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.
When has the right to protest (even if you think they are wrong) fallen out of favour in your country? Isn’t it the so called “land of the free”? What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
Surfer Dave says: August 22, 2011 at 12:08 am
[I understood these shales oils were taken by excavating vast swathes of land, not tiny pin-pick oil wells. ]
Spoken like a Western European.
In Western Europe (and other crowded small places) the Athabasca Oil sands development is a ‘vast swath of land’; to people in Canada it is a tiny piece of otherwise useless rocky and sandy and oily, pre-polluted wasteland that is unfit for man or beast.
If you were to spill a teaspoon of oil in Hyde park in London and dig it up with a tablespoon, and then wash the oil out of the dirt using a tablespoon of hot tea then you would have had the same impact on Hyde park as the Athabasca Oil sands production has on Canada.
‘vast swathes of land’, like Luxembourg or Andorra?
I support the rights of these folk to peacefully protest at whatever shakes their shingles. Jailing them sends society back many years.
What’s wrong with being against Tar sands
Can I just make the point that you can be against the unscientific nonsense of global warming, but also against the never ending usage of fossil fuels. Indeed, the biggest irony of the global warmists, is that the big oil companies all seem to have their snouts in the wind energy trough and splattering the countryside with windmills just as keenly as they are digging up the wilderness and splattering it with oil debris.
Personally, I think that whilst increasing fossil fuel use has brought great wealth, it hasn’t brough great happiness. I see society has been alienated from itself by the motor car as I see the car-less youth turning against their own society, I see the car owning adults treating children as filth with no rights – except the right to appear in court under laws that they have no say in.
Yes I own a car and use oil, but my children walk and cycle to school and are not chaffered around in the aggressive armoured cars most parents use. So, I do use oil and I would prefer cheaper oil. But to celebrate the destruction of the wilderness for tar oil is not the way to go because:
1. No sane person ought to want to see the destruction of the environment
2. The fact we are having to resort to tar sands shows that we are very close or even beyond the end of “cheap oil” and as the Western economies have been built on cheap oil, you might as well say we are very close to the end of the Western economies … which doesn’t sound to me like something we should be celebrating!
@ur momisugly papertiger says: August 21, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Amen brother! 😉
@ur momisugly Surfer Dave says: August 22, 2011 at 12:08 am
Conversely, are you ok with rotten food, vastly increased deaths associated with fuel poverty and diminished standards of living for all, the most poverty stricken in 3rd world countries to remain in such conditions, and vastly worsened environmental conditions because no one has the luxury of looking out for the environment and so many default to much higher polluting fuels such as burning dung and wood for cooking and heating, because other forms of energy are either unavailable or too expensive?
Why do you think it’s the developed nations that have cleaner water and air, boatloads of environmental protection laws and regulations and large environmental movements? It’s because we have had access to reliable cheap abundant ENERGY.
Wind and solar are far too unreliable and expensive, aren’t nearly energy dense enough, and require large amounts of rare earths also. Hydro and geothermal are extremely limited in terms of available useful sites, and at least for hydro, environmentalists are up in arms about them and trying to stop construction where ever possible, at least in the USA. Not to mention that hydro often ruins vast tracts of land by innundating with water to make the reserviors, making that land entirely unusable for humans, animals, or plants for the most part. Look up Three Gorges Dam – or how huge Lake Mead is. They can also be quite unsafe (look up deaths due to dam failures).
Nuclear is great for producing electricity – no need to wait for development of thorium nukes either, generation III nukes are already developed, operating, and ready to go for any country that wants to build them. As it is the USA has had just over 100 commercial nuclear power plants for decades reliably and safely producing about 20% of our electricity at quite competitive cost. France has done the same, but as they are far smaller it has been with less actual plants, but enough that for decades they’ve gotten about 80% of their electricity from nuclear power.
Generally agreed that we’ve reached peak oil? Please. The world is nowhere near peak oil – especially not the USA, which makes our oil imports all the more insane. Please see this 2004 US DOE report, and note the size of the USA shale oil resources. Its been years since I read the report, but IIRC that oil is competitive at about $80/barrel and there’s enough to power the USA at what was current consumption levels when written for something like 100 years: http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:qOervTFZdcIJ:www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/npr/publications/npr_strategic_significancev1.pdf+%22department+of+energy%22+%28oil+OR+petroleum%29+%22100+years%22+shale&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShcwnGjFS-7wq2LTc2mbQuyNdEe9aJoRSOujFt7nhgUGbyW7L6k5qv_KU2wxt0_N9jIFnv06DdNMStRAWDs9QPmUUa1nfLIi1GoCdYfKkkJ1VOCB2IEuxDYSijodGZVMIdTiJZr&sig=AHIEtbQDgfWY0uWpF7G2cLjv2PfJHz3efg&pli=1
Strategic Significance of America’s Oil Shale Resource
It is generally agreed that worldwide petroleum supply will eventually reach its productive limit,
peak, and begin a long-term decline. What should the United States do to prepare for this event?
An objective look at the alternatives points to the Nation’s untapped oil shale as a strategically
located, long-term source of reliable, affordable, and secure oil.
The vast extent of U.S. oil shale resources, amounting to more than 2 trillion barrels, …..Addition of shale oil to the country’s proved oil reserves could occur in a manner similar to the addition of
175 billion barrels of oil from Alberta tar sand to Canada’s proved oil reserves. As a result of the
commercial success oil from tar sand, production now exceeds 1 million barrels per day. U.S. oil
shale, which is as rich as tar sand, could similarly be developed and become a vital component in America’s future energy security…. [emphasis added]
Friends:
I support the right of protesters to protest.
In the case of the demonstrators being discussed here, I am certain that their ’cause’ is wrong.
But it is important that every person be enabled to demonstrate a ’cause’ they believe.
Hence, I strongly support their right to protest.
A democratic society needs to ensure provision to enable demonstrations and protests about anything, including (as in this case) demonstrations that call for destruction of society, the nation and civilisation.
And I think it important that there is proper provision for protests and demonstrations.
The USA has proper provision for protests and demonstrations.
However, nobody should be allowed to protest and demonstrate in a place and/or a manner that harms or risks society as a whole. So, for example, rioters need to be stopped. Similarly, a demonstration alongside the Whitehouse is forbidden because it provides a security risk (e.g. opportunity for terrorists to use such a demonstration as a ‘cover’ for attack on the Presidential Palace).
The demonstrators are being arrested for demonstrating in a place where such demonstrations are rightly forbidden. They have chosen to demonstrate in that place because they know they will be arrested and thus will gain publicity for their demonstration.
So, the demonstrators are deliberately breaking the law in a manner that threatens national security with the intent of being arrested as a method to gain publicity for their cause.
I fail to understand how a mere 24 hours in jail is sufficient punishment for those arrested.
Richard
Scottish, you’re a perfect example of what we’re up against. I understand what you’re saying, but you’ve been lied to. Developing the Oilsands (not TAR sands, that term is used as a pejorative) does nothing even remotely like “destroying the environment”. Contrary to the popular view, the area is a vast wasteland, NOT HABITABLE. Fly over some day, you’ll see lakes and rivers awash in an oily sheen, stunted trees, and very little wildlife. That is the natural state of the area. It’s not a beautiful natural environment to start with.
So for your 2 points:
1. It’s a vast oil spill that is being cleaned up, not a destructive process
2. Nobody is “resorting to” developing the Oilsands. It’s a viable source of obtainable oil.
There were some experimental recovery projects through the 70s and 80s, but it was generally determined that until oil was at $35/bbl for over a certain amount of time it was not economical to start working on production in quantity. Now the breakeven point is a lot lower since techniques have been developed to lower the cost of production.
And yes, I’ll continue championing the cause. I live here. I know what’s going on. I’ve been all over Alberta and seen for myself what is going on.
Again: if the US doesn’t want it, there are other buyers with cash in hand. It’s actually mind-boggling that what I consider the “forces of evil” are succeeding in demonizing Oilsands production. Don’t let them win.
Maria says:
August 21, 2011 at 6:45 pm
Ooh! Ooh!, I know!, Pick me, pick me!
F A C T S
NB: Model output is merely a product of the input parameters and the model settings. It needs to be backed up with actual empirical data over time (in this case) to have any validity whatsoever. So far, no facts whatsoever have demonstrated that CO2 will do anything other than mildly warm the air. This will also likely be beneficial, as it has been the last two times the climate did this all by itself (without our help). The enrichment of plants is yet another benefit.
When there is proof that any of the doom-laden scenarios is even likely, then we can talk about what we should do about it.
As for dependency on fossils fuel, as it gets rarer and harder to find, it will get more expensive. When that happens, and not before, the market will naturally find cheaper alternatives, most likely nuclear, although there may be all sorts of new options by then.
Baa Humbug says:
August 22, 2011 at 1:16 am
I have to agree. Locking them up for protesting peacefully is not progress.
I also support the right of other to mock them, however.
Tony Mach says:
August 22, 2011 at 1:07 am
When has the right to protest (even if you think they are wrong) fallen out of favour in your country? Isn’t it the so called “land of the free”? What happened to “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”?
They are breaking the law, and they know it. That is the whole point of their “exercise”. It is ironic that you mouth the words “land of the free”, without, apparently even knowing what they mean. They are certainly free to be morons and hypocrites, and say idiotic things. And we have the right to criticize them for their words and actions. What’s ironic, though, is that what they are doing and saying is actually in the service of anti-democracy. Attacking oil in this case is simply a proxy for attacking “carbon”. They are defending the biggest, most destructive lie in human history. That way lies the road to fascism.
Why aren’t these protesters protesting wind mill farms? Nature Canada claims that over 50,000 flying creatures (that’s bats and birds) are being killed every year (http://naturecanadablog.blogspot.com/2010/05/wind-farm-on-wolf-island-is-killing.html) with only 84 wind mills. Considering there are 900 wind mills in Ontario, it is possible that over 50,000 flying creatures a year are being killed in Ontario every year!!).
They hypocrisy of environmentalist never ceases to amaze me
As a Canadian, I woulld prefer the oil was refined in Canada
Scottish Sceptic says:
August 22, 2011 at 1:28 am
What’s wrong with being against Tar sands
Can I just make the point that you can be against the unscientific nonsense of global warming, but also against the never ending usage of fossil fuels.
Your statement is illogical. We use “fossil fuels” because they are still relatively inexpensive. Other energy forms are being developed, but so far, alternative, so-called “green” energy is far too expensive and/or unreliable. They also have their own set of environmental problems. No one expects fossil fuel use to be “never-ending”, so that’s a strawman argument.
But to celebrate the destruction of the wilderness for tar oil is not the way to go because:
1. No sane person ought to want to see the destruction of the environment
2. The fact we are having to resort to tar sands shows that we are very close or even beyond the end of “cheap oil” and as the Western economies have been built on cheap oil, you might as well say we are very close to the end of the Western economies … which doesn’t sound to me like something we should be celebrating!
“Celebrate the destruction of the environment”? What are you smoking? That’s just another strawman argument as well as a red herring, since the issue here is “carbon”, not “the “environment. Your 2nd argument is the old, “peak oil” argument greenies love to use, and another red herring. New energy forms will come along eventually which will be competitive with oil. Government meddling is not needed or wanted, nor would the result be good.
So, the question is, why do you hate oil so much, and since you still use it, doesn’t that make you a hypocrite?
Hi all,
It is getting late here in New Zealand, and I have looked back at my own first post and I guess I should have tried to be more polite. Or at least less blunt. I am, however, disappointed by the abuse and grandstanding. The blog post itself is written to elicit certain responses and written, obviously, for an audience of ‘believers.’ But I read it and have a different point of view.
I think we need to have these debates openly and I will continue to engage with whoever wants to talk about it. I can’t think of anything worse than only talking about issues with people I know agree with me. I read anything and everything I can to try to get an idea of what is going on in my world. I’ve got an undergrad degree in Physics and have worked in public policy in Europe and now in New Zealand for around ten years.
I can’t respond to everything now – I need to sleep! – But on few specific points:
1. A 3,000 mile long pipeline makes for a pretty sweet terrorist target.
2. Tar sands are, until dug out, mostly located under forests. They are not just gaping oil pits that we need to clean up.
3. When the (huge areas) of forest and top soil (it seems to vary between 15 and 50 feet) are removed to get to the tar sands, extravagant amounts of water and energy are needed to turn the bitumen in the sands into something fluid enough to be pumped out. The waste water is left behind in large ponds. The land around is contaminated. This is not a playground for local wildlife.
4. On population growth, global population (not just the population in the area where you might live) is growing faster than ever before. Though the population is expected to stablise at 9-10bn people by the end of this century, that’s still too many people for the Earth to sustain. At least it is if you think that everyone should have enough food to eat, water to drink etc. Here’s what the World Bank says http://www.worldbank.org/depweb/english/beyond/beyondco/beg_03.pdf
Goodnight.
According to http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/21/my-surfacestations-project-at-the-ams-conference/ the minute warming effect could potentially just be urbanization. So it is no wonder UNIPCC choose CO2 and it’s non proven global effect instead, for just imagined if the IPCC reports stated CAGW is all about the horrible evil urbanization? They would potentially have risked these climate hippies burning cities to the ground instead of just mere silly protesting the stuff of life.
Doug in Seattle nailed it: “These people are so deluded there is simply no hope in trying to educate them. ”
That’s exactly what informed people think of the WUWT crowd. (And still, I have hope!)
Why are we like enemies? What a tribal world: he has a beard so he’s in the other clan…
I’m a nice guy, you know. We could be friends. I’m actually pretty pro-free-market and all that. I like sports cars! I like the taste of meat! Don’t think that ‘our side’ consists only of hippies who drink goat yoghurt and go to meditation retreats the whole time. Don’t think that all the sientsts are unscrupulous misanthropes who are only after grant money. Seriously, do think scientists earn more money than […]?
I hope you can admit that you reject the mainstream scientific opinion about climate based on tribal grounds. Based on politics and ideology. It’s about your world view.
It really is.
I’m totally serious. I really know what I’m saying. I’m one of the most skeptical persons on the planet. I’ve thought about this a lot and I doubt about my own opinion every day.
When you take a close, objective look at the science of climate change, you’ll see where the truth lies.
What the policy response should be, is a different matter.
Yes, there are communists who dream of a back-to-nature society. Those are the ones that scared. But there are also lots of people who share your values, who just happened to stumble upon some irrefutable facts.
I mean, seriously. The post about Norwegian climate scientists predicting cooling in the 70’s. Is that a cherry-pick, yes or no? -Yes, I know that the ‘other side’ also does some cherry-picking from time to time.
There actually was a literature review of all peer-reviewed papers from the 70’s that came to the conclusion that the majority of papers predicted warming back then. There was still a debate, back then.
I could go on and on like this.
Pick out logical fallacies – on both sides, yes!
But how are we supposed to have a debate when you guys are like: “you’re wrong because you have dumbo ears.”
So, please, do some introspection. Anthony, it’s ok, you know. People can be wrong. I know you can see things that are wrong, for example when you let Joe Bastardi post about the laws of thermodynamics. You know it’s not true. How does a greenhouse work? Because the plants are generating massive amounts of heat? Hell no! You know it’s not true.
Fred from Canuckistan says:
August 21, 2011 at 4:49 pm
Apparently he already has:
Anthropogenic (man-made) global warming is a “contrived phony mess that is falling apart of its own weight,” said Texas Gov. Rick Perry, a candidate for president. It’s the most harmful hoax in history, because President Barack Obama bases job-killing policies on it.
http://post-gazette.com/pg/11233/1168499-373.stm
Maria says:
August 22, 2011 at 3:52 am
Just one questioin Maria: Does the World Bank adhere to the findings of the IPCC? If yes, then scrub your “that’s still too many people for the Earth to sustain” comment. If not, then you have a valid point.
(You don’t have a valid point.)
Bruce Cobb says:
“Celebrate the destruction of the environment”? What are you smoking? New energy forms will come along eventually which will be competitive with oil.
You ask me what I’m smoking! On what basis do you say “New energy forms will come along”? The last new energy form was “discovered” almost 100 years ago and fully operational by the 1960s. We’ve been burning coal for millennium, using solar for bio-fuels since the neolithic. The Egyptians were using wind energy to sail up the nile and hydro to come down it thousands of years ago. The last major advance other than nuclear was electricity at the end of the 19th century and possible the turbine to replace technology from the water wheel. (strike that I read: A rudimentary steam turbine device was described by Taqi al-Din in 1551 and by Giovanni Branca in 1629.
The national grid hasn’t changed much since the 1950s, no new energy forms since the 1960s only last week I asked a UK industry insider about fusion and got the same negative synopsis for its prospects.
All in all I totally fail to see any prospect for any new form of energy this century and people who believe in the miraculous coming of energy forms either have not studied the subject in any detail or as you are say … must be smoking something”.
New energy forms are just pie in the sky warmist type claptrap. The evidence shows that the energy forms we have today are the energy forms we must live with for the foreseeable future and personally I’d prefer to base an energy policy on the realistic prospects for the future and not wishful thinking.
Why arent they using a nuke to generate the steam used to get the oil out?
Might cramp their future travel plans a bit…
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/us-homemaker-martha-stewart-is-banned-from-entering-britain-851591.html
Maria says:
August 21, 2011 at 5:00 pm
Maria, I attended the Mensa Annual Colloquium at the end of February in Atlanta in part to hear keynote speaker James Hansen and in part to make sure he didn’t recruit Mensans unfamiliar with all sides of the story. He left early to get to a Washington protest before a snow storm snarled traffic in both areas. I wound up spending two extra days in Atlanta trying to get home. See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/01/hansens-coal-and-global-warming-protest-may-get-snowed-out/#comment-92826
Heidi Cullen was there (in the process of leaving The Weather Channel), as was Noah Diffenbaugh (unknown to me at the time, but has become an alarmist at Stanford).
I bought James Hansen’s book, but confess I can’t make it all the way through. Hansen and several other scientists are fixated on CO2 as the main driver of our climate. It is not. It is one component, and possibly a surprisingly minor one at that.
All this is well covered here in past posts and will be covered in future posts. Hang around, read a lot, then tell us what you think.
@ur momisugly DN
1. You can draw a line from 1998 to 2010 which is nearly flat in all cases and rises or falls, depending on the dataset you use. You are an intelligent person, so you know that this is not how statistical analysis works. Hence, your claim is directly at odds with what Roy Spencer and Patrick Michaels say. You know that natural variablity, or noise is at work and that statistical analyses of all datasets show a rising trend.
Since, you’re an intelligent person, I don’t understand how we could disagree about that.
2. I’ve read otherwise. You provide no sources, so won’t I.
3. There seems to be uncertainty about the trend of frequency. Anyway, the intensity is increasing.
4. I totally agree.
5. okay… so?
6. “as a resident of Ottawa my climate changes by roughly 80 degrees centigrade twice a year” Obviously you know weather is not climate. If it gets so hot in Ottawa, how come there are no coconut trees? Have you ever looked at a mountain? There’s a line past which no trees grow. Below the line the climate is hardly a degree warmer than above that line. And on both sides of the line, there are huge temperature swings. Regardless how the explanation of this phenomenon, it’s a fact. The average temperature in Detroit is 3,4ºC higher than in Ottawa, about the temperature rise expected in Ottawa during my life time. Would you agree that there’s a big difference in vegetation between those places. (Yes, there are other factors.) It’s nice to know that, thanks to modern technology, you can survive the climate in Ottawa. And that you could survive even if Ottawa’s climate changed to that of Miami, which isn’t going to happen any time soon. It’s just a pity that almost none of the thousands of species that share your habitat would ever survive such a change.
7. Ok. Ehrlich was wrong. And so were many others. Does that mean people predicting bad things today are wrong? No. Does it mean you can’t be skeptical? Hell, no! At least you would agree that, since we are already consuming 25% of the world’s biomass, it would be hard to conceive a world with more than 30 billion humans. Of course, nobody’s saying that.
8. Yes. Oh, you forgot. 1 million dead in Iraq. No WMD. Bin Laden was from Afghanistan, not Iraq. Would it be reasonable to say that the Iraq war was mainly fought over strategic oil reserves? Oh, I know another one: Vietnam! Oh, and Darfur. Why did their lake dry up?
9. Of course, that depends entirely upon your perspective. I’m convinced that you want the best for next generations and that you believe certain policy options will be beneficial for them. Others disagree.
10. http://www.s-e-i.org/pentagon_climate_change.pdf 2003. Sure, it’s just a scenario.
11. It’s part of basic modesty to question yourself if your personal interpretation of the same data is at odds with all the experts on the matter in the world. It’s good to be skeptical, nullis in verba, I know. But, seriously. NO WORKING CLIMATE SCIENTIST in the world agrees with you that the world has stopped warming since 1998. Shouldn’t that make you a tad skeptical of your own skepticism?
Over at Romm’s place, there are usually quite a lot of links to papers and databases. They’re not interested in data? That’s plain wrong. I won’t say that of Watts. He is interested in data. i don’t deny that.
You’re a bit emotional, that’s ok. So am I.
Maria says:
August 22, 2011 at 3:52 am
Hi all,
…………..
I think we need to have these debates openly and I will continue to engage with whoever wants to talk about it. I can’t think of anything worse than only talking about issues with people I know agree with me. I read anything and everything I can to try to get an idea of what is going on in my world. I’ve got an undergrad degree in Physics and have worked in public policy in Europe and now in New Zealand for around ten years.
====================================================
Outstanding! And welcome! While it may not be obvious, your presence is very much welcomed by many here. As you note, “I can’t think of anything worse than only talking about issues with people I know agree with me.” I, too, get bored to tears when stuck in an echo chamber. But that’s why I pop by here fairly frequently. When we’ve no alarmist to argue with, we’ll argue amongst ourselves about tangential issues! Its very engaging. Seeing that you’re new to this site, I’d encourage you to peruse the archives here. The article presented doesn’t lend to a heady discussion, but that isn’t the norm. While there were opportunities to delve more into the underlying socioeconomic issues raised, sometimes its better just to enjoy a laugh at someone else’ expense. As to your friend Dr. Hansen, he’s not someone I’d bother quoting if you truly believe we should be looking for solutions. Dr. Hansen claims alarm about an imagined problem but offers nothing in the form of a solution, rather, he believes the problems can be fixed with a tax. He openly receives graft and then has the U.S. tax payer subsidize his electric bill….. well…. go here, http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/08/18/hansen-was-right-in-part-for-once Be sure to click on the links provided to see for yourself.
As to your education and work experience, you may at times feel out of your depth…… no worries, we’ll explain if asked. Again, welcome!