Skip to main content

View Diary: Keystone XL: Will the State Department's shameful dishonesty become Obama's climate legacy? (182 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Unfortunately, ActivistGuy..... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Pragmatism may just be our only hope, particularly if Keystone goes through. Forget the fake bullshit that you hear from oil industry hacks. I'm talking about real, genuine pragmatism; if we happen to fail to stop the pipeline then we'll just have to focus more on getting the President to intensify out commitment to renewables, and other things.

    "Purity", I believe, can be an admirable thing. In reality, sadly, purity isn't always the best strategy......sometimes, compromises really do need to be made.

    •  KXL is a binary decision w/ a Yes or No answer (10+ / 0-)

      It's a defining decision b/c it offers no room for compromise and b/c it's a decision that the president will be making on his own.  It can't be blamed on GOP intransigence.  To quote James Hansen:

      To say that say the tar sands have little climate impact is an absurdity,” said Hansen. “The total carbon in tar sands exceeds that in all oil burned in human history, and if the pipeline is built ways will be found to extract more and more of it, burning fossil fuels during the extraction and destroying the local environment.”

      With scientific studies, statements and by offering himself for arrest at climate action demonstrations, Hansen has attempted to draw attention to the danger of passing climate tipping points that he says would produce “irreversible climate impacts that would yield a different planet from the one on which civilization developed.”

      “We stand now at a fork in the road as supplies of conventional easily-extracted oil and gas dwindle: will we accept the dirtiest of fuels at public expense or will we choose the path to clean energy?” he asked Friday. “The public must demand that the government begin serving the public’s interest, not the fossil fuel industry’s interest.”

      It's not a question of "purity," it's a question of planetary survival.  The president can side w/ science, or he can side w/ oilmen.  Sadly, we pretty well know which side he will take here.  

      Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream of things that never were and ask why not?

      by RFK Lives on Sun Mar 10, 2013 at 05:27:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ..... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        BTW, I should point out that even if we burned all 2 trillion tons of the Tar Sands, it would add up to about .4-5*C at most(.36*C according to one source); not exactly insignificant, unfortunately, but not quite the end of the world, either, contrary to Hansen's fears.

        And it's highly unlikely we'll end up burning all of it.....we might not end up burning a quarter of it, which in that case, would be only about an eighth of a degree additional warming at most. Good news? Somewhat so, but unfortunately, global warming is far from the only worry as we all know.....

        "Sadly, we pretty well know which side he will take here."  

         Not necessarily. There has been more than enough outcry, and so far, Obama's actually had a remarkably decent track record overall as far as renewables go. Of course, you may be correct, but the fact is, nothing is written in stone, so we do have a chance. Let's make it count, no matter the outcome. =)

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site