-hour news cycle; climate is long-term and won’t adjust to our national case of ADD. But if we don’t substantially address climate change, the coming centuries’ news will be all weather, all the time.
Warren Senders
environment: analogies hurricane media irresponsibility
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 8, Day 31: Variation On A Theme I
The Worcester Telegram for August 28 has a routine AP article on my state’s preparation for Hurricane Irene:
BOSTON — Massachusetts prepared yesterday to get belted by Hurricane Irene as the weakened but still powerful storm spun up the East Coast, threatening to shut down bridges onto Cape Cod and dump a foot of water to the west.
Two thousand Massachusetts National Guard troops were activated Saturday, joining the 500 already deployed Friday. Meanwhile, President Obama declared a state of emergency in Massachusetts late Friday, meaning state and local storm response will be bolstered by federal aid.
I tossed off another version of my comparison for them and sent it along mid-afternoon on August 28:
If our nation talked about Irene like it’s talked about climate change, our print and broadcast media would be filled with pundits calling hurricanes a liberal hoax, sober voices agreeing that “scientific opinion is divided” on whether tropical storms actually exist, and cheerful assertions that gale-force winds and heavy flooding are actually good for us.
On the other hand, if we talked about global climate change like we’re talking about hurricane Irene, our news outlets would treat it as a legitimate emergency, updating threat levels regularly, helping people prepare for the worst, and offering perspectives on planning and preparedness for the coming centuries of extreme weather.
We can’t dismiss weather, since it happens to us every day. Climate, on the other hand, moves in years, decades, centuries and millennia, so it’s easier to ignore. Nevertheless, the threat is very real, and there is no more time to waste.
Warren Senders
environment: denialists hurricane idiots media irresponsibility
by Warren
leave a comment
Meta
SiteMeter
Brighter Planet
Year 2, Month 8, Day 30: Pay No Attention To The Cyclone Behind The Curtain
The August 26 New Jersey Star-Ledger opines about the advent of Hurricane Irene:
We can now add Hurricane Irene among the symptoms that scientists warned we’d experience as global warming occurs.
Wind of up to 100 mph, predicted to lash the East Coast. Ocean waves as high as 12 feet. That’s in line with what scientists have said, that hurricanes would become more severe as ocean temperatures rise.
The comments section is a wellspring of stupid.
Sent on August 28, just before going out to check the windows and yard for wind-susceptible debris. The storm will hit later today.
If America responded to Irene in the same way it has dealt with climate change over the past decades, our television, newspapers and talk radio would be filled with voices asserting that hurricanes are a liberal plot, dueling pundits agreeing that the “science isn’t settled” on the existence of tropical storms, and blithe platitudes about how 100 mph winds and massive tidal surges are actually good for us.
Now imagine that we responded to climate change the way we’re dealing with Irene. We’d hear about current threat levels regularly in the media. Advice on preparation would be widely disseminated; strategies for mitigating the storms of the coming centuries would be part of our national conversation.
And that’s the difference: weather can’t be ignored, while climate moves on too grand a scale for us to notice. But climate change will bring weather the likes of which we cannot imagine. Let’s get ready.
Warren Senders