Protesting the KXL pipeline

Hell hath no fury like a hippie scorned.

Hello friends. It turns out that summer in Seattle is delightful and I got distracted for a few months, so please forgive my rusty writing skills.

I am very much against the Keystone XL pipeline project, as are most people who have done more than three minutes of research into the issue. The pipeline extension's effect on climate change alone would be "game over" in terms of guaranteeing more carbon pollution. On top of that, the inevitable enormous spill from this pipeline is more than likely to devastate key components of our ecosystems. James Hansen's short essay "Silence is Deadly" is a stunning summary of the serious consequences that would result from building this pipeline. A few political aspects have changed since this paper was written, but the message remains the same. What possible reason could there be that we would allow such a thing to be built on our land, or anywhere on our planet? 

Answer: money. Isn't that always the answer?

I can go on and on about this KXL monster itself, but I would rather tell you about my experience protesting it. I signed up with 350 to protest KXL Sunday evening outside of a northwest Seattle home where President Obama was attending a private fundraiser. Since my invitation got lost in the mail, I decided the next best thing to rubbing elbows with the POTUS would be to wave a sign at him. I just wanted to remind Barry that KXL was a bad idea and if he really loved us he would not approve the project. I donned my best Obama sweatshirt and met the hippies environmentalists at the agreed upon location. There were quite a few people already waiting when I arrived around 4:30 p.m. It did not take long to realize that, whether or not this was intentional, the protesters' language was not only anti-KXL, it was anti-Obama. 

This I did not like. The best example of my frustration? One of their chants went like this:

Hey, Obama!

We don't want

Your pipeline drama!

This sounds like a taunt from a middle schooler who has been held back a grade...twice. (To be fair, some of the other chants made sense and had better messages.) One woman near me quickly moved to a location across the street, literally distancing herself from us, saying "Oh no, I'm going over there, I'm for Obama." To her and many others, we protesters sounded like we were against Obama, not just the pipeline. And there is a huge difference between those two ideas.

At one point, a protester leader made a classic "us vs. them" comment through his megaphone about how we were outside the fundraiser, and not inside the house, because none of us had $1,600 to spend on a ticket to the dinner. He implied that President Obama only listens to the big donors. I just don't think this sort of rhetoric is productive: who are we to judge what people spend their money on? If I had $1,600 to spend on a political fundraiser, I would go and hopefully have a chance to voice my opinion on how terrible KXL is and how Obama should not approve the project. Is it crazy to think that some of the donors at last night's fundraisers were doing exactly that? Why assume that someone attending an Obama fundraiser is not pro-environment? I would imagine the donors who were inside the fundraiser actually have similar values to those of us who were outside the fundraiser. Why create an "us vs. them" mentality?

In general I really do believe that 350 is a great organization with a strong and important message. And perhaps the individual protesters, not the organization, were the real problem. I liked the inflatable KXL monster they brought (see photo above). But to attack Obama with such childish remarks makes me angry. How is that tactic going to further the 350 cause? Really, all it does is placate the protesters. It is a distraction. Many of the protesters were eager to join in the chanting, no matter how little thought was put into it. I am sure that some of the less intelligent ones went home and slept soundly, thinking "I did a great thing today, I gave that scoundrel Obama a piece of my mind." Firing up the base with mindless messages, without really accomplishing anything, reminds me a lot of the Tea Party's tactics.

We climate activists are better than that, and this issue is too important for us to manufacture outrage on top of the real outrage this issue warrants. We have reason and facts on our side, so I don't need your drama, 350 protesters. President Obama is the first sitting president to publicly acknowledge climate change and the need to take action to reduce our carbon emissions. Let's work with him, not against him.

I agree that it is wise to address all politicians with a healthy dose of skepticism, but what evidence do we have that Obama is anti-environment? Has he done everything perfectly? No. Has he accomplished a few key things using the shreds of political capital he has left? Yes. (My favorite small example of this: "An obscure new rule on microwaves.") 

Furthermore, ascribing the "pipeline drama" to Obama is such a distortion of reality. I suppose the proverbial ball is in Obama's court on the KXL approval, but implying that this is Obama's issue alone (as if this was his original idea to cut a disastrous pipeline through America and that there are no outside forces affecting this decision) alienates the thousands of people who blogged, phone banked, canvassed, and otherwise fought to get this president elected.

I'm interested in getting things done, not just getting people worked up. Until I'm proven wrong, I'm going to continue to protest KXL and support my president.

An endangered species

"[Mother Nature] is just chemistry, biology, and physics. Everything she does is just the sum of those three things. She's completely amoral. She doesn't care about poetry or art or whether you go to church. You can't negotiate with her, and you can't spin her and you can't evade her rules. All you can do is fit in as a species. And when a species doesn't learn to fit in with Mother Nature, it gets kicked out. Every day you look in the mirror now, you're seeing an endangered species." 

     ~ Rob Watson, as quoted in Hot, Flat and Crowded 2.0 by Thomas L. Friedman

Going green

From Containment to Sustainability - GreenSource Magazine

Military officials argue for the implementation of sustainable practices as part of overall national security.

Dig in

Climate change is a complicated issue, primarily because of the enormous amount of scientific fact collecting and analysis from every corner of the globe. Add in politics and hidden agendas, and we have a serious mess.

The fact that we originally labeled this problem "global warming" was a huge marketing mistake. Yes, the average global temperature is increasing, but this gives deniers the opportunity to artificially dispute "global warming" every time we experience cold temperatures and a Snowmageddon. If they were actually familiar with the predictions associated with climate change, they would realize that such Snowmageddon was actually probably evidence for climate change. (Though please do me a favor and NEVER use one Snowmageddon, one data point, as proof of anything. You don't want to shame your science teachers and statistics professors.)

Recently NPR posted "Global Warming: A Guide for the Perplexed" as a "simple" explanation of the facts. Honestly, I don't find this to be a very simple guide at all, but perhaps this is as basic as it gets while staying true to the subject matter.

It's no wonder then why so many people, educated or not, shy away from this. It is complicated. It is outside of their realm of knowledge. And worst of all, the solution to such a problem is so enormous that to many the best solution is...denial. In Rolling Stone issue 1134/1135, Al Gore put it best:

"Since this new reality is painful to contemplate, and requires big changes in policy and behavior that are at the outer limit of our ability, it is all too easy to fall into the psychological state of denial. As with financial issues like subprime mortgages and credit default swaps, the climate crisis can seem too complex to worry about, especially when the shills for the polluters constantly claim it's all a hoax anyway. And since the early impacts of climatic disruption are distributed globally, they masquerade as an abstraction that is safe to ignore."

As liberals, we get the satisfaction of digging in deeper, taking in all the information (except perhaps Fox News programming) in an attempt to understand the issue. It is OK to not understand every detail of climate change. It is not OK to deny that climate change is happening simply because it is complicated.

The extra challenge we face is spreading the message. I am as guilty as anyone in shying away from this conversation when I am in mixed political company. The whole point of the Rolling Stone article mentioned above is that while Republicans may be spreading untruths, many Democrats are acting as accomplices by not defending the science behind climate change. So, we're letting people who are partially funded by the "polluters" stomp all over scientific evidence (and our environment, and new technology, and small businesses promoting this new technology...)? What is wrong with us?

From the same Rolling Stone article "Climate of Denial," a quote from Yeats: "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity."  Let's all dig in a little more.

Life. I mean, "THINGS THAT LIVE."

I'm really riled up today. I'm in a very good mood, but ready for action. This morning I took the LEED AP: Building Design and Construction exam and passed. I've been studying for over a month, which meant I was reading leisurely for four weeks and then cramming and completely freaking out for the past few days.

So I'm reading and cramming and learning all these quantifiable things that have been proven to reduce buildings' impact on the environment, our resources and human health. And it burns me up that people want to trash this, to say climate change and our collective negative impact on the world is fabricated. Fabricated by...I don't know who, thousands of the world's leading (yet obviously evil) scientists? Al Gore? Oprah?

Did you know that buildings in the United States accounted for 8% of global primary energy consumption, per the 2008 data? We as a country gorge ourselves on energy:

"More energy was consumed in the United States than in any other country in 2008...approximately 20% of total global demand." - Buildings Energy Data Book, U.S. Department of Energy. In the words of Joe Biden, "this is a big !@#$%& deal."

Energy is expensive, especially when so much of our traditional source has a finite limit and has to be dug up in the deserts of the Middle East and peddled by OPEC. We get approximately 45 percent of our oil from the Middle East and North Africa, which together hold over two thirds of the oil reserves worldwide and make up a politically volatile region. Well, $#!@. Even Canada (17%) and Mexico (15%) have us over a barrel. 

Logically, shouldn't we search for alternatives to this predicament? There are a couple of main routes. We can "drill, baby, drill," right here in the United States, and stock up on a few barrels while the getting is good. In the process, we might spill oil in the Gulf of Mexico, ruin a national park, and in the case of coal we can just blow the tops off of mountains and let the ash settle in the air and water sources for millions of Americans  (the Americans who dig up that coal for us, coincidentally) and deforms their babies. Or we can explore low-impact, renewable sources that are declining in cost and increasing in efficiency and availability each day. Geothermal heating, wind energy, wave/tidal power, biofuel-based electrical, hydro electric and photovoltaic systems are all being used right now.

We let BP, Don Blankenship, ExxonMobil and their peers off the hook for serious environmental and public health offenses. We hand them subsidies, even though economic rules dictate that government subsidies should show a clear benefit to the public that pays for them. If oil was our only source of energy, subsidies would make sense. But oil is not by any means our only source of energy! And the oil companies post huge profits. Why are taxpayers donating money to an industry that already charges us an arm and a few legs?

Being "business-friendly," the Republicans don't want to hurt the economy by hurting Big Oil. They want to prop them up, old dead trees in a forest blocking tons of new undergrowth waiting to spring up. Big Oil sells oil. But more fundamentally, they sell energy. Why don't we demand that these companies evolve with the market and become energy companies? Why, as a Democrat, do I get called a "communist" when I am saying let the old dinosaur industries die out and allow new sustainable businesses to thrive? That is capitalism, and that is the America I know and love.

And the Republicans want to discredit and make fun of Al Gore? For pointing out that nine of the hottest years ever occurred in the last 13 years? The past decade was the hottest on record, despite experiencing a "solar minimum" for half of the decade. This is actual data. But according to Fox News, it's not concrete evidence.

How did the environment and our public health become political?

There will be many, many more posts on the environment and climate change. Now, go hug a tree.