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.
>> 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
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.
The biggest North American climate protest ever? So that’ll be 251 people then.
Sounds like a good plan to keep those tar sands right where they are.
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
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?
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.
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.
——–
I understand the economics of it. It is the following numbers I find disturbing:
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
@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.
Here is a little more about McKibben.
http://politicalcontext.org/sci-tech/2011/04/rockefellers-1sky-unveils-the-new-350-org-more-more-delusion/
Enjoy!
Note: Just following the money……
“Get your best business attire….”
That means a old polo shirt with your cargo shorts and flip flops, people! This is serious.
“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.
@ur momisugly 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
“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.
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
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
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.
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 .
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?
kramer
The gulf extension is to supply gulf coast oil refineries.
Remember oil shortages to the east coast when Katrina shut down those refineries and off shore oil? – causing 1 million barrels/day shortages. The importing countries will soon be facing 5% to 10%/year growing shortages. e.g. 2 – 4 million bpd.
TomB
re “the 1.5 BILLION barrels a day to the U.S.?” Take that with a grain of salt!
Reality check – US is importing 9.854 Million barrels/day.
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.
Oops, atomic weights, not molecular weights (it’s been a while)
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.