Skip to main content

This article originally appeared at TomDispatch.com. To receive TomDispatch in your inbox three times a week, click here.

Recently, “good” news about energy has been gushing out of North America, where a cheering crowd of pundits, energy experts, and government officials has been plugging the U.S. as the “Saudi Arabia” of the twenty-first century.  You know,  all that fracking and those luscious deposits of oil shale and gas shale  just waiting to be pounded into shape to fill global gas tanks for an energy-rich future.   And then, of course, just to the north there are those fabulous  Canadian tar sands deposits whose extraction is reportedly turning parts  of Alberta into an environmental desert.  And that isn't all.

From the melting Arctic, where the Russians and others are staking out energy claims, to the southernmost tip of South America, the dream of  new energy wealth is being pursued with a fervor and avidity that is  hard to take in.  In distant Patagonia,  an Argentinean government not previously known for its friendliness to  foreign investment has just buddied up with Chevron to drill “around the  clock in pursuit of a vast shale oil reservoir that might be the  world’s next great oil field.”  Huzzah and olé!

And can you even blame the Argentinean president for her choice?   After all, who wants to be the country left out of the global rush for  new energy wealth?  Who wants to consider the common good of the planet,  when your country’s finances may be at stake? (As with the Keystone XL  pipeline protest movement here, so in Argentina, there actually are environmentalists and others  who are thinking of the common good, but they’re up against the state,  the police, and Chevron -- no small thing.)  All of this would, of  course, be a wondrous story -- a planet filled with energy reserves  beyond anyone’s wildest dreams -- were it not for the fact that such  fossil fuel wealth, such good news, is also the nightmarish bad news of  our lives, of perhaps the lifetime of humanity.

There is an obvious disconnect between what is widely known about climate change and the recent rush to extract “tough energy” from  difficult environments; between the fires -- and potential “mega-fire” -- burning wildly across parts of overheated Australia and its newly elected government run by a conservative prime minister,  essentially a climate denier, intent on getting rid of that country’s  carbon tax. There is a disconnect between hailing the U.S. as the new  Saudi Arabia and the recent report of the prestigious Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warning that fossil fuel reserves must be kept in the ground -- or else. There is a disconnect between what our president says  about climate change and the basic energy policies of his  administration. There is a disconnect between what the burning of  fossil fuels will do to our environment and the urge of just about every  country on this planet to exploit whatever energy reserves are  potentially available to it, no matter how “dirty,” no matter how  environmentally destructive to extract.

Somewhere in that disconnect, the remarkable Bill McKibben, whose new book, Oil and Honey: The Education of an Unlikely Activist, is at the top of my personal reading list, has burrowed in and helped to create a global climate change movement. In this country, it's significantly focused on the Keystone XL pipeline  slated, if built, to bring tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf  Coast.  For the last several years at TomDispatch, McKibben has kept us  abreast of the most recent developments in that movement. Here is his latest report from the tar sands front. Tom

X-Ray of a Flagging Presidency
Will Obama Block the Keystone Pipeline or Just Keep Bending?
By Bill McKibben

As the battle over the Keystone XL pipeline has worn on -- and it’s now well over two years old -- it’s illuminated  the Obama presidency like no other issue. It offers the president not  just a choice of policies, but a choice of friends, worldviews, styles.  It’s become an X-ray for a flagging presidency. The stakes are sky-high,  and not just for Obama. I’m writing these words from Pittsburgh, amid  7,000 enthusiastic and committed young people gathering to fight global warming, and my guess is that his choice will do much to determine how they see politics in this country.

Let us stipulate at the start that whether or not to build the  pipeline is a decision with profound physical consequences. If he  approves its construction, far more of the dirtiest oil on Earth will flow out of the tar sands of Alberta, Canada, and reach  the U.S. Gulf Coast. Not just right away or for a brief period, but far  into the future, since the Keystone XL guarantees a steady flow of  profits to oil barons who have their hearts set on tripling production  in the far north.

The history of oil spills and accidents offers a virtual guarantee  that some of that oil will surely make its way into the fields and  aquifers of the Great Plains as those tar sands flow south.  The greater  and more daunting assurance is this, however: everything that reaches  the refineries on the Gulf Coast will, sooner or later, spill into the  atmosphere in the form of carbon, driving climate change to new heights.

In June, President Obama said that the building of the full pipeline -- on which he alone has the ultimate thumbs up or thumbs down -- would be approved only if “it doesn’t significantly exacerbate the problem of carbon pollution.”  By that standard, it’s as close to a no-brainer as you can get.

These days, however, as no one will be surprised to hear, brainless things happen in Washington more often than not, and there’s the usual parade of the usual suspects demanding that Keystone get built. In mid-October, a coalition that included Exxon, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, and Royal Dutch Shell, not to mention the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the Business Roundtable, sent Obama a letter demanding that he approve Keystone in order to “maintain investor confidence,” a phrase almost guaranteed to accompany bad ideas. A report last week showed that the Koch brothers stood to earn as much as $100 billion in profits if the pipeline gets built (which would come in handy in helping fund their endless assault on unions, poor people, and democracy).

But don’t think it’s just Republican bigwigs and oil execs rushing to lend the pipeline a hand. Transcanada, the pipeline’s prospective builder, is at work as well, and Obama’s former communications director Anita Dunn is now on the Transcanada dime, producing TV ads in support of the pipeline.  It’s a classic example of the kind of influence peddling that knows no partisan bounds. As the activists at Credo put it: “It's a betrayal of the commitments that so many of us worked so hard for, and that Dunn herself played a huge role in shaping as top strategist on the 2008 campaign and communications director in the White House.”

Credo’s Elijah Zarlin, who worked with Dunn back in 2008, wrote that attack on her. He was the guy who wrote all those emails that got so many of us coughing up money and volunteering time during Obama’s first run for the presidency, and he perfectly exemplifies those of us on the other side of this divide -- the ones who actually believed Dunn in 2008, the ones who thought Obama was going to try to be a different kind of president.

On energy there’s been precious little sign of that. Yes, the Environmental Protection Agency has put in place some new power plant regulations, and cars are getting better mileage. But the president has also boasted again and again about his “all of the above” energy policy for “increasing domestic oil production and reducing our dependence on foreign oil.” It has, in fact, worked so well that the United States will overtake Russia this year as the biggest combined oil and natural gas producer on the planet and is expected to pass Saudi Arabia as the number one oil producer by 2017.

His administration has okayed oil drilling in the dangerous waters of the Arctic and has emerged as the biggest backer of fracking.  Even though he boasts about marginal U.S. cuts in carbon emissions, his green light to fracking means that he’s probably given more of a boost to releases of methane -- another dangerous greenhouse gas -- than any man in history. And it’s not just the environment.  At this point, given what we know about everything from drone warfare to NSA surveillance, the dream of a progressive Obama has, like so many dreams, faded away.

The president has a handy excuse, of course: a truly terrible Congress. And too often -- with the noble exception of those who have been fighting for gay rights and immigration reform -- he’s had little challenge from progressives. But in the case of Keystone, neither of those caveats apply: he gets to make the decision all by himself with no need to ask John Boehner for a thing, and people across the country have made a sustained din about it. Americans have sent record numbers of emails to senators and a record number of comments to the State Department officials who oversee a “review” of the pipeline’s environmental feasibility; more have gone to jail over this issue than any in decades. Yet month after month, there’s no presidential decision.

There are days, in fact, when it’s hard to muster much fire for the fight (though whenever I find my enthusiasm flagging, I think of the indigenous communities that have to live amid the Mordor that is now northern Alberta). The president, after all, has already allowed the construction of the southern half of the Keystone pipeline, letting Transcanada take land across Texas and Oklahoma for its project, and setting up the beleaguered communities of Port Arthur, Texas, for yet more fumes from refineries.

Stopping the northern half of that pipeline from being built certainly won’t halt global warming by itself. It will, however, slow the expansion of the extraction of tar sands, though the Koch brothers et al. are busy trying to find other pipeline routes and rail lines that would get the dirtiest of dirty energy out of Canada and into the U.S. via destinations from Michigan to Maine.  These pipelines and rail corridors will need to be fought as well -- indeed the fights are underway, though sometimes obscured by the focus on Keystone. And there are equally crucial battles over coal and gas from the Appalachians to the Pacific coast. You can argue that the president’s people have successfully diverted attention from their other environmental sins by keeping this argument alive long past the moment at which it should have been settled and a decision should have been made.

At this point, in fact, only the thought of those 900,000 extra barrels a day of especially nasty oil coming out of the ground and, via that pipeline, into refineries still makes the fight worthwhile. Oh, and the possibility that, in deciding to block Keystone, the president would finally signal a shift in policy that matters, finally acknowledge that we have to keep most of the carbon that’s still in the ground in that ground if we want our children and grandchildren to live on a planet worth inhabiting.

If the president were to become the first world leader to block a big energy project on the grounds of its effects on climate, it might help dramatically reset the international negotiations that he allowed to go aground at Copenhagen in 2009 -- the biggest foreign policy failure of his first term.

But that cascade of “ifs” depends on Obama showing that he can actually stand up to the oil industry. To an increasingly disillusioned environmental movement, Keystone looks like a last chance.

Bill McKibben is Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, founder of the global climate campaign 350.org, a TomDispatch regular, and the author of a new book, Oil and Honey: The Education of an Unlikely Activist.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook or Tumblr. Check out the newest Dispatch book, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare.

Copyright 2013 Bill McKibben

Originally posted to TomDispatch on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 06:01 AM PDT.

Also republished by Climate Change SOS.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Holy cow, not this shit again! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    eeff

    But I get it, it totally resonates here at DailyKos so it's going to be a staple from here on out.

  •  Well, at least McKibben is finally coming around (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    socialismorbarbarism, chuckvw

    to the realization that when it comes to Big Oil and Big Tar Sands, the President is not on his side.

    Dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs. Most adopted stray dogs are usually humble and exceptionally faithful to their owners as if they are grateful for this kindness. -- H.M. Bhumibol Adulyadej

    by corvo on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 06:46:58 AM PDT

  •  me think (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    greenbird, chuckvw

    bill has known from the beginning where so called mainstream democrats sit on this issue and it was never with him. keep fighting Bill

  •  Becoming The World's Carbon Fuel Leader (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    corvo, chuckvw

    at the time that the catastrophic consequences of AGW are becoming increasing clear hardly seems like a winning strategy.  It will only make us even more the international pariah.

    But cheap carbon fuel it is one of the three core components of the Obama Economic Plan: 1) deregulation; 2) asset inflation (as a substitute for income growth); and 3) cheap carbon fuel. This abominable plan, ripped from the GOP playbook, is not even working in the short term, and that is the only time frame in which it could even be expected to succeed.

    Neoliberalism is a failed ideology. Time to give it up.

  •  which presidents ever stood up to the oil industry (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Roadbed Guy
    If the president were to become the first world leader to block a big energy project on the grounds of its effects on climate, it might help dramatically reset the international negotiations that he allowed to go aground at Copenhagen in 2009 -- the biggest foreign policy failure of his first term.
    But that cascade of “ifs” depends on Obama showing that he can actually stand up to the oil industry. To an increasingly disillusioned environmental movement, Keystone looks like a last chance.
    (1975) In March 1920, the Senate requested that the President report to it on the restrictions being imposed on American citizens wishing to explore for petroleum in foreign countries. The State Department responded with a series of reports drawing a startling picture of measures being taken to exclude American interests from foreign oil fields, especially from fields under the control of Britain and the Netherlands. Senator Phelan of California proposed that a government corporation be established to develop oil resources abroad. But this proposal met with no success. Instead, Congress passed the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, which provided that oil and other minerals in US public lands could be available for exploitation by domestic foreign-owned corporations but that if similar privileges were denied US nationals they could not "by stock ownership, stock holding, or stock control own any interest in any lease acquired under the provision of this act." The Congressional act thus established in limited form the principle of reciprocity.
    This is a problem that has a history now fully globalized

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "I’m not the strapping young Muslim socialist that I used to be" - Barack Obama 04/27/2013

    by annieli on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 09:29:54 AM PDT

  •  Have you seen "Dracula"? (0+ / 0-)

    The pilot shows Van Helsing reviving the vampire from a crypt and the upshot is that they are taking on the oil cabal [based in Europe, London is the setting]. Dracula is set up as an American industrialist finishing Tesla's work and fighting the same baduns that have plagued the planet for 500 years according to his own reckoning.

    I was quite amused.

  •  I love questions like this: (0+ / 0-)
    "Can Obama Ever Stand Up To the Oil Industry"?
    Yes, yes, it's all about "standing up", finding a "back bone".

    Here's some other phrases that come to mind that are equally ludicrous:

    Will Dick Cheney Ever Stand Up To Halliburton?

    Will George Bush Ever Stand Up To the Religious Right?

    Will Donald Rumsfeld Ever Stand Up to the NeoCons?

    Will Obama Ever Stand Up To Free Trade NeoLiberals pushing the TPP?

    Will Netanyahu Ever Stand Up To Israeli Settlers?

    Will Ted Cruz Ever Stand Up To The Tea Party?

    The meme of "standing up" is utterly devoid of any relationship to reality.  

    Good God, it was Obama's own state department that originally green-lighted the XL pipeline in the first place.

    Obama himself is pushing through more corporate deregulation via the Trans Pacific Partnership.

    Yet the bankrupt meme of "if only he would stand up" still has legs?  At this late date?  Really?

    The 1% are Purists: They only support Candidates that Deliver Results They Can Bank On. Don't they know they should compromise? /sarcasm

    by Johnathan Ivan on Sat Nov 02, 2013 at 01:34:33 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site