Keystone XL: Liberal activists plan civil disobedience outside White House

Department of State Map

By Ryan Maue.
Free publicity:

Bill McKibben’s Call to Action:  “I want to tell you about an upcoming action — it looks set to turn into the biggest civil disobedience protest in the history of the North American climate movement. It will take place at the White House from August 20-Sept. 3, and we need your help spreading the word. But I want to explain the reasoning behind it in some detail, because for me it helps illustrate how some of the debate about Obama is unproductive.”

President Obama has recently been criticized by former VP Al Gore in his rambling Rolling Stone article.  But apparently that’s been “unproductive” and some damage control is in order.  McKibben has the perfect solution in order to lobby the President to kill the Keystone Pipeline:  “We asked people who had Obama buttons in their closets to bring them and wear them — many of us still remember the shivers that ran down our spines when he said, on the eve of his nomination, that with his election “the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet begin to heal.

The opposition to the Keystone Pipeline is not terribly difficult to figure out.  But McKibben deftly summarizes the ultimate stakes that liberal environmentalists face:

But there’s a bigger problem here too. Those Alberta tar sands are the biggest carbon bomb on the continent — indeed, on the whole planet, only Saudi Arabia’s oil deposits are bigger…if you could burn all that oil at once, you’d add 200 parts per million co2 to the atmosphere, and send the planet’s temperature skyrocketing upwards. Any serious exploitation of the tar sands, says Hansen, means it’s “essentially game over” for the climate. So, high stakes. And don’t think that the Canadians will automatically find some other route to send their oil out to, say, China. Native tribes are doing a great job of blocking a proposed pipe to the Pacific; Alberta’s energy minister said recently that he stays up nights worrying that without Keystone his province will be ‘landlocked in bitumen.’ Without the pipeline, said the business pages of Canada’s biggest paper, Alberta oil faces a ‘choke point.’

So, the Call to Action is summarized on a website, where you can go to sign up to join the effort:  Tar Sands Action

Get your best business attire, your Obama buttons, and get ready to join Danny Glover, Naomi Klein, and NASA scientist James Hansen at the White House, and help Obama “get his environmental mojo back!”

================================================================

From a political point of view, with gas prices soaring and the President in complete reelection/campaign mode, blocking the pipeline would be a huge political gift to any GOP nominee.

About these ads

149 thoughts on “Keystone XL: Liberal activists plan civil disobedience outside White House

  1. “if you could burn all that oil at once ….” How would we do that? We cannot!
    “… , you’d add 200 parts per million co2 to the atmosphere …” So the scenario is fiction.
    ” … , and send the planet’s temperature skyrocketing upwards.” … and plants would grow faster, for at least a few years .. and then the temperature would gradually fall.

    Has anyone calculated what the affect would be if it was burnt, in situ?
    How long would it take?
    Would oxygen depletion be a problem?
    How long is “at once”? Is it less than a day?
    How long would the area be in production, if exploited as expected? Decades, I would expect.

    It’s a new idea for a sci-fi film.

  2. If blocking this vital pipeline gets America free of President Obama and his wacky ideas about climate and CO2 then go ahead but I do not like playing into the arms of Hansen, and his wacky ideas, seems wrong as well.

    Pay the native Canadians more for the route of the pipeline. Money talks and they also drive cars and trucks so need the fuel.

  3. Tell you what… when I heard that 0bama had said that, a shiver ran down my spine, too… but undoubtedly for a different reason. I was well and truly terrified that an absolute MORON was about to become the President. I have seen nothing to change that assessment. Nothing. The only good thing is that his incompetence has reduced that amount of damage he could do.

    As a resident of Alberta, and someone employed in a secondary oil-related industry (NDT, which for Alberta means a lot of oil industry work like pipelines), I see what is happening. Tens of thousands of people are literally in limbo, waiting to hear what is going to happen. Jobs are scarce where they should be plentiful. And don’t believe Hansen’s ridiculous wet dream about natives blocking a pipeline to the coast. If that’s in our interest, it WILL happen. Our Prime Minister is an Alberta man.

    China will buy our oil, and not all of the insane ranting (er, demonstrating) or stupid antics or greenpeace watermelon signs hanging from our tallest buildings will stop us from selling it to them. This is an industry, not a stupid little game like windmills or solar panels. Billions of people owe their way of life, or their life itself, to the product we pump out of the ground, or dig out with giant earthmovers, or frac out of the rocks themselves.

    “Climate Movement”. Yeah, hansen, keep it up. You’re your own worst enemy. You have just confirmed that it’s political. Science doesn’t have “movements”, but politics does. Nothing says ignorance (and anti-science) like trying to block the supply of energy.

  4. “[...] many of us still remember the shivers that ran down our spines when he said, on the eve of his nomination, that with his election “the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet begin to heal.“
    ==============================================
    (re: the bolded)
    Some people put w-a-a-y too much faith in politicians…

    (re: the italicized)
    … but in this case, the oceans’ rise has slowed, so we can all move on now. Mission accomplished and we don’t have to spend another nickel on it.

  5. So, what amounts to a 50% rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will now

    send the planet’s temperature skyrocketing upwards.

    What is this magical figure the temperature rocket might reach? We can’t even find agreement on what a doubling of CO2 will mean, if anything let alone what half of this will. I think a 50% rise might well be quite pleasant for both the plants and people like myself who endure 300 days a year of cold and rain.

  6. It’s funny to watch somebody thinking China will have nothing to burn if they don’t let them use America oil.
    I think they’ll be happy if America saves that oil because it’ll be there ready for them to use aftrer they buy America.

  7. A few months ago McKibben was in Vancouver holding a protest about bringing oil to the coast. I saw it on the news. There was a large group of people with him. I counted about 6 people. Maybe the camera wasn’t setup for a wide angle shot.

  8. @ Iggsy 0132July12. I take that a cessation in the rise of the Ocean concurrent with the election of POTUS is proof that correlation is not confirmation?

  9. All those protesters, all that unnecessary so called “Carbon Footprinting”. Utter waste of time and money and electricity/gas etc. Stay at home and chill out.

    200 extra parts per million CO2 by destroying all oil/tar sand deposits will do diddley squat to the climate, it will however make trees/vegetation grow faster and if the biofuel scam is stopped there will be food for this planet and other ones as well. Build more efficient petrol engines and scrap silly electric toy cars and wind farms and develop Thorium based Nuclear Power plants and we can survive the heat/cold that this planet throws our way. Oil reserves will last for ages if controlled and Arnie sells his Hummer! Nothing so far has exceeded previous centuries extreme [and natural] weather events. 24 hour breaking news and Green Hysteria needs unplugging and soon.

  10. Financial Post: U.S. foundations against the oil sands
    The Tides Foundation has spent $6-million to fund green lobbies
    By Vivian Krause
    14 oct 2010, updated 27 Jan 2011
    Like most protests, the one against oil tankers has all the look and feel of a Canadian grassroots movement. The campaign against Alberta’s oil sands also seems to rise out of the people, but the interesting thing is that there are very few roots under that grass. Money comes in from a small core of U.S. charitable groups. One of those groups — the U.S. Tides Foundation of California (Tides U.S.) and its Canadian counterpart have paid millions to at least 36 campaign organizations. (See list below.)…

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/14/u-s-foundations-against-the-oil-sands/#more-6315

  11. Examine McKibben’s claim that burning all the oil sands would add 200 ppm of CO2 to the atmosphere… (And leaving aside how many years it would take to access all of that, plus the fact that it would displace other energy sources to a certain extent, not just add to them.)

    Canada’s oil reserves are 175 billion barrels. Source: EIA http://www.eia.gov/countries/country-data.cfm?fips=CA

    One barrel is 42 gallons. Just to bound the problem, assume that each gallon of oil is refined to one gallon of gasoline. [It isn't, of course, this will overestimate emissions.] Burning one gallon of gasoline creates about 9 kg CO2.

    This means the entirety of Canadian reserves, if combusted, would create a maximum of around 76 Gt of CO2. [One gigatonne = 10^9 tonnes = 10^12 kg.]

    I’ll want to compare to IPCC figures which are in terms of the mass of carbon, not carbon dioxide, so let’s compute the mass of carbon in 76 Pg of CO2 as 12/44*76 GtCO2 = 20 GtC.

    IPCC’s AR4 WG1, figure 7.3 (the global carbon cycle, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html ) shows approximate atmospheric content of 760 GtC; as that is equivalent to around 380 ppmV CO2 (neglecting non-CO2 compounds), each 2 GtC represents about 1 ppmV of CO2.

    Bottom line: burning *all* of Canada’s oil reserves, not just tar sands, would produce about 20 GtC in emissions, increasing atmospheric pCO2 by about 10 ppm. Doesn’t seem to match McKibben’s 200 ppm.

    Corrections?

  12. Ref. Coldfinger

    It’s a Religion. It’s real, scientific, 150% RELIGION! They know that if they don’t stop this or that or whatever that they’re going to Hell. I find it very interesting. Most are against any formal, established faith except their own. And many are athieists, too. Shame so many of their tracts and bibles are in our public schools. Understand Pope Gore I is appointing bishops by the busload these days and selling indulgences as fast as he can print them.

  13. Dear Moderator,
    I’ve just seen an advert for 1millionwomen.com.au.
    This is a new development in the carbon tax media campaign.
    The by line is something slushy about women caring enough to
    save the planet from climate change. I kid you not.
    Clever move.
    Do you think we skeptics could get the ladies on our side?

  14. …if you could burn all that oil at once,

    Gee. Where do I apply for an admission ticket?

  15. These people have never heard of rail for transporting oil? Sure, a pipeline would probably be the least expensive option, but rail lines already exist that head east, south, and west. Use all three; certainly the success of this project doesn’t hing on constructing a pipeline, does it?

    http://www.canadamapxl.com/rail-map.html

  16. Will Jon Henson have the moral fiber to take a leave of absence from work and stop drawing a taxpayer paycheck? Probably not. The enlightened, like him, can live rich and fat at our expense. The rules for the enlightened are different.

  17. … many of us still remember the shivers that ran down our spines when he said, on the eve of his nomination, that with his election “the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet begin to heal.”

    Hmm, I remember the shiver when he promised greatly higher electricty prices. My wallet remembers the soaring gasoline prices that came with his election.

  18. Climate is just a smokescreen for the protest. The ultimate goal is world socialism and redistribution of wealth.

  19. Reading this nonsense made me feel as if I had wandered onto the set for a silly anti-science but scary movie… What planet does McKibben inhabit?

  20. RobertvdL says:
    July 12, 2011 at 2:27 am

    Anthony
    I don’t understand this article. WUWT is for or against the pipeline. I myself am in favor of the pipeline.

    It’s just a sign that Anthony and his other authors are in favor of discussing nearly all aspects of the climate debate. As long as McKibben stays away from linking chemtrails to climate disruption, he’ll remain a good chuckle or two here.

    I don’t understand why you addressed your comment to Anthony, the post is by Ryan Maue and it looks like he just copied a press release or flyer. Or a Huffington Post web page. The “Posted on” byline simply records who made the post, they aren’t screened by Anthony.

    Nor do I understand the flyer’s “It will take place at the White House.” If I go, can I get the Lincoln bedroom or does McKibben have first dibs on that?

  21. @pat: I found this bit most interesting: “U.S. tax returns and public records show that Tides U.S. and charities based in California and New York have granted US$15-million since 2003 specifically for campaigns against Alberta oil and against oil tanker traffic and pipelines through British Columbia.”

    Now imagine offshore foundations backed by foreign money would spend $15 million in the US to campaign for the construction of the pipeline. That would get close to a casus belli.

  22. Coldfinger is exactly right–activism and protest is a necessity–a way of life–for these folks. If all fossil fuels were banned…if carbon was finally declared illegal…they would find a new agenda; a new idol to worship.

  23. 9.2% Unemployment. Check.
    $1.5 Trillion deficit and getting bigger. Check.
    No end in site to out of control Congressional spending. Check.
    A nation and economy following Greece & Italy down the financial garden path. Check.

    An opportunity to create jobs, wealth and secure a very secure energy source from a friendly allied nation. Nahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . . we don’t wanna do that.

    Time for Barry to urinate, flatulate or get off his throne.

  24. Robert Hirsch shows the rapidly impending decline of LIGHT oil will directly cause very severe economic depression until alternatives can be brought on line. See videos: Oil decline vs Climate Change Robert L. Hirsch Pt 01 , The Canadian Oil Sands with Robert L. Hirsch Pt 21 etc.
    GDP is tightly connected to Oil supply growth.
    Hirsch warns of impending Oil & GDP decline
    Stopping or slowing the Keystone XL pipeline will directly:
    INCREASE US fuel costs
    INCREASE US fuel shortages
    INCREASE US Unemployment
    INCREASE Debt & Interest
    DAMAGE the US & World Economy
    VERY SOON!
    Oil sands is much better than “having nothing”!

    The Impending World Energy Mess. ASPO 2011 Presentation pdf, Video

    We are already more than 20 years too late to avoid serious economic depression – for lack of preparation – by focusing on the chimera of “climate change” aka “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming”. See the “Hirsch Report” DOE 2005.

    Lloyds of London and the US DOD have warned that we will likely experience global fuel shortages in 2012-2015 time frame.
    Sustainable Energy Security Lloyds 360, 2010
    The JOE 2010, US Joint Operating Environment, DOD

    See other videos on: Robert Hirsch Oil

  25. A Canuck here.

    I actually hope they block the pipeline and ban the purchase of ‘dirty oil’ by the US.

    That way, we’ll build a pipeline westward and sell all the oil we can make to the Chinese.

  26. If this irresponsible and selfish action causes the US people to take a different look at environmentalists, and therefore makes it easier to amend the Clean Air Act, bring it on!

  27. Correction: News of JOE 2010, The JOE 2010 pdf

    Due to rising domestic consumption in exporting countries, Brown & Foucher & Silveus warn that available Global Net Oil Exports will decline much faster than oil depletion. The rapid change from rising consumption to declining available oil exports will hit oil importing countries the hardest, especially the USA and Europe. See Peak Oil Versus Peak Net Exports–Which Should We Be More Concerned About? ASPO 2010

    IEA warns that crude oil peaked in 2006 and it projects NO increase in crude oil in the future.
    Global Net Oil Exports Peaked in 2005!
    Global Net Oil Exports Less Chindia’s Combined Net Oil Imports = ANE

    (BP + Minor EIA data, mbpd) :
    2002: 39 – 3.5* = 35.5 (ANE)

    2003: 42 – 4.0 = 37.4

    2004: 45 – 5.1 = 39.9
    
2005: 46 – 5.2 = 40.8 

    2006: 46 – 5.5 = 40.5
    
2007: 45 – 6.1 = 38.9

    2008: 45 – 6.6 = 38.4

    2009: 43 – 7.3 = 35.7
    2010: 44 – 8 = 36**
    *Chindia’s combined net oil imports **Estimated

    That likely triggered/amplified the 2008 economic crisis.

    Global net exports are already down 12% in 5 years!

  28. In June, 2008, Mr. Obama proclaimed- “…this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal…”

    Since taking office, the President can already claim that he has single-handedly made dramatic impacts on climate-relevant trends:

    -Sea level rise has decelerated.
    -Ocean heat content has not increased.
    -Global surface temperatures have come back down after tamping back President Bush’s temperature increases in the pipeline.
    -Arctic sea ice anomalies have stabilized.
    -The last 2 winters in the US have been gloriously cool.
    -There have been no hurricane landfalls in the US.
    -Global ACE remains near its lowest level since the 1970′s.
    -The winter northern hemisphere snow cover extent has increased dramatically.
    -Lake Powell water levels have risen dramatically.

    Yet McKibben insists on carbon pollution policies that have nothing to do with pollution and will have no impact on climate.

    I am starting to suspect that McKibben and Hansen are reality deniers, paid by BIG GREEN to deliberately ignore the observational data of a healing climate that has been delivered by our Dear Leader…

  29. “Shivers down spines”? Poor people (I feel sorry for them), but it looks like Keystone will be a needed USA jobs program at 13 Billion, and good for TX economy esp., as well as reducing fuel costs (or at least, slow the inflation of), which are very hard on rural poor. As for the import of tar-sands and CO2 endgame, did they notice the recent Russian announcement of troop deployment (2 brigades) in the (claimed) Arctic, with respect to oil/gas rights-that is a similar scale field that seems to have flown under the radar.

  30. “it looks set to turn into the biggest civil disobedience protest in the history of the North American climate movement.”
    August 20-Sept. 3, of course, is when they can count on plenty of useful idiots college students. I guess he hopes that by hyping it as such, there will be a bandwagon effect. Oh yeah, “business attire”. That is rich. As if they have any.
    This will put Obama in an uncomfortable lose/lose position. Should be fun.

  31. Start a counter protest saying these people want you to pay $10 a gallon in gas, and that this is to stop you from being available to buy cheap fuel in the future.

  32. Err kind of closing the door after the horse (electric car???) has bolted. Canada already has a pipe-line to the Pacific terminating in Vancouver. The option to build another one to Prince Rupert is mainly for convenience. Its (marginaly) closer to the tar sands and is a deep water port so is much safer to bring tankers in. Oh well guess the enviros don’t care about issues like safety and efficiency. If China doesn’t get it from us it will get it from – yep – any dodgy autocratic, kleptocratic government it can. I wonder how much of the junk in Mr. McKibbens’ garage was made in China? I wonder if he sees the irony in the fact that the West, and the US consumer in particular, payed for the construction of the manufacturing power-house that is now China. If he thinks that stopping one pipe-line will do anything but increase the cost of fuel to his own people he is in denial (oops I said the d-word). So far France, Korea, Norway, the UK, the USA and China have all bought a piece of the black, sticky Alberta pie. Who is the biggest foreign investor in the tar sands?, its not the US.

  33. I’ve thought of a little civil disobedience myself: how about a few hundred people sneak CFLs into Congress and break them on the floor? The subsequent EPA panic and mercury cleanup would bring to light the absolute stupidity of forcing those things into American households. Heck, just breaking them on the sidewalk outside of the White House would be close enough to make the point.

  34. Like CodeTech stated above, I too am an Alberta resident and worked at the Oil Sands quite a few years ago(in the pay of big oil!!), and the oil will get to the West Coast…If the natives block it going to Prince Rupert, they will head the pipeline down to Vancouver, so if the natives are smart (and they are!) they will broker a deal.
    Another spin off of this too, will be if we have China then buying up the oil, we will not be tied to the price (West Texas Int. Crude price)…

  35. I recently read this comment in a local blog:

    “The 2009 (published in 2010) study that showed 97+% agreement on human-caused climate change being a serious problem was a survey of thousands of papers written by the hundreds of scientists who had published 20 or more peer-reviewed papers on climate science. They included every scientist who had published 20+ papers on climate science. Those are the real experts. Every one of those papers included real science — the testing of hypotheses with real, hard evidence and original research. The consensus is scientific; the controversy is political.”

    Can anyone point me to a credible study refuting this “concensus”?

  36. Alberta has oil sand, not tar sand. If this is not understood, the situation is not understood.

  37. The Canadian/Albertan tar sands paradigm presently doesn’t make logical sense, when using natural gas for the heat/steam generation. This must be upgraded to nuclear power, which is the configuration that makes more ANY sense. Using vast quantities of natural gas is akin to a snake eating its own tail. When will we ever learn? GK

  38. Of all the loons in the loony bin this guy is by far the looniest.
    From the article “know that above 350 parts per million co2 in the atmosphere you can’t have, in the words of NASA climatologist James Hansen, “a planet similar to the one on which civilization evolved and to which life on earth is adapted.”

  39. The US and other countries continue to invest in the same “green power” technologies that have been tried and tried again and failed. Wind and solar are inherently uncompetitive because they are intermittent and thus not suited to any economy that needs reliable power. It is pie in the sky thinking that that this will magically change. The available storage solutions are extremely inefficient and further increases the already uncompetitive costs.

    The single most obvious choice for green power is nuclear. However, the current designs are heavily influenced by military requirements, including weapons production. As such, they cannot be considered optimum for civilian use. They are many alternative designs that do not suffer from these problems.

    The problem for any company wishing to install a nuclear reactor is the regulatory hurdles. Standardized, certified design are required. The US has in the past used Manhattan / moon landing style projects to develop solutions to similar problems.

    The problem is that some very large and influential players in the US nuclear industry have a vested interest in their current designs and are not likely to support any move to introduce and certify safer designs.

  40. If the US doesn’t want the Keystone oil pipeline they can always get their oil from the Middle East instead of Canada. How has that strategy been working for you so far?

  41. As a Canadian I feel two things about this pipeline.

    1) After our soldiers have fought together in so many wars, you prefer oil from Saudi Arabia? Its not like you can just stop importing oil … so why not buy ours?

    2) This century belongs to China and India. Americans are screwed. We will sell the oil to Asia if you don’t want it.

  42. I often wonder if “Ole Crazy Eyes” McKibben ever gives thanks to the veteran’s that have sacrificed so much to protect his right to attempt “mobocratic rule”?

  43. Midwest Mark says:
    July 12, 2011 at 5:35 am
    “Coldfinger is exactly right–activism and protest is a necessity–a way of life–for these folks. If all fossil fuels were banned…if carbon was finally declared illegal…they would find a new agenda; a new idol to worship.”

    It’s called the “Messianic Kommissarr Complex.” It causes extreme agitation in those who suffer from it and live in a country that has no official positions for Kommissarrs.

  44. So, August 20 – September 3 is two weeks. Is Hanson using vacation time? Surely he’s not on NASA’s time?

  45. Countdown to $100 oil – a date with history?

    Over the course of world history the average annual oil price has peaked to values close to $100 (adjusted to $2009) on only two occasions in 1979 and 2008 (data from BP 2010). On each occasion, deep recessions followed. . . .
    At time of writing (7th July) the annual average for Brent was $95.4, on course to breach $100 some time in September.. . .
    The source of real worry for national governments should be the observation that the cost of producing new oil reserves is fast approaching this notional $100 threshold.. . .
    Hamilton (2011) observes links between oil shocks and economic downturn in each post WWII oil crisis 1956/57; 1973/74; 1978/79; 1990/91 and 2007/08.

    These alarmists will directly harm YOUR income!
    What are YOU going to do about it?

  46. So, what about the oil that was recently released from the strategic petroleum reserve by the Obama administration? Doesn’t that oil release CO2 when it’s burned as well? Why no protest over that?

  47. If you want to kill that mastodon, it will be 10 sea shells.
    If you want the drought to end, it will be five chickens.
    If you want more rain and warmer, throw a virgin in the fire……

    …..there have always been people that believe this crap

    That’s why there’s so much money in it…………….

  48. GK: “The Canadian/Albertan tar sands paradigm presently doesn’t make logical sense, when using natural gas for the heat/steam generation. This must be upgraded to nuclear power, which is the configuration that makes more ANY sense. ”

    NG is really, really cheap. And Canada has vast quantities of it. Nuclear is really, really expensive. And Oil is worth a lot of money.

    I heard 1 billion cu ft of NG per day = 1,000,000 X 1000/cu.ft to produce 2,000,000 bbl/day
    Gas is around 4$ per 1000cu.ft.
    4 million dollars in NG per day to produce 200 million worth of oil.

    2%

  49. Much better that they buy their oil from all of those “friendly” dictatorships, for sure….

  50. Fracking for Shale Gas and climate is over: see the lobbying at the European scale…
    Oil sands exploitation and climate is over…
    If we find anything else that does not reward the carbototalitarians, climate will be over and this source of energy will be vilified…
    In Canada, the organ of green propaganda The Thomson Reuters Globe and Mail is featuring this McKibben and some TD bank economist to tell us “Canadians should not take electricity for granted”… sounds like UK’s Holliday’s statement…
    It’s seasonal as soon as temperatures in Toronto are over 30C… Global warming advocacy…

  51. DCA says:
    July 12, 2011 at 7:23 am

    A double standard is applied here. There are lots of peer reviewed journal articles on global warming or whatever you want to call it. That fact is then used to support the outrageous claims of global warming activists that we (the world?) must undertake extreme mitigation strategies (Great Depression producing strategies) now to save the lives of billions of people in the next twenty years or so.

    Does anyone actually believe that the peer reviewed journal articles contain the outrageous claim of the Warmista? Claims that imply it? Of course not!

    See the double standard. The peer reviewed journal articles are cited as evidence for an outrageous claim that they do not contain.

    Try the experiment of finding just those peer reviewed journal articles that contain the outrageous claim. You will be able to count them on your fingers.

  52. “[...] if you could burn all that oil at once [...]“

    If my granny had wheels, she’d be a wagon.
    ===============================================
    @Ken Harvey says:
    July 12, 2011 at 4:03 am
    (also commenting re burning all that oil all at once)

    “Gee. Where do I apply for an admission ticket?”

    LOL! (And you would not believe how far back the first row seats are!)

  53. Notice that Danny Glover, in opposing this project is directly benefiting Hugo Chavez who most stands to benifit if the pipeline is not built. Hugo frequently drops Danny’s name when justifying justify his dictatorship in Venezuela. Danny and Sean Penn are Hugo’s favorite “usefull idiots”.
    Picture Danny on Hugo’s knee and Chavez’s lips not moving when you listen to Glover.

  54. HOw do they manage to keep Hansen? He’s definitely not doing his job if he’s out spreading hate and fear most of the time. I bet this is not part of his job description, although, as they obviously allow his behavior, they clearly do not mind it.

    He’s nothing but A GOVERNMENT PAID HACK for the global warming scam. I am all for free speech but he is breaking the law by perpetuating a scam and a con job.

  55. It is not the goal of worldwide socialism, it is totalitarianism, and it is coming from the right and the left. The most effective way to accomplish this is to get the masses of liberal and conservative sheep fighting among themselves. Extreme right and extreme left are the alpha and the omega, or endpoint, of the circular path towards totalitarianism.

  56. Here in Alberta, we the ordinary people don’t really give a damn of those clueless eco-zealots down in the United States. They’re just a distraction. China and India, along with other developing (make that ‘surging’) markets, will be more than happy to get their oil in the coming decades from one of the friendliest, dependable, and environmentally-responsible and realistic places on Earth. Thank you.

  57. Why glorify this sideshow by calling it “civil disobedience?” It is nothing of the sort. It’s a street demonstration by a few crackpots that is designed to trigger press reports. No doubt it will, because the media are wacko, too.

  58. This infuriates me! I work in the OIL SANDS! Tar, Hansen, is a MAN MADE substance modified from pitch (resin) produced primarily from the wood and roots of pine by destructive distillation under pyrolysis. Like everything else Hansen touches and has no clue about – including climate, sea level, etc., he has no clue about oil sands. And yes, Hansen, the oil sands are the single largest NATURAL oil spill in history produced by nature itself. We are cleaning it up and selling said oil which is in the soil. That was there long before white man and AGW fanatics were ever born or set foot in North America.

    I challenge Hansen or any other eco-nut to visit and see for him or themselves oil leeching into the rivers in this region from natural run off from rain/snow/blowing sand. Oil leeching up from underground in our rivers every minute of ever day for millions of years. We have 58 air quality monitoring 24/7/365 throughout the region and our air is far better than any in any city in the world. Our carbon footprint is the exact same as in the California heavy oil industry. All the oil sands companies together have planted 25 million trees and growing. Our total working area for all oil sands projects is smaller than the City Of Edmonton, Alberta, a city of 1.5 million people. We have more than 100 water monitoring quality stations in this area.

    The Keystone Pipeline is there for American if THEY wish to buy our oil. We do NOT force Americans to use our oil – they do so because of their need. Just refuse the Keystone Pipeline and we’ll pipe to the west coast and sell to China. And YES China is NOW here in the oil sands in a massive way with money and paying billions for oil sands companies – while America on our doorstep sleeps. What is wrong with this picture? While America can choose to be held captive to Middle East oil as America is at this point in time. We already ship 2+ million barrels a day of Alberta crude south of the border. 14 other nations have bought into the oil sands – believe me we have all the customers we need and then some.

  59. @ HaroldW says:
    July 12, 2011 at 3:25 am

    Harold, calculations might be ok … but your 175B barrels starting point is probably wrong … do these “proved reserves” include the tar sands ? …

    I’m no specialist, but according to Wikipedia, the “Oil sands may represent as much as two-thirds of the world’s total “liquid” hydrocarbon resource, with at least 1.7 trillion barrels (270×10E9 m3) in the Canadian Athabasca Oil Sands (assuming a 10% recovery)” … ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands. )

    McKibben is most probably no mathematical genius (none of them are …), but in this, the order of magnitude is probably more his than yours …

    :-)

  60. I certainly hope that during the biggest civil disobedience protest in the history of the North American climate movement, no-one would be so disobedient as to get themselves arrested.

    Oh! I see that NASA scientist James Hansen is attending. I hope his holiday pass has been signed off.

  61. DCA – stick around, the authors, themselves, agreed that there were only @77 (IIRC) suitable respondents from the thousands polled. 70ish. Pared down democracy in action ;-)

    Also, as Theo says, there are no peer-reviewed papers providing any evidence that mankind’s additional CO2 caused any warming. If there were a silver bullet on either side of this “debate” the losers would be quietly sulking and the victors crowing loudly.

  62. Mingy says:
    July 12, 2011 at 6:04 am

    “A Canuck here.
    I actually hope they block the pipeline and ban the purchase of ‘dirty oil’ by the US.
    That way, we’ll build a pipeline westward and sell all the oil we can make to the Chinese.”

    yes, Canada should do that anyway….if you get a crooked gov’t like the current one down here, who knows what they’ll try(threats?) to get Canada to lower the price of that oil(our current crop of pols will do anything to stay in power)….always helps to have a second outlet for a truly free mkt…

  63. Ha Ha Ha!

    I hope these “Civil Disobedience” types find out what “Executive Privilege” is all about.

    I completely disdain B.O. However, he has as much RIGHT to Presidential Security as any Rep. Pres, or any other President had.

    Hope he has to use it.

    Marvelous irony.

    Max

  64. Lets get some real facts on the table. Canada pumps out 0.02% of the total CO2 on the planet. That is Canada in its entirety. The oil sands pump out 5% of 2% of Canadian CO2 – that amounts to 0.001. In comparison – Power generation 16% of 2%, Transportation 27% of 2%, All other 52% of 2%.

    Let’s look at deforestation next. Alberta oil sands (over 40 years): 602 square k. Replanted 25 million trees. Now home to bison, deer, moose, fox, etc., etc.,

    Quebec – James Bay Hydro project, the eco-fanatics “green” treasure – 9,700 sq.k. Which project killed more environment? Which project killed an entire river system, it’s fish migratory patterns, drowned more land, changed an entire eco system? And at the end of the day have the same CO2 output?

  65. The TransCanada pipeline currently ships half a million barrels a day to the US. The Keystone expansion would increase this by another half million. In 2008, the last year statistics are available, Canada was shipping 1.5 billion barrels per day to the US.

    The comments about “dirty oil” are laughable. How do these activists know what percentage of the pipeline oil is dirty oil from the tar sands? Furthermore, how do they know how much of this oil is the dirtiest dirty oil, comprising the 20% of total tar sands production that is extracted from open pit mining? Wouldn’t the dirty oil contaminate the “clean oil?” It seems the American public would be encouraged to cut off Canada’s oil supply all together, lest they be accused of hypocrisy.

    As an Albertan, I would be happy with keeping all of our oil. It makes more sense to me that we sell a small percentage of it and save the rest for when it is really needed. Our provincial government has not operated in our best interests. They have opened the door for oil and gas exploration without the most beneficial system of pay back to Albertans and by extension all Canadians. Our federal government owns surface land rights, therefore the public is powerless to stop the infiltration of oil and gas development. The industry creates jobs and brings wealth to our government, but all at a cost to the people who live here. Meanwhile, the majority of Alberta oil is getting shipped south of the border.

    The activists quoted in this article decry the environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline. They should take a look at the province of Alberta. It is a patchwork of pipelines covered by a rash of gas wells. Many oil and gas companies building gas wells in our backyards or crossing them with pipelines are American companies. Production in the Alberta oil sands is now dominated by foreign companies. It was the American goverment who recently petitioned for a fivefold increase in dirty oil sands production.

    A study of NAFTA shows that in the event of a national emergency, the American government can usurp Canadians access to our own natural resources. Thus, it can be argued that Americans own the pipeline not Canadians. Secretary of State Clinton understands this which is no doubt why she supports extension of the pipeline to double its capacity. All the activists’ can hope to accomplish is delaying the inevitable. Although, I really do wish them success.

  66. The TransCanada pipeline currently ships half a million barrels a day to the US. The Keystone expansion would increase this by another half million. In 2008, the last year statistics are available, Canada was shipping 1.5 billion barrels per day to the US.

    The comments about “dirty oil” are laughable. How do these activists know what percentage of the pipeline oil is dirty oil from the tar sands? Furthermore, how do they know how much of this oil is the dirtiest dirty oil, comprising the 20% of total tar sands production that is extracted from open pit mining? Wouldn’t the dirty oil contaminate the “clean oil?” It seems the American public would be encouraged to cut off Canada’s oil supply all together, lest they be accused of hypocrisy.

    As an Albertan, I would be happy with keeping all of our oil. It makes more sense to me that we sell a small percentage of it and save the rest for when it is really needed. Our provincial government has not operated in our best interests. They have opened the door for oil and gas exploration without the most beneficial system of pay back to Albertans and by extension all Canadians. Our federal government owns surface land rights, therefore the public is powerless to stop the infiltration of oil and gas development. The industry creates jobs and brings wealth to our government, but all at a cost to the people who live here. Meanwhile, the majority of Alberta oil is getting shipped south of the border.

    The activists quoted in this article decry the environmental impact of the Keystone pipeline. They should take a look at the province of Alberta. It is a patchwork of pipelines covered by a rash of gas wells. Many oil and gas companies building gas wells in our backyards or crossing them with pipelines are American companies. Production in the Alberta oil sands is now dominated by foreign companies. The American government recently petitioned for a fivefold increase in dirty oil sands production.

    A study of NAFTA shows that in the event of a national emergency, the American government can usurp Canadians access to our own natural resources. Thus, it can be argued that Americans own the pipeline not Canadians. Secretary of State Clinton understands this which is no doubt why she supports extension of the pipeline to double its capacity. All the activists’ can hope to accomplish is delaying the inevitable. Although, I really do wish them success.

  67. “Those Alberta tar sands are the biggest carbon bomb on the continent — indeed, on the whole planet, only Saudi Arabia’s oil deposits are bigger”

    Bill McKibben’s intentions may be pure, but this makes him an official Saudi tool. In effect, he is lobbying on their behalf for free (we hope). If his efforts are successful, only they will benefit. I’m sure they are secretly cheering him on.

  68. The sign-up form for potential participants in the U.S. leg of the
    “tar sands” protest is interesting:

    http://www.tarsandsaction.org

    You give your name, zip code, *e-mail address, and your phone
    number. There’s no explaination given or implied as to what the
    asterisk indicates.

    There’s an “I’ll abide by the rules” box to check… and it wraps up
    with a check for “Who was President when you were born ?”.

    Once the spurious “Mickey Mouse” signups, the faux phone numbers,
    and the too-young participants (born during the Obama, G.W. Bush and
    Clinton administrations) are culled from the herd, you have a start on a
    list of issue-interested, internet articulate folks who can be contacted
    for other issues on down the line.

    They pick up your more-or-less permanent home zip and e-mail
    addresses, which can be used as a family income identifiers through
    Census data. It also gives a “blue” or “red” indicator on local and
    state/national political party affiliation intensities in your area.

    The odds are good that once you’ve filled in the form, you’ll be
    contacted by regional or local special interest organizations
    concerning issues, candidates, civil “actions” and other fun
    political stuff. Organizations can sell or swap lists so generated
    for years to come.

    I’m betting someone has a stash of old Obama buttons for the
    “tar sands” protesters… or a badge-a-minute set up to produce
    them on an as needed basis during the “action”. A lot of folks
    in my area have Hillary Clinton buttons, which won’t cut it in
    photo ops during the protestations.

    We are in the not-so-early phases of the 2012 Presidential
    election cycle.

    Will Al Gore be there ?

  69. @DCA:

    I recently read this comment in a local blog:

    “The 2009 (published in 2010) study that showed 97+% agreement on human-caused climate change being a serious problem was a survey of thousands of papers written by the hundreds of scientists who had published 20 or more peer-reviewed papers on climate science. They included every scientist who had published 20+ papers on climate science. Those are the real experts. Every one of those papers included real science — the testing of hypotheses with real, hard evidence and original research. The consensus is scientific; the controversy is political.”

    Can anyone point me to a credible study refuting this “concensus”?

    Well, first off, can the author of that comment provide evidence that this “study” exists in the first place? Not knowing exactly what’s in it makes it impossible to refute it.

    Secondly, argument by authority doesn’t fly. How many papers ones publishes is not proof of anything but the ability to write papers quickly. Not every peer-reviewed paper is correct anyway, and with the collusion in the reviewing process that’s been documented within the climate science field, “peer review” doesn’t mean all that much any more. As Einstein said before, it doesn’t matter how many people agree with something, it only takes one person to prove it wrong.

    Thirdly, in a field like climate science it’s difficult to perform experiments. Similar to how it’s done in astronomy and geology, prediction followed by observation usually stand in for lab work, in that one can’t raise the atmospheric CO2 to 500ppm and observe the results — and doing so in a controlled environment utterly fails to reproduce the chaotic conditions of the natural state of the climate. What you usually get instead are climate model results that then get interpreted by the media and alarmists and non-scientists in general as “evidence,” when they actually ARE the predictions whose validity needs to be determined.

    The hard facts are actually few on the ground: the Earth has warmed over the past 150-200 years — but not in the manner predicted by the climate models. The hot spot that was a cornerstone of global warming predictions has never appeared. The oceans are not rising at the rate predicted by the models. Ice is not uniformly disappearing at the poles: the north is losing somewhat but the south is gaining. Hurricane frequency is not increasing. Most of the other things you read are the dire predictions of people with an agenda.

    My degree is in geology. One thing I do know is that the Earth’s climate has waxed and waned constantly over her 4+ BY history, and even in the last 10MY — a wink of time, geologically. I know that CO2 has hit 5000ppm in the past, and there were ice ages at the time. The mere fact that CO2 has been so high, and then so low again, is proof positive that there are built-in climate feedback systems that prevent it from “running away” — and there’s no reason to presume that they aren’t still working today.

  70. McKibben and his fellow travellers would prefer that oil be purchased from dictatorships and terrorist hell holes like Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Iran, Russia, Venezuela, Sudan, etc instead of liberal, democratic, human rights-respecting Canada?

  71. TATS says:
    July 12, 2011 at 9:25 am

    It is not the goal of worldwide socialism, it is totalitarianism,………
    ============================================================
    True, and I don’t disagree with the rest of your posit, but it should be pointed out, that totalitarianism, goal or not, is the end result of worldwide socialism.

  72. DCA says:
    July 12, 2011 at 7:23 am

    I recently read this comment in a local blog:

    “The 2009 (published in 2010) study that showed 97+% agreement on human-caused climate change being a serious problem was a survey of thousands of papers written by the hundreds of scientists who had published 20 or more peer-reviewed papers on climate science. They included every scientist who had published 20+ papers on climate science. Those are the real experts. Every one of those papers included real science — the testing of hypotheses with real, hard evidence and original research. The consensus is scientific; the controversy is political.”

    Can anyone point me to a credible study refuting this “concensus”?

    Nah, DCA, snap your own bad self out of it! It’s also well past your turn to fess up to reality and list every way in which your own diseased propaganda effort itself is really nothing more than the same scientifically worthless propaganda sewage that we all already know CO2 = CAGW “Climate Science” is.

    After all, DCA, by now it’s clear that only you can remedy your own problem!

  73. To our friends north of the 49th, you guys and gals should know, the majority of the American public is in favor of buying the oil you’re willing to provide. But, as you’re well aware, the spine shivering, leg tingling fanatics dominate the social, political and economic discussion in this bizzarro world of U.S. policy.

  74. I agree with DCC that this is not worthy of the term civil disobedience.

    With the help of Tom Wolfe’s perceptiveness, let’s call it what it is: The radical chic greenies are mau mauing the flak catchers.

  75. The westward pipeline from Alberta to the British Columbia coast is not in question. It is the 21st century version of the Canadian Pacific Railway and fortunately there is a Canadian federal government in place that will make it happen.

  76. For all of you canadians out there:

    Is it possible I could move up there and away from the politics of our vile and stupid community organizer AKA President?

    I believe in drilling and using the resources of this planet in a responsible way, and by also being responsible with the environment, but I never would want to shut down industrialized society. I owe my life and my work to living in an industrialized society and I give thanks to this everyday.

    If you Canadians are becoming sensible, maybe that is a better place to move.

    Here in the US, we have the EPA out of control and stupid RINOS with dem’s trying to shove “energy independence” down our throats which is cap and trade with a different name. They just rename everything once it fails….that is how politics works here in the states.

    Or maybe I will watch Australia too. If the entire escapades turns out well, that might be a good place to live too…the US just seems so head-bent on throwing itself down the drain economically.

  77. Anyone know if Bill McKibben’s main residence is in Ripton, Vermont off Wagon Wheel Rd? Check out the estate on Google map. You would think what was done to the forrest to build this house might evoke protest from a few tree huggers.

  78. I’ve really had ENOUGH of the eco-loons and the entire corrupt climate science industry. It’s time to shut down all of their infrastructure that is in any way tied to “dirty oil”! Shut down their computer servers, shut down the buildings, take away their cars and trucks, ban all flying, and accept nothing (food, office supplies, cleaning products) that hasn’t been produced or transported by non-petroleum energy sources.

    In fact, if you’d like to see a counter-protest, I would love to see all of the truckers in the country simply stop ALL deliveries for a week. No deliveries of food, medicine, products, raw materials – anywhere. When the empty shelves started appearing in the stores, people would then finally begin to understand how much we should thank our lucky stars for the modern petroleum-based infrastructure we have, and how we are ALL going to be impacted if these climate maniacs get their way…

  79. I’m sure Hansen and many other eco-nuts can hardly wait to jump in cars or fly to Washington to protest the use of oil. I wonder if any of them will walk?

  80. Obama babbled a bit about “transparency,” too. But Obama lies, as everyone should know by now.

  81. pat says:
    July 12, 2011 at 2:53 am

    Financial Post: U.S. foundations against the oil sands
    The Tides Foundation has spent $6-million to fund green lobbies
    By Vivian Krause

    Just put these three story lines together.

    1.Talking Points Memo & Top Story – Buying political power: Investigating Soros
    Guests: Author Phil Kent & radio host Monica Crowley
    “The Factor has been investigating far-left billionaire George Soros, a man who wants to impose a radical left agenda on America. Soros has set up a complicated political operation designed to do two things – buy influence among some liberal politicians and smear people with whom he disagrees. Most of Soros’ political money flows through his ‘Open Society Institute,’ which has given nearly $20 million to the ‘Tides Foundation.’

    http://billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=1310

    2Soros’s Oil Spill Payoff
    Could this be merely a happy coincidence for George Soros, the major financial backer of Obama’s presidential campaign who also has $811 million invested in the Brazilian oil company, Petrobras? Wasn’t it enough of a payback to Soros when the Obama Administration loaned up to $10 billion to Petrobras? Soros, with his far left-wing organization, MoveOn, is called the Godfather of world socialism. But most relevant currently is that he has been an enthusiastic proponent of global warming and environmental liberalism. He has urged adoption of a global carbon tax. Could it be more than coincidence that his position is strikingly similar to what Obama called for in his June 14 Oval Office speech on the Gulf oil spill and future energy actions?

    http://frontpagemag.com/2010/06/22/soros-oil-spill-payoff/

    3China, Brazil Sign Oil Deal – Stephanie Ho | Beijing
    China has agreed to lend $10 billion to Brazil’s Petrobras, in return for guaranteed oil supply over the next decade.

    Follow the money.

  82. TATS says:
    July 12, 2011 at 9:25 am
    “It is not the goal of worldwide socialism, it is totalitarianism”

    How can a socialist system avoid the descent into totalitarianism? As it cannot offer its people positive incentives, but only punishment for the productive ones, it must wither, and as the population becomes aware of the decline, it must either make way for a different system or become totalitarian.

  83. Kasuha says:
    July 12, 2011 at 2:24 am
    I think they’ll be happy if America saves that oil because it’ll be there ready for them to use aftrer they buy America.

    Man, I really wish you were joking. Unfortunately….

  84. Louis Hooffstetter says:
    July 12, 2011 at 10:17 am
    “Bill McKibben’s intentions may be pure, but this makes him an official Saudi tool. In effect, he is lobbying on their behalf for free (we hope). If his efforts are successful, only they will benefit. I’m sure they are secretly cheering him on.”

    And channeling some money through Tides to the Canadian enviro-tools.

  85. >> DCA says:
    >> July 12, 2011 at 7:23 am
    >> I recently read this comment in a local blog:
    >> “The 2009 (published in 2010) study that showed 97+% agreement on human-caused climate >> change [...]
    >> Can anyone point me to a credible study refuting this “concensus”?

    The “consensus” claim is dishonest. The study* based its 97.4% claim on just 2 questions, on 75 of 77 respondents (among a minority who chose to respond at all to a transparently moronic / dishonest poll) in the relevant category in an internet poll answering ‘risen’ and ‘yes’ respectively to the following 2 questions:

    * http://tigger.uic.edu/%7Epdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

    Question 1. “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

    Question 2. “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

    Regarding question #1:
    1550 A.D. to 1850 A.D. was the Little Ice Age, which everyone agrees was relatively cold. Is question #1 comparing temperatures to way further back like the warm age of the dinosaurs or more likely to shortly prior to the 1800s, like the 1700s? I’d interpret it as the latter. So basically it is asking do you believe we are still in the midst of the Little Ice Age, if current temperatures are no warmer now than they were back then.

    Just about every single skeptic scientist would get counted as included in the “consensus” if answering, by agreeing that current temperatures are not the same cold they were in the Little Ice Age. It is not a particularly good question, outright braindead as a choice to determine meaningful consensus on mainstream global warming views – unless deliberately trying to be dishonestly misleading. Such shows nothing for what portion of the temperature rise afterwards someone views as from anthropogenic causes versus non-human influences, nothing about the magnitude of global warming they expect, minor or large, and not even so much as whether they expect global warming to be of more harm than benefit.

    Like Dr. Lindzen noted in another context, “differences between expectations of unmeasurable changes of a few tenths of a degree and warming of several degrees are conveniently ignored.”

    Regarding question #2:

    Again to note the skeptic view, in the words of Dr. Spencer, “to a scientist, “significant” often means non-zero” (where he notes he himself would technically be part of the consensus under the poll’s questions but it was asking the wrong question).

    For instance, if you believe Urban Heat Island (UHI) effects exist, then you must answer yes here so far as a non-zero significant effect. The existence of UHI isn’t in dispute among skeptic scientists, nor is effect of land use change (e.g. irrigated agriculture versus original wilderness or day versus nighttime temperature readings), etc. Actually even CO2 having a technically non-zero effect isn’t really a focus of dispute, rather such as feedback versus water vapor and cloud shading. For instance, Dr. Spencer states “it has been calculated theoretically that” “a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration would cause less than 1 deg C of surface warming (about 1 deg. F)” if not for feedback, with such “not a controversial statement” but “well understood by climate scientists.”

    That poll states in conclusions: “It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.”

    But their incorrect claim that believing humans have a non-zero significant (not 0.00%) effect on climate equates to any debate on the “role played by human activity” being over speaks volumes about their IQ, honesty level, or both. Much is also illustrated by how that work with such retarded conclusions managed to become technically a peer-reviewed scientific paper, the poll being within volume 90, number 3, 20 January 2009, of the journal Climate Change. A google search showing it to be “cited by 47.” (A quotes search for exact matches of “examining the scientific consensus” doran zimmerman finds 9600 results).

    For a more intelligent discussion of what has been the primary (not sole but primary) driver of climate changes now and in the prior rest of the Holocene, an article by Dr. Shaviv:

    http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-I

    http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-II

    http://www.sciencebits.com/NothingNewUnderTheSun-III

  86. It looks like the Keystone pipeline has become the latest thing to oppose by the Big Green astroturf websites. The first one I was aware of said “Stop the Kochs.” It was by the BraveNew Foundation at:

    http://kochbrothersexposed.com/tellclintonno/

    It was really funny because the Keystone pipeline is a project of Transcanada Pipeline, not Koch Industries. In fact Koch industries already has a pipeline from Alberta to Minnesota. See:

    http://www.kochind.com/factssheets/CanadaFacts.aspx

    But then facts don’t matter when you are suffering from “Carbonphobia” and out to save the world.

  87. They are entitled to protest, it’s a fundamental right, so let them go to it.
    We disagree with them, but we should indulge them

  88. Elizabeth (not the Queen) says:
    July 12, 2011 at 10:14 am

    The TransCanada pipeline currently ships half a million barrels a day to the US. The Keystone expansion would increase this by another half million. In 2008, the last year statistics are available, Canada was shipping 1.5 billion barrels per day to the US.

    So the Keystone expansion is only one of the 300+ pipelines bringing the 1.5 BILLION barrels a day to the U.S.? What’s the big deal then?

  89. CodeTech says: ““Climate Movement”. Yeah, hansen, keep it up”

    +++++++

    Climate movement? You mean the kind that when you feel it in your gut, you just go with it? Ignore doctors, science, friends and everything around you and go with your gut feeling because you know you just HAVE to?

    Sounds more like a bowel movement.

  90. When I was 19 years old (which plus or minus a couple or three years would have been the same time McKibben was 19) I fervently believed that:
    - LA was “the New Rome.”
    - That “the New Rome” was something like Mordor.
    - That the SW US was a sort of “Roman Empire” spreading its tentacles throughout the US and the world
    - That Reagan was the emperor / Sauron type figure
    - That the whole thing was tied together by “Big Oil,” the military-industrial complex, the Hutchens Center and the CIA
    - That the whole thing was the work of the Devil
    - That “The Ecotopians” were like the Hobbits and would slay all those dragons
    - Etc

    Some people grew up, some did not.

  91. Bruce says:
    July 12, 2011 at 8:28 am

    4 million dollars in NG per day to produce 200 million worth of oil.

    ——–
    I understand the economics of it. It is the following numbers I find disturbing:

    I heard 1 billion cu ft of NG per day = 1,000,000 X 1000/cu.ft to produce 2,000,000 bbl/day

    The fact that this is economically feasible, just illustrates how distorted the energy markets must be. After all… it has given us windmills and solar panels, up the wazoo, also. GK

  92. @alex verlinden (July 12, 2011 at 9:45 am):
    Yes, I saw the Wikipedia entry with the 1.7 trillion barrels total bitumen in-place. ( Your reference is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands ; I found similar figures at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands#Estimated_oil_reserves )

    You will note, though, that the article you cited says, after giving the 1.7 trillion barrel value: “About 10% of this, or 173 billion barrels is estimated by the government of Alberta to be recoverable at current prices, using current technology.” [2006 estimate] This figure is consistent with the recent reserves estimate by the U.S. EIA which I cited. Worrying about the effects of burning oil which will not be extracted due to high costs, is not sensible.

    Therefore, I’m sticking with the 10 ppm estimate for CO2 increase from the oil sands.

    In addition, note that the latter Wikipedia link indicates that even at hoped-for production rates which are higher than current (3 million barrels/day), it would take over 100 years to extract the 170-odd billion barrels of current reserves. It would take 1000 years at the same rate to extract all bitumen which exists there. Of course, any such projection is actually meaningless because we have no idea (beyond a short horizon) what the future production rates will be, nor do we have any idea how much oil will be economically extractable, which depends upon the future price of oil relative to capital costs, or relative to alternative energy sources — nuclear, solar, biogenetic oil, hamster wheels, etc.. What we do know, is that McKibben’s 200 ppm value is not grounded in bankable facts — it’s an extreme case over a long period of time…and even then assumes that the fields contain twice the 1.7 trillion barrels.

  93. “Get your best business attire….”

    That means a old polo shirt with your cargo shorts and flip flops, people! This is serious.

  94. “the rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet begin to heal.“ Barak Obama 2008

    Hmm another wild prediction from 2008 that is waaaaay off. Cannot wait to read Gavin’s post about it.

  95. @ Kasuha says:

    “It’s funny to watch somebody thinking China will have nothing to burn if they don’t let them use America oil.”

    There is absolutely nothing funny about people showing their ignorance of geography. Don’t you know what country Alberta is in?

    Roy

  96. “the biggest civil disobedience protest in the history of the North American climate movement”

    For whatever that is worth. Those polar bear costumes could get pretty warm at this time of year.

  97. I expect the summer of 2012 to be similar to 2009 ( cold) , and the winter that follows the worst in years as a neutral or warm enso after 2 years of cold enso ( The La Nina is coming back for this winter) is a strong cold signal for the US. Thus, The weather may also be a gift to the GOP given the increasing mess this administration is making with an energy policy that is designed to doom the American way of life, or mold it into the vision they have of what America should be

  98. Guess the Watermelons will stay silent on this, at least while their hero Hugo is still around:

    “In October 2009, the USGS updated the Orinoco oil sands (Venezuela) mean estimated recoverable value to 513 billion barrels (8.16×1010 m3), making it “one of the world’s largest recoverable” oil deposits.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

  99. I see the pipeline has a proposed extension down to the Gulf coast. I’m guessing that this is for shipping the oil to foreign nations.

  100. Mr McKibben is representing more a philosophical problem than a scientific attitude based on facts like all believers in cagw . They have all fallen for the temptation to consider human behaviour essential and influential for the natural surroundings creating the basics of our wealth . This overjudgement of human power is from all times and is in fact misleading us from the day to day reality of our lives . We should be humble and thankful for what is given to us and not idealize our own value , which is for every human being neglectable and only visible through the eyes of others .
    Clearly the narcissism of these believers is so disgusting that gradually mankind will turn their back towards them .

  101. HaroldW says:
    July 12, 2011 at 3:25 am
    Burning one gallon of gasoline creates about 9 kg CO2

    Could you run that by me again? I admit I’m no scientist and math isn’t exactly my best subject. But how can something that weighs about 6 pounds (2.7 something kg), suddenly triple its mass by being converted from potential energy to kinetic?

  102. TomB says: I admit I’m no scientist and math isn’t exactly my best subject. But how can something that weighs about 6 pounds (2.7 something kg), suddenly triple its mass by being converted from potential energy to kinetic?

    It’s not your math that is the problem, more your chemistry. Oil is comprised mainly of hydrocarbons. Most of its mass is carbon, molecular weight 12. Each atom of carcon combines with two atoms of oxygen, molecular weight 16, to make CO2. 12g of carbon generates 12 + 16 + 16 = 44g of CO2. There’s the tripling, give or take a bit of hydrogen that generates H2O.

  103. As a resident of the state of Kansas that has this pipeline going thr[ough] the county I live in. I welcome it. I don’t worry about the line leaking I don’t worry about global warming because it is not happening. Granted it was 111 degrees Fahrenheit on 7-10-2011. I am not worried because I have seen it before when I was a kid in summer of 1980. I wish these Watermelons would practice what they preach.

  104. @TomB (July 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm)

    Burning one gallon of gasoline creates about 9 kg CO2

    1. Argument from authority
    EPA says so: http://www.epa.gov/oms/climate/420f05001.htm#calculating

    2. Hmmm, want a real explanation? Actually, the EPA link goes through the math. One [U.S.] gallon of gas contains 2.421 kg (about 5.3 pounds) of carbon, out of the 6+ pounds that the gasoline weighs. During combustion, each molecule of carbon combines with oxygen to form CO2. The carbon atom weighs 12 units, while each oxygen atom weighs 16 units — look up their respective atomic weights. Thus, the percentage of carbon (by weight) in a CO2 molecule is 12 / (12 + 2*16) = 12 / 44 = 27%. So the mass of the CO2 formed from one gallon of gasoline is 2.421 kg / 0.27 = 8.9 kg. [The EPA includes an additional factor of 0.99, reckoning that not all of the gasoline is oxidized, but that doesn't affect the number much.] I rounded to 9 kg, one significant digit, as the figures I was using weren’t very accurate.

    It’s the extra oxygen, taken from the air, which makes the mass of the resultant CO2 greater than that of the original gasoline.

  105. @TomB (July 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm)
    …or read John B’s explanation. [Is he your brother? You have the same last name.]

  106. If they can prevent us from getting oil, maybe they can force us into using more “green” energy. Of course, it’s less reliable and more expensive, but that will also let them create new taxes and new entitlements.

    It’s win-win!

  107. RE: frederik wisse says:
    July 12, 2011 at 12:52 pm

    ==================================

    Read “The Death of Nature” and you will see that you are 100% correct about McKibben.

  108. We need to stop this pipeline so we don’t buy so much oil from foreign dictators who funnel their profits to terrorists!

  109. HaroldW says:
    July 12, 2011 at 1:46 pm

    @TomB (July 12, 2011 at 1:05 pm)
    …or read John B’s explanation. [Is he your brother? You have the same last name.]

    Nah, he’s not my brother. If he were, the explanation wouldn’t have been nearly so polite. ;>
    Thanx all for clearly that up for me.

  110. Eco loons require an eco loony response, “We honourable Canadians are cleaning up the natural oil spill than occurred in the Athabasca Basin over millions of years, it is contaminating the rivers systems and ground water and we must stop this from happening.” Save the Athabasca donate your eco-loony dollars to the good folk at Suncor and Indo- China Oil who are selflessly working to claen up this vile act of god. I doubt I need sarc on/off but think of the logos Proud Albertans cleaning up Gods Oil Spill. And of course the retort to all protestors, What you oppose cleaning up an oil spill? What kind of planet hating A-hole are you.

  111. Hey McKibben! Wait until we burn the Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt in Venezuela. That single deposit dwarfs the total of the rest of the world’s “carbon”. If we burn it in a day that would add – I don’t know? – 2000ppm CO2?

    And how about the Dalradian graphitic schist in Scotland? Loads of carbon there. Hey – we could burn all the limestone too…

  112. @R. Gates says:
    July 12, 2011 at 11:18 am
    “Sounds like a good plan to keep those tar sands right where they are.”

    Yes, I so totally agree, since moving the tar sand to the oil sand location for processing is just adding unnecessary cost, better it is then to leave the tar sand where it is to be processed in place in the coming future.

  113. I have touched this pipeline before it was laid underground last year. I have spoken with several safety engineers and find the safety tests before it was put online were the most stringent ever. Boats, rail and truck is exposed to accidents. Underground pipe is very safe. Koch is laying a pipe to the eagle ford shale and Corpus 20″.
    This pipe actually created a recent oil glut at Cushing oklahoma. Around 39 million barrells in tanks there because we don’t have enough pipeline from the Cushing hub to the coast.
    The oil sands are near the surface and are a massive oil spill.
    We spend money in Canada and export products to Canada. Sending 300 billion to the Persian gulf hurts our economy. Virtually all Natural gas in America is moved by pipeline. (Nancy Pelosi says Natural gas is not a fossil fuel)
    If we are against pipelines, lets shut them all down. My dad’s land had a pipeline crossing it for 50 years sending gas to Chicago. it was removed a few years ago. it never had an incident or leak. It was removed because it was old and had some tiny hints of corrosion. That is how long they last.
    Wind towers will also rust and one day be dismantled. Why don’t they prevent those from being built?

    Most of the litigation on this is Sierra Club.

  114. Lets burn all the peat at once too.

    “By volume, there are about 4 trillion m³ of peat in the world covering a total of around 2% of global land area (about 3 million km²), containing about 8 billion terajoules of energy.[1]”

    “At 106 g CO2/MJ,[8] the carbon dioxide emissions of peat are higher than those of coal (at 94.6 g CO2/MJ) and natural gas (at 56.1) (IPCC).”

  115. I believe the oil sands are larger resources than Saudi – more than 500B bbls. We’ll be sliding into the next ice age before we could produce it all.

  116. So these protesters are going to get there how? Well, if they are true to their cause then they will walk. Doing otherwise would be hypocritical.

  117. This is a typical example of the idiots taking over the asylum but watch it because this time there is more going on than meets the eye.

    Fat chance we will watch hundreds of thousands of americans with their Obama buttons march on Washington.
    Those who do are in desperate need of a lobotomy.
    Gore of course backs the event and goes global to breath new life in the Global Warming hysteria but this time he will launch a frontal attack on climate skeptics, just watch his promotion trailer for that.

    What worries me however is the fact that these calls for disobedience coincide with the budget negotiations where the GOP minority leader has offered to hand over the “Power of the Purse”
    to Obama. The” Power of the Purse” is a formal Constitutional responsibility of Congress and handing over this control to the current President is getting as close to a Power Grab as we can get.

    All Obama needs to introduce martial law is some public in the streets of Washington at the door of the White House and the Power Grab is a done deal before you know it..

    http://modernsurvivalblog.com/security/a-view-of-martial-law/

    For those of you who think the AGW doctrine is collapsing please wake up.
    It’s just beginning and as I said, this time there is more to it than meets the eye.

  118. The effect of the oil sands is felt out here in BC where I see many patients who work in camps in northern Alberta but live in Kamloops. I guess we’ll have to look at the “carbon footprint” of their flights to and from all of the communities that they live to Ft. McMurray. I’m told that the oil companies pick up the cost of their flights to and from their actual home every month.

    What I can’t understand is why are we planning on sending oil to Texas to be refined? Wouldn’t it be far simpler to build refineries in Alberta in a location that isn’t subject to periodic hurricanes? Perhaps some of the commenters involved in the Alberta oil industry can clarify this.

    The economics of using natural gas to provide the heat to extract oil from bitumen are interesting but I’m curious what the costs would be of using nuclear power to generate the steam instead. Presumably there’s a considerable capital cost to get the reactors built, but is it cheaper then over the lifetime of the reactors? My concern is that we’re using rather primitive technologies to extract the oil and it might be a good time to setup a nuclear industry in Alberta.

    Living in S. central BC, I don’t see any opposition to building a pipeline across the province from Alberta. The majority of “environmentalists” here live in large cities whereas the people who actually live in the interior are well aware of the importance of resource extraction in creating wealth in the province. Incidentally, the Tides Foundation seems to be very involved in Vancouver civic politics, but locally Vancouver is seen as the moonbat capital of Canada. I’d prefer the oil to be kept in N. America to reduce N. American dependence on foreign oil, but I’m sure the Chinese are very interested in getting all of the oil they can.

  119. Life long Albertan and oil & gas industry veteran here. 175 billion barrels of oil is really an outdated and grossly conservative figure for Alberta reserve size. There are reasonable estimates that all the oil-sands collectively may contain 2 Trillion bbls of oil in place. The 175billion i think is based on mineable (shallow) oil sands that are recoverable with the technology of the day. The truth is the vast majority of the oil in the oil sands is too deep to mine & must be drilled for. And, technology marches on so the maximum recoverable amount should be closer to 1.0 Tbl.

    The counterpoints some have mentioned re NG fueling the extraction of the mined or drilled bitumen as beiing ‘counterproductive’ don’t reflect the real world situation of the massive NG reserves in Alberta and BC, the massive glut in NG production and the corresponding cheap prices make it the best option right now.

    This all says nothing about Alberta’s currently booming conventional oil drilling industry….particularly with the redrilling of old zones like Cardium and Bakken. There are many 10′s of billions of barrels of high quality crude that were thought to be unrecoverable with the technology of the day. Jump ahead to 2011 and redrill these fields horizontally and stage frac them and in many cases the new wells are flowing 10 times what the original production rates were.

    As to building another pipeline across BC to Prince Rupert….the natives will only moan about it until the monies they will receive reach a certain ‘threshold’…then it will be magically ok. Funny how that works eh?

  120. “And don’t think that the Canadians will automatically find some other route to send their oil out to, say, China. Native tribes are doing a great job of blocking a proposed pipe to the Pacific.”

    This is wishful thinking. Both Canadian railroad systems cross existing and proposed pipelines and run directly to Vancouver, western Canada’s largest port. Either railroad would profit handsomely leasing space for a pipeline. If worse came to worst, the railroads could run unit trains to the coast to deliver the oil.

  121. aaaaay bruce:

    wouldn’t burning all of the peat in the world lower the british isles and most of europe below sealevel.

    just thinkin………

    C

  122. andy:
    once the project is in action that “threshold” will majically rise.

    its happened more than i can count.

    C

  123. I know I am preaching to the coure here, but if you Americans do not want our oil, there are plenty of countries that do. Maybe for the duration of this protest, we (Canada) should turn off the oil flowing to your countrie. Maybe that would help these intelectual peasents understand how important our oil is.

  124. Andy in Alberta –
    Thanks for updating the estimate of recoverable oil in the sands. Although even burning 1.0 trillion barrels of oil instantaneously, doesn’t seem to yield anything close to McKibben’s 200 ppm increase in CO2.

    I came upon a projection that pumping rates could reach as high as 3 million barrels per day, which translates to about 1 billion barrels per year. At that rate, it would take hundreds of years to fully exploit the fields. Can you comment on extraction rates, using your expertise in the area?

  125. Fighting Climate change offers opportunity to boost African agriculture

    http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-07/14/c_13985806.htm

    [snip]

    Judith Rodin, the president of Rockefeller Foundation, said fighting the effects of climate change could provide an opportunity for increasing investments into the agricultural, financial and medical sectors in a way that generates economic growth.

    Note: the Rockefeller foundation financed Mckibben.

    http://politicalcontext.org/sci-tech/2011/04/rockefellers-1sky-unveils-the-new-350-org-more-more-delusion/

Comments are closed.