News update by Ryan Maue
Update: The jails were emptied Monday morning. Also, Daryl Hannah has announced that she is heading to the White House oil-sands protest.
Update: New York Times editorial page comes out for against the Tar Sands Pipeline. However, their language sounds half hearted, and they seem to be checking a box knowing that inevitably the pipeline will go forward regardless of it’s carbon footprint, or something.
The Tar Sands protest organized by Bill McKibben has hit an unexpected snag: the US Park police have cracked down on the protesters. Instead of a simple “traffic ticket” type of arrest and release with a few hours in jail, many climate activists were stunned to learn that their “civil disobedience” may keep them behind bars for at least 48-hours until arraignment [Link to Grist.com lament].
Meanwhile, President Obama is managing the end of Gaddafi in Libya from his beautiful luxury vacation spot in Martha’s Vineyard. With Janet Napolitano always talking about the threats from domestic extremism typically orchestrated by environmental or “green” groups, one has to wonder if the US Parks police in the Capitol are sending a warning message by locking up the protestors for a good spell.
When Obama approves the pipeline and slaps these “true believers” in the face again, will they desert him for another candidate in the upcoming election? Nah.
More pictures of the “protest” including McKibben hauled away in handcuffs here at the Puffington Host. Please try and refrain from mocking these people as hippies or 70s retreads.
Also, has anyone heard if this upstart climate scientist (apparently the only academic currently employed as a professor “descending” on Washington) will still come — and will he risk being arrested?
Climate scientist willing to face arrest at tar sands pipeline protest
Climate scientist Jason Box says oil sands are a moral issue that he feels compelled to address at Keystone XL pipeline protests — UK Guardian
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Political lesson:
The Obama administration has one card in their deck to play for the 2012 reelect, and that’s to demonize their opponents in the most demagogic and Saul Alinskyite manner. This involves questioning the motivations AND personal beliefs of GOP Presidential candidates.
To folks on the left, this is standard operating procedure and there is no attempt at introspection. However, they are quick to cry when the shoe is on the other foot. According to the liberal media, the only reason that the majority of Independents wiped away the Democrat House majority in November 2010 was because the GOP is malevolent and run by extremist elements of the Tea Party.
Newsflash: this “climate change” protest in DC is happening during the Obama administration, which is presiding over a crippled economy on the verge of a double-dip recession. Obama had full control over the legislative branches (2009-10) and could have and did pass anything he wanted without GOP input or “compromise”. This occurred with ObamaCare and the Americans in Recovery Act (Stimulus) which received zero GOP votes and zero GOP input into the final bill. No amendments offered by the GOP were considered or voted upon.
We know that Cap and Trade or an energy reform bill was killed by the White House and Rahn Emanuel especially after the BP oil well blowout. Coal-state Democrats balked at supporting the draconian regulations. Rahm is gone, and now the EPA is running the show, doing by fiat what Congress refused to pass into law. And, this is exactly what McKibben and his followers want: Presidential rule by fiat — explicitly asking Obama to “kill” the pipeline. They have to realize that the shoe is about to be on the other foot…
Maria
I felt compelled to respond to some of your comments.
First, I’d like to say that, not that I’m accusing, but from the way your posts are made, you almost seem to be reading off a script. ( Or even copying and pasting.)
You claim that because of Global Warming, there will be increased species loss.
Well, if we’re going to figure that out, we must first do an equation:
N ( Number of species ) times the amount of species ( A ), going extinct within a set time period. ( Let’s say over a 1000 year period.)
Then, you take another 1000 year period, ( preferably one with the same set of perameters, except for CO2 levels, because you are trying to prove that it is the CO2 levels that are driving the distinction,) and measure N times A with that period as well.
Well, there is already a large flaw in the equation.
WE DON’T KNOW HOW MANY SPECIES THERE ARE.
Estimates run from 1 million to 100 million different types of species. That’s a huge difference, and, as such, makes it impossible to estimate the rate of extinction.
Let me put it this way: If you didn’t know how much money you had in your wallet, and then you were robbed, how come you calculate how much money was taken from you? You can’t because you don’t know how much you had in the first place.
I found Hansen’s book disappointing. It talks very little about the science. It is mostly a book about politics and the history of efforts to bring about “action” on climate change, starting from the premise that such action is essential to save the planet.
What I would love to know from this blog community is just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it
I dunno. If Jesus Christ were to come down from on high, or maybe Mohammad from the mountain.
Some people I guess Buddha would do it for them to believe. But that’s not science is it.
For me, Jesus, Mohammad, or Buddha better be packing iron clad, cross referenced, immutable climate data & proxies that I can check. And they better make some accurate predictions of what the weather will be like over the next 3 or 4 years – since they’re God and all.
That last bit I wouldn’t expect from Hansen.
Steve from Rockwood says:
Why did you think Saudi Arabia wasn’t an exporter to the US?
Would you believe wishful thinking ?
I was winging it on that one.
So was Bruce.
@ur momisugly Maria says: August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Quick, someone get that poor girl some prozac and xanax!
chris y says:
August 21, 2011 at 8:13 pm
I am specifically interested in your [Maria’s] plan to deprive Canadians access to over $20 Trillion of their own oil reserves. Will your [the mighty Maria’s] military invasion come from south of the 49th parallel? Will UN IPCC green-helmet forces will be deployed to enforce the ban?
==============================================
This is a very good point. What happens if the USA says no to an oil pipeline and Canada sells the same oil to China instead? I’m sure the farmers in Nebraska won’t care.
I just gotta ask – wouldn’t it make a lot more sense to build a new refinery close to the border rather than piping it across the entire nation?
We need a new refinery anyhow – wasn’t the last built around ’79 or something? Plus, having one up north would provide some coverage for any southern outages due to hurricanes, and I’d think be better located should our government, in it’s infinate wisdom (wish to heck it were!) finally deign to allow us to use our own very abundant shale oil.
Anyone know if refinery v. pipeline was even considered and what the major results of such wound up being? Thanks in advance for replies.
papertiger says:
August 21, 2011 at 9:33 pm
Would you believe wishful thinking ?
I was winging it on that one.
Winging is good. Got me through university. I was surprised at how much Saudi Arabia actually does supply. In fact if you look at the list, Venezuela, Nigeria, Colombia, Iraq, Angola, Russia, Algeria, Brazil, Kuwait, Ecuador and the Congo? I’m liking Brazil and it looks like Russia is my next favorite. Some pretty unsavory countries in that list.
@ur momisugly Surfer Dave 6:05 pm
Believe it or not the “freedom of speech” road runs both ways, and has no “opposite opinion” stop signs, or even any “all bigots must exit here” ramps. That’s why we even let the anti-venter’s vent (yes, this means you).
I second the observation on Maria’s scripted response. A bang-up job of reciting all the salient points of the Hopelesshagen COP15. Maria: do you believe these things, or understand them? I admire your bravery to come amongst a hostile bunch, but, unlike the Grists and Real Climates out there, we will keep the snide and ugly to a dull roar, at least. But please, try to understand the issues at hand before translating them into a recited belief system. You must realize by now that these assertions increasingly fall on deaf ears, the thing is, perhaps you might endeavor to find out WHY.
reply to: Chris says: August 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Actually Chris, the difference between them and us is that we really believe in actual hard core science, not pseudo-science or advocacy. Plus, we are willing to take a bit of time to be sure real science is what we are basing our opinions on, and are willing to withhold judgement until there is sufficience scientific basis to even form such opinions. Perhaps we’re also a little less anthropocentric, narcissistic, or megalomaniacal.
Meanwhile, as to ‘alternatives creating jobs – thus far all experiences pretty clearly prove the opposite. One thing we certainly do agree on – ‘alternatives’ do need our support because they can’t compete without massive subsidies and waste massive amounts of money with very little to show for it beyond massive eye-sores and wasted land and resources – which is exactly why such programs ought to be cut off from any tax payer support ASAP.
@ur momisugly Janice says: August 21, 2011 at 6:10 pm
ROFL! Good one.
Rational Debate:
Not a bad idea, but consider this: The oil gets piped to a refinery, say, in Sunburst, Montana. Now it gets refined into gasoline, diesel, asphalt, on and on. Now you have the problem of transporting volatile refined products the rest of the way, instead of [relatively] less-hazardous crude. The refineries should logically be near the point of consumption to minimize transport of volatiles. The latter scenario is unlikely, because along with the consumers comes a NIMBY clause, or busloads of McKibben clones. So, the compromise is, put the refineries where they always have been…easier from a regulatory point of view, and less tolerant of endless eco-protesting.
Bottom line: If the pipeline gets nixed, the Oil Sands product will go to somewhere else. The Carbon Bomb will not be defused, as is the fanciful rhetoric of those wishing it so.
Mike… if the crude is piped down south (Texas) to be refined and then trucked back north as volatile gasoline, what difference does it make whether you are transporting the fuel north or south? It is still being transported the same distance so that argument is illogical. Makes much more sense to build refineries up north in the non populous states. You still have to deal with the NIMBY’s but… lets deal with em.
As with others here, I live in Alberta. As with a LARGE percentage of Albertans, I work in an industry that is indirectly connected to the oil industry. I have friends who work everywhere from in the Oilsands doing grunt work all the way up to executives in what you’d call Oil Companies. I’ve done contract work directly for Oil Companies. I own shares of Oil Companies.
And here’s the thing. The Oil industry employs millions, directly and indirectly. Take that up to an even higher percentage if you want to include everything that Oil provides for: the auto industry, virtually anything made of plastic, auto repair, road paving, auto parts, buses, trains, aircraft industry, almost our ENTIRE CIVILIZATION is based on petroleum products.
Now, it would be grand to replace what we pump, dig, frac or squeeze out of the ground with something else. But before you can go “protesting” something that you clearly have no idea about, you first need to understand that THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE. Find us one. Really, we’ll listen. Wind, solar, and anything currently classed as “alternative” is, simply, inadequate. Period. Prove me wrong… I challenge you. Because you can’t.
Now, we hear about hydrogen for cars. Great! But… where does the POWER come from that can give us liquid hydrogen? It takes an immense amount of power to separate hydrogen from water, so unless you’re going to start building nuclear plants all over to do that, that’s another alternative gone.
Ethanol? Other biofuels? We can’t afford to take away food production to barely power 5% of our energy needs. Maybe we in affluent first world countries can, but at the expense of starving the third world that depends on us for food. Nope, not an alternative.
The big complaint about “dirty oil” is that a large amount of energy, typically natural gas, is used to extract the crude from the sands. And that’s a valid complaint (technically, they take the slurry of sludge and boil the oil out of it, leaving relatively clean sand behind). But the fact is, since the 70s when they were first playing with recovery of the sands the techniques have gotten incredibly more sophisticated and efficient. There will continue to be improvements in the process.
To all the Maria’s out there, it’s very nice that you believe in something, but I’m sorry that whoever taught you about this planet was an idiot. Really, I am sorry about that. Because while they are teaching you to worry and stress about your future, ruined by the indiscriminate burning of dirty, nasty stuff out of the ground, they also neglected to tell you that the alternative is a short, brutal life, filled with disease and hunger. Only 100 years ago that was a pretty common way of living. Just 5 generations. Look how far we’ve come with a cheap, easily available source of energy.
The alternatives might as well be unicorn farts and rainbows. Wind and solar are utterly hopeless endeavors, which you would know if you actually researched them. We saw the same flim-flammery in the 70s, often by the same people. They’ve had decades to work on it and “perfect” it. It can’t be done. And don’t forget to research “unintended consequences” while you’re diligently confirming what I’m telling you. Bird destruction, the utter horrors of people forced to live around windmills, the incredible concrete and clearcutting stories from building the ugly towers. The lunacy of trying to keep acres of solar panels clean and weed-free. Is that a job you want? Solar panel windmill cleaner?
Protesting Oilsands development is like voting to cut off your legs. Someone might be able to talk you into it, but actually going ahead and doing it is nothing short of stupid.
Steve from Rockwood says:
Some pretty unsavory countries in that list.
Ain’t that the truth. That’s a list that needs to be seen. A Canadian pipeline will take at least one of those countries off the list. Maybe two. For the cost of a pipe. That’s good business.
@ur momisugly Maria says: August 21, 2011 at 7:33 pm
Yes, Maria, Hansen is so selfless, just caring for us all and all of our children, it’s clear. http://biggovernment.com/chorner/2011/06/23/lawsuit-seeks-ethics-filings-of-nasas-global-warming-activist-james-hansen/
Good grief! Are all those “faces” hideously white? (Brits will understand…)
“And people who blog sarcastic comments aren’t automatically bigots. They are merely exercising their right to free speech.”
Yup, even idiots and bigots can feel proud of being idiots and bigots. Nothing clever in demeaning these people.
Gosh, the level of the “sarcasm” (that tag is being used to cover the inherent unkind attitude of the writers) is like being in a high school yard at lunch. Petty, trivial, it lowers you all to the level of school children.
I understood these shales oils were taken by excavating vast swathes of land, not tiny pin-pick oil wells. Even if fossil fuels have minimal impact on the atmosphere when burnt, the terra-forming from the harvesting of shale oils and the short- to medium-term degradation from spills and leaks from “ordinary” wells can be significant. What happened in the Gulf of Mexico, or are you all okay with coastlines ruined? And do we not all agree that “peak oil” has been reached? Surely these methods of harvesting fossil fuel should be avoided and we should be trying to develop other energy sources with long lives, eg thorium-cycle nukes, ever more efficient solar, tidal, hydro, geothermal, etc?
Is that Hansen wearing a skirt?
Ted Dooley says: August 21, 2011 at 6:39 pm
[Doubftul the jail food is organic… they’ll probably sue!]
The food will of course be organic (a carbon compound).
But if you meant Organic (a marketing compound), then they can bring in some Organic bean sprouts, grown with LED lighting using windmill electricity, not irradiated, pesticide free, from Germany; I hear people have been dying to try them.
Surfer Dave says:
Um… and what do you think happens to any “vast swathes of land” once we’re done with them? Do you actually think there is any danger of simply leaving them exposed and open? Really??? Wow.
Show me a “ruined coastline” Dave. Really. I suspect you’re pretty sure they’re out there… but… show me one. You might be surprised. Even Valdez is free of problems, and NOT because of people “fixing” it. Sure, you can look around and locate some evidence that there was a spill, but I understand the same can be said around Santa Barbara, from natural seeps. In fact, the Gulf has far more natural seepage than spill damage.
Um… you’re new around here, right?
Uh, go right ahead and develop these other energy sources. The FACT is that right now, we run on petroleum products.
Re: Maria @ur momisugly 6:45 p.m.
Wow. Okay, let’s take our post one sentence at a time, shall we?
– it doesn’t matter what “the global political and business community” have agreed. This is a scientific topic and thus must be addressed via the scientific method, i.e., observation, hypothesis, experiment and synthesis
– Wikipedia is not a scientific source
– observed data (not model outputs) demonstrate that:
1. the average global temperature appears to have risen by about 1 degree centigrade over the past century and a half. It has not risen over the past 13 years
2. there is no significant change in the rate of sea level increase (i.e. no acceleration, which is what “change in the rate” means) in the instrumental record
3. neither the number nor the intensity of storms is increasing; the accumulated cyclone index is in fact declining
4. droughts and floods are not new; nor are the scarcity of food and potable water
5. malaria is endemic throughout the world and has historically been a problem in places like Washington, D.C. and Siberia; malarial risks are mitigated through medication and mosquito control, which requires money and stable governments
6. the “physical impacts of climate change” may frighten you but the do not frighten me; as a resident of Ottawa my climate changes by roughly 80 degrees centigrade twice a year. Two months ago it was 40 degrees outside, and in three months it will be -40. I have survived this transition, and all of its physical impacts, 45 times thanks to modern technology, principally fossil fuels.
7. your Malthusian argument about our inability to “support the human population” is the same one that Ehrlich made 40 years ago when he predicted mass starvation before 2000. Oops.
8. we have experienced “mass war, horror and death” within living memory and they had nothing to do with climate change – they were caused by the Soviet-imposed political famines, Nazi atrocities, Communist China’s disastrous “great leap forward” and “cultural revolution”, and jihadist terrorism.
9. bleating “WON’T ANYONE THINK ABOUT THE CHILDREN” like you and your hero Hansen have done is a transparently ludicrous attempt to seize the moral high ground. It is not a scientific argument. If you’re concerned about your children and grandchildren, then I suggest you petition the US government to fix the business environment in the US, stay away from green pipe dreams, and stop racking up debt like sailors on a drunken rampage in Singapore. The “physical impacts” of the obliteration of the US economy over the next 10 years will far outweigh those modelled as an alleged consequence of “climate change” over the next 100.
10. That the US military has declared climate change a “threat” simply demonstrates that (a) they work for Barack Obama, and (b) they don’t know what the word “threat” means. Without intention formed by a human agency, “climate change” cannot be anything other than a condition of the military operating environment. However, nothing that is projected to happen as an alleged result of “climate change” will impact US military operations over any realistic planning period. As for “climate wars”, as an historian I can assure you that there has never been one. Until there has been at least one, we have no data to indicate whether there may be others.
11. Your final comment demonstrates why you simply don’t get it. You ask “just who has to say that we need to sort things out around fossil fuel dependency and climate change for you to believe it”? I answer, anyone – so long as they support their arguments with data. Those of you who are “true believers” simply want a “smart guy” to tell them what the truth is. This is a plea for argumentum ad verecundiam – an argument from authority. You want the climate pope to issue an encyclical to get everything on track. But there are no popes in science. All it would take to convince me would be a single experiment demonstrating that, as the IPCC argues, human-produced carbon dioxide is the key driver of global temperature. Scientists – real ones, that is – aren’t looking for a burning bush. All it would take to convince us is data.
But like the rest of the true believers, you’re not interested in data. So you’d probably be happier on a different website, like Romm’s place, where they’re not interested in data either.
Canada is a cold place in the winter. I wonder how many of the protesters practice what they preach when they warm their homes? Let them get by on “sustainable” solar and wind like they want us all to do. Maybe they’ll come to their senses before they freeze.