350 Indonesia

Joe Nocera of the New York Times is back with another column in support of Keystone XL. I counted 4 errors or willful oversights in Nocera's piece, although I'm sure I missed some. Let's review.

1. Speaking about KXL's importance: "Energy independence is a long-sought national goal. We would no longer need OPEC, a cartel of countries with values, in many cases, antithetical to ours."

First, it remains unclear how "energy independence" can be achieved by continuing our reliance on fossil fuels and the corporations that supply them. Exxon made $45 billion last year; its CEO Rex Tillerson made $100,000 a day by supplying our fossil fuel addiction. If Joe wants to keep lining their pockets and strengthening their grip over our democracy that's his deal, but you can't argue in favor of independence if you want to keep a supplier from whom you can't shake loose. Second, no one that I know of seriously thinks that the Keystone XL export pipeline would lead to us no longer needing OPEC. The only way to do that is to drop Big Oil and petro states once and for all. And the only way to do that is to get serious about green energy, which Nocera treats like a punch line. I wonder if they are laughing in Iowa now that they are getting 25% of their electricity from wind? 

2. "That oil is coming here anyway -- by rail and boat, where spills are common, and via pipelines that are older, and hence less safe, than Keystone would be."

On spills, one word: Arkansas. Oh, and every major export pipeline in Canada is under heavy scrutiny and suffers from huge public opposition. Even under the most rosy scenarios, none of these pipelines will be built any time soon. In fact, Alberta is so nervous about the pipeline proposals being blocked that it recently started looking into the possibility of exporting oil all the way up at the port at Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., a.k.a way the heck up there. On the rail question, Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told Reuters yesterday, "It (rail) is a good supplement but not the longer-term solution...I don't think anybody would suggest it is." He doesn't know Joe Nocera!

3. "Notwithstanding the development of alternative energy sources, the world is going to continue to need oil; Oliver, quoting the International Energy Agency, says that global energy demand is expected to grow by at least 35 percent over the next 20 years."

Nope, enviros don't think that pixie dust will fuel our cars any time soon. But the US is using less oil this year than we did last year, and less oil last year than the year before that. The question is do we want to lock in 40-50 years of oil addiction with Keystone or get serious about dropping fossil fuels once and for all?

Also, while Nocera quotes from the IEA, he neglects to mention that the IEA also said that we need to leave a full 2/3s of known fossil fuel reserves in the ground if we are to avoid runaway climate change. It would be funny how he leaves that part out of IEA's findings if climate change was funny at all.

4. "The notion, pushed by environmentalists, that blocking the oil sands will spur green energy is delusion." 

Nope, don't know anyone who says that. Not a one. Think that's called a straw man argument. Anyway, what enviros say is that committing to more oil reduces incentives to invest in green energy. I think it's called supply and demand. Not sure, but Nocera is a business columnist. Maybe he can tell me.

Reality Check: Alberta’s current policy costs the tar sands industry less than 10 cents a barrel. There are rumors of a new plan, the so called 40/40 plan (a 40% reduction in per-barrel emissions from tar sands and a $40-per-ton payment when that emissions limit is exceeded), but no plan has yet surfaced. Under 40/40, the cost for the tar sands industry to comply would be about the cost of a Coca-Cola at a 7-11 (under $1.50 for a barrel of tar sands oil). 

Oliver: “Together with the province of Alberta, we are implementing a new, world-class environmental monitoring system for the oil sands. It will provide independent, science-based environmental reporting, founded on partnership with industry, Aboriginal communities and other levels of government.”

Reality Check: That’s true but Oliver left out that the system won’t be fully implemented until 2015, yet the government wants to approve major infrastructure projects now which would lock in pollution regardless of what the monitoring system finds later. A very useful timeline from Greenpeace on the history of this monitoring system is available here.

Oliver: “In the past year, we have implemented a new, national strategy for responsible resource development — a regulatory regime that offers both a more efficient and predictable process for investors and enhanced protection for Canada's environment.”

Reality Check: It’s hard to call Canada’s policy to develop the third largest pool of carbon on the planet “responsible.” Canada is on track for a 7% increase in emissions by 2020. Tar sands emissions have more than doubled since 1990 and are expected to triple between now and 2020. The IEA has said to avoid runaway climate change Canada will need to keep a full third of its tar sands underground, yet Oliver is championing policies to get at what he estimates to be 300 billion barrels of tar sands crude found in Alberta. Additionally, investing in oil development is no longer a safe bet. The Carbon Tracker Initiative and the London School of Economics recently released a report that shows that 60 to 80 percent of coal, oil and gas reserves held by the top 200 oil, gas and mining companies listed on the world’s stock exchanges could be considered unburnable.

Oliver: “Before I touch on the jobs and economic benefits I think it is important to recall that the U.S. State Department, which is the lead Department on this issue, concluded that the Keystone XL pipeline would not have a significant impact on the environment.” 

Reality Check: The US EPA on Monday graded the State department's Keystone XL analysis as “insufficient.” EPA has asked State to look again at the climate impacts of the pipeline; Keystone’s route through the Ogallala Aquifer; and the department’s market analysis of transporting tar sands crude via rail. On all of these questions and more, State failed its test. State's SEIS has come under  such significant criticism that  it can no longer be taken seriously as an accurate evaluation of Keystone XL.

Oliver: “Furthermore, Canadian oil would come in by train. And, of course, Canada would export oil elsewhere.”

Reality Check: Every major export pipeline in Canada is under heavy scrutiny and suffers from huge public opposition. Even under the most rosy scenarios, none of these pipelines will be built any time soon. In fact, Alberta is so nervous about the pipeline prosals being blocked that it recently started looking into the possibility of exporting oil all the way up at the port at Tuktoyaktuk, N.W.T., a.k.a way the heck up there. On the rail question, a few hours after making these comments, Oliver himself refuted them, telling Reuters, "It (rail) is a good supplement but not the longer-term solution...I don't think anybody would suggest it is." This is due to the high cost of rail, which some industry analysts estimate is as high as $30 per barrel.

And the pressure appears to be working: the same day as we submitted our 1 millionth comment, the US Environmental Protection Agency rated the State Dept.'s pipeline review 'insufficient,' pointing out that Keystone XL would be more toxic and have a bigger climate impact than described by State.

Thank you to everyone who submitted, shared and organized to stop the pipeline -- let's keep rolling!

The full press release is below:

On the night of April 21st, people will gather in hundreds of living rooms and libraries across the country for the premiere of the movie. Meeting in person is the lifeblood of our movement, and we hope that gathering to watch this snazzy film can be an opportunity to connect with new people and grow the movement locally.

I’ve already had a chance to preview the movie; it is an inspiring, beautiful, and fast-paced story that shows the power of the growing climate movement. It clocks in at 42-minutes -- and it packs a lot in: from the cross-country tour we did last year, to the latest dispatches from leaders in the fight to stop Keystone XL, to the campaign to divest from fossil fuels.

You won’t want to miss it. Click here to watch the the trailer and join (or create!) an Earth Night gathering in your community.

We also have a page that answers a lot of questions you might have about the movie -- check it out here: www.350.org/math

Onwards,

Anna for the whole 350.org team

P.S. April 21st is one day before the end of the State Department's public comment period on the Keystone XL pipeline -- so we'll make sure folks can collect and submit comments at local events. 

CEO Russ Girling sits on the iron throne at TransCanada, the Canadian company behind the $5.3 billion KXL project. Like King Joffrey, he likes to to be in charge but when the going gets tough he expects his minions to do the dirty work. (The King’s Guard in this case threatens landowners with eminent domain, lies about jobs, and disregards climate science.). You know how the actor who plays Joeffrey is so good that you’d kind of worry for his safety if he wandered into the wrong place, like a Boston bar after 10 on a night when the Sox lost? Someone might think he really is the fink known as Joeffrey and take a swing. Well, Girling must have similar fears, especially when people find out that he’s willing to put profit ahead of the health of the planet. If that’s not the type of dastardly deed that Joeffrey might try to pull off I don’t know what is.

Tywin Lannister

Jack Gerard of the American Petroleum Institute and Tywin could be brothers separated at birth. Like Tywin, Jack’s not afraid to beg, borrow or steal to get his way. In fact Gerard and his crew over at API, according to The Nation, spent a whopping $68 million on lobbying in 2011. Tywin has that sort of scratch now that he controls the seven kingdoms, and I’m sure he’d feel right at home on K St. with the thugs in their three piece Brooks Brothers suits. Man I sure hope Gerard is nicer to his son than Tywin is to my main man Lord Tyrian. 

Cersei Lannister

This one’s easy. Alberta Premier Alison Redford is the clear choice. Like Cersei, she’s got a brother in arms that she’s a little too close to--in her case Stephen Harper--and she’s not afraid to splash the cash around to get her way. Redford just made her fourth lobbying trip to Washington to advocate for KXL, one of the most destructive projects on earth, all while she sings the praises of Alberta’s clean energy record. It reminds me of how Cersei defends Joffrey at all times, despite the fact that the dude’s favorite hobby is ordering beheadings like he’s ordering a Blooming Onion at the King’s Landing Outback Steakhouse. Get a grip, Cersei. 

House Stark

Eddard Stark

If Eddard Stark had a PhD and worked at NASA, he’d be Dr. James Hansen. It was Hansen who first sounded the alarm on Keystone, laying out the case that it would be “game over for the climate” if the pipeline was approved. Like Stark, who became the King’s Hand with much trepidation and fear, Hansen didn’t want to take on this fight but he was drawn into it out of a sense of duty. As you know, things didn’t end well for old Eddard, but there’s time left to win on Keystone. Winter may be coming, but it’s not here yet.

Jon Snow

President Obama and John Snow have almost too much in common. Both are conflicted men with smoldering eyes, and their destiny is theirs to make. John Snow has found himself up North fighting off the White Walkers, a clear metaphor for Exxon if there ever was one. (The want to destroy Westeros. Duh.) John Snow wants to do what’s right and has a true sense of duty, but he’s got some bad temptations (Egret) that could drag him down into the muck. Obama is much the same. He wants to do what’s right on climate, but his Egrets are filling his head with bad thoughts. What if the Republicans come after me for not being pro oil? What if gas prices spike and I get blamed? Get real, sir, the White Walkers are coming for you no matter what. Might as well man up, grab your sword and fight the good fight. Mr. President, the climate is your Wall. Defend it.  

Over the past month, activists have confronted Kerry and President Obama at nearly all of their public appearances, including an event last week that drew over 1,000 people in San Francisco to a rally outside of an Obama fundraiser. This is the first time a US politician has been met with an anti-Keystone protest on foreign soil. The activists were joined by representatives of Texas and Gulf Coast communities opposed to the pipeline.

Bryan Parras, a resident of Houston, Texas and environmental justice advocate with TEJAS (Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services), who joined the UK campaigners at the protest said:

"The KXL Pipeline is set to deliver a toxic slurry of dirty oil to communities across the US. If exported to the UK, it could soon start poisoning these shores too. As we have seen from all the pipeline spills in the last two weeks, the delivery of tar sands is too risky and too costly for the communities in harm's way. Keep the oil in the soil, and just say no to the KXL tar sands pipeline."

President Obama is expected to make his decision on the pipeline in the autumn. Keystone XL has become a flashpoint in the climate fight. Thousands have been arrested over the pipeline, and on Feb 13 over 40,000 people came to the White House to tell Obama to reject the pipeline.

The pipeline is intended for export, and UK campaigners are concerned that, if it's approved, imports of tar sands oil into Europe will increase. There is currently a battle raging in Europe over the issue of future tar sands imports.  The European Union is trying to pass a piece of legislation to reduce emissions from transport fuels. Known as the Fuel Quality Directive, it would strongly discourage tar sands imports, but lobbying by the Canadian government and the oil industry has seriously delayed it. A vote is now expected in October 2013, and if passed, the case for the Keystone XL pipeline would be seriously weakened.

Ruthi Brandt from the UK Tar Sands Network said: “People in London are here today to stand with those resisting tar sands expansion in Alberta and pipelines in the US. The Keystone XL will affect us too, because the pipeline is intended for export. The reality of tar sands oil coming to the UK is not far off, with a refinery in Pembrokeshire lined up by Valero to bring imports of tar sands from the Gulf of Mexico. So we're here to let John Kerry know that we don't want this dirty oil. In the EU we are pushing for legislation to make sure that tar sands imports are strongly discouraged due to their high emissions. We hope other countries will follow suit. We need to leave the tar sands in the ground, and make the transition to sustainable transport fuels that don't devastate local communities and cost the Earth.”

The protest was organised and supported by:

350.org, Campaign Against Climate Change, Climate Rush, The Climate and Health Council, Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland, Healthy Planet UK, Occupy London: Energy, Equity and Environment group, Push Europe, Pembrokeshire Friends of the Earth, People & Planet, TEJAS (Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services), UK Tar Sands Network, UKYCC, World Development Movement.

For more information, quotes and photographs, contact:

In the UK, Nicolò Wojewoda, [email protected], +44 (0) 758 264 2004

In the US, Daniel Kessler, [email protected], +1 510-501-1779

Photo credit: David Hoffman