National Greens Attracted to Shiny, Symbolic Fights
In the early 2000s, when the Bush Administration started formulating its domestic energy policy, they snookered U.S. environmental groups with a classic bait & switch. Bush & company made a lot of noise about opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which has long been a symbolic icon for green groups. Environmentalists promptly went into full battle mode over ANWR. They wrote articles, formed campaigns, poured their time and resources into ANWR’s defense. The theatrics (Republicans: open ANWR! and Greens: Over our dead bodies!) continued throughout Bush’s two terms, despite the fact that oil companies had no interest in the Refuge.
Meanwhile, the real battle front was out West, in Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, New Mexico, and Utah, where coalbed methane and gas drilling was skyrocketing, with marginal regulatory oversight and comparably little pushback from national green groups. In the early to mid-2000s, I crisscrossed some of those states, writing about threats to wildlife and archaeology from unrestrained gas drilling. (As a senior editor at Audubon magazine at the time, I also assigned related environmental stories.) Yes, the Western gas rush received plenty of local and regional news coverage, including from the terrific High Country News magazine. And big newspapers and magazines periodically parachuted into some of the hot spots. But Abraham Lustgarten at Pro Publica mostly had this story to himself, and man, did he own it.
As for national green groups, they kept up their costly vigil to save ANWR all through the 2000s, while drill rigs continued to multiply in the West’s fragile ecosystems, turning many thousands of acres of wildlife habitat into industrial zones. By 2008, one writer for High Country News had concluded that the Bush Administration’s ANWR ploy was a “straw dog.”
I got to thinking of this recent history after reading Bryan Walsh’s post on how the Keystone pipeline has become a symbolic, uniting issue for environmentalists today. He starts off:
Given that there are already more than 2.3 million miles of pipelines in the U.S.””carrying petroleum products, chemicals and natural gas””it might seem odd that so much political energy has been expended on a proposed 1,700-mile pipeline. Yet the controversial Keystone XL pipeline””which would cross the upper Midwest to carry crude from Canadian oil sands down to refiners in the U.S.””has become the single biggest environmental issue facing America.
Walsh goes on to analyze where the lines in the sand are being drawn (by the opposing sides) and how the battle might play out. To my eyes, it looks like the Keystone pipeline is the new ANWR for U.S. greens.
So, if Keystone XL is the bait, where is the real battle front now?
Someone on Twitter asked me that, too. I said I wasn’t sure. I invite readers to offer any suggestions.
This link has a map showing pipeline routes in the US.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/018732.html
Looks to me like one more pipeline won’t make much difference.
Cap-and-trade’s dead, Durban’s a failure, shale gas keeps rolling….maybe it really is a symbolic fight.
“To my eyes, it looks like the Keystone pipeline is the new ANWR for U.S. greens.”
Any battle that slows the extraction of tar sands or prevents mountain top coal mining is where the lines should be. Perhaps because these two areas (as well as ANWR) are important and noticeable is because it draws in a much more diverse crowd than just greens or climate concerned or hippies or farmers or liberals. It brings them together. Without the power to actually physically prevent the continued use of the dirtiest fuels, the movement symbolism should continue.
The idea that these are bait and switches is just cynical nonsense. Not having the political or economic strength to protect every important ecosystem is a fact greens have to deal with. This just looks like Monday morning quarterbacking the weak opponent.
What I mean in my #3 is the overall increase in risk from a spill won’t be much greater. The pipeline would increase US fuel security though.
I have read, forgot where, that the pipeline owners are Canadian, and they have been allowed to bring some eminent domain claims against balky landowners along their route in the US. If this happens to be true, I don’t think that should be allowed.
The real battlefront, the one that both conservatives and most climate activists prefer to ignore, is the collapsing ecosystem on the entire earth. Life in the oceans is destined for imminent extinction as the foundation of the food chain, coral reefs and pteropods, succumb to acidification – and in a parallel devastation, vegetation is in decline all over the world from the inexorably rising background level of tropospheric ozone, which is toxic to trees and other vegetation… much of which is derived from the cascade of reactive nitrogen as described here:
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2011/12/root-of-matter.html
Keystone isn’t bait and neither was ANWR. If someone wants 100 gallons of fuel and activists stop you from getting it at the corner of First and Second, you will go down the block and get it at the corner of Second and Third.
The ANWR fight did nothing other than make it more economical to exploit tar sands and do deepwater exploration. Brazil and Canada say thank you very much, keep up the good work.
The only debate that is going on as to the Keystone XL pipeline is whether a Canadian Businessman is going to make money off the pipeline or whether Warren Buffet(The richest man in Nebraska) is going to make money hauling the oil on his trains.
Which keeps the debate well away from the broader question as to whether the oil should be ‘left in the ground’.
Gail,
You can easily confirm from independent sources (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoclimatology ) that both the Earth temperature and CO2 level used to be much higher than now. How do you suppose the life in the oceans didn’t go extinct back then?
Sashka
Google the end-Permian event.
Sashka, first of all there have been 5 great extinction events in earth’s history. Second, the ocean is acidifying and temperatures are rising much, much faster in this climate change event than ever before, by orders of magnitude. Species cannot adapt when conditions change this rapidly, they simply don’t have time.
As far as the trees go, there has never been a time on the planet with this level of tropospheric ozone. It’s exclusively a product of burning massive amounts of fuel. In addition too reducing crop yield and quality by significant amounts, ozone causes cancer, emphysema, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and autism – all epidemics.
Plants are even more sensitive to ozone than people, so you can just imagine how the epidemic of chlorosis – the inability to produce chlorophyll – is compromising their ability to fend of insects, disease and fungal attacks.
I’m not a scientist and so I rely on scientists who say that climate change will result in mass extinctions of many species, quite likely our own – just as I rely on doctors to tell me if I, maybe, have some sort of cancer that requires surgery and chemotherapy. I wouldn’t accuse them of saying that because doctors are in a conspiracy, and just trying to line their pockets.
However, I do not think that drought from climate change is what is killing trees quite yet, for the reason that young trees being watered in nurseries display the exact same symptoms of ozone damage as do older trees growing in remote forests.
We simply can’t survive without them and so it would be an excellent idea for people to start conserving like mad, and to ration fuel on a per person basis to make it fair, for only the most essential purposes.
The alternative is famine.
# 12 Good grief!
“temperatures are rising much, much faster in this climate change event than ever before, by orders of magnitude”
“tropospheric ozone… exclusively a product of burning massive amounts of fuel. In addition too reducing crop yield and quality by significant amounts, ozone causes cancer, emphysema, asthma, Alzheimer’s, and autism”
“you can just imagine how the epidemic of chlorosis ““ the inability to produce chlorophyll ““ is compromising their ability to fend of insects, disease and fungal attacks”
Etc.
OK. I suppose I could imagine these things.
#13
Imagine…smoking causes cancer;
the world is older than 6,000 years;
evolution;
plate tectonics;
this funny force, gravity;
all theories…
”
Jarmo Says:
December 20th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
So, if Keystone XL is the bait, where is the real battle front now?
Keith Kloor Says:
December 20th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Someone on Twitter asked me that, too. I said I wasn’t sure. I invite readers to offer any suggestions.
Suggestion: anywhere that reduced carbon can be removed from the ground is where the action is. Shale gas fracking and enhanced petroleum recovery from existing fields would seem the obvious candidates at the moment. Next comes recovery of shale oil.
You can’t stop the process by focusing on a specific location. People are going to burn reduced carbon wherever it is available. Better to focus on how to handle the global warming consequences… whatever those will be, or better yet, work to make nuclear and solar competitive with reduced carbon. You are fighting a lost war.
harrywr2 Says:
December 20th, The only debate that is going on as to the Keystone XL pipeline is whether a Canadian Businessman is going to make money off the pipeline or whether Warren Buffet(The richest man in Nebraska) is going to make money hauling the oil on his trains.
.
You beat me to it. I wonder how much $ support Warren is giving the Greens to stop the pipeline? He is making a nice profit taking the oil by train.
Gail Zawacki writes:
“I am not a scientist…”
No kidding? Who would have guessed?
The real battle front is all of carbon combustion.
Scenarios from the Tyndall Centre say we have lost the battle to stay below 2 degrees C of warming – we are now into deciding how much chaos we are in for. We need to reduce emissions 10% per year, starting NOW.
The real battle is over halting all Carbon Combustion.
The rational action would be to permit carbon energy only for the purpose of deploying clean energy. No other.
If you are curious about the question, you need only examine the science … not the politics.
#18 Richard:
“The rational action would be to permit carbon energy only for the purpose of deploying clean energy. No other.”
I am with Richard! Let’s use the carbon energy to get those clean NUCLEAR PLANTS online NOW! We can not wait and see that 2 degrees ruin the world. Where do I sign up?
Was the mention of shiny Greens the call for the tinfoilers and fruitcakes to come out of the woodwork? I’m not sure this post has been particularly well thought out – which actually prompts me to make the comparison with the great majority that are.
Isn’t it truer to say that a natural, obvious clean-cut fight for the Greens isn’t very apparent at the moment? I think mostly because climate change, development in impoverished countries and nuclear power are all in conflict. For those like Monbiot the way forward is a little bit clearer, but if you’re still decidedly anti-nuke, then it must be hard to find a purposeful mission.
I suggest some R&D on thorium reactors as something to coagulate around.
A slightly different question – if refusing the pipeline isn’t going to prevent the use of Canadian Tar sands, aren’t you still better off using it to cut dependence on middle east oil? OK, probably not – I was just wondering.
Gail #12,
Whoa!
I am not sure where to start. The ocean surface pH is very slightly lower due to higher CO2 in the air, but ocean life that is most sensitive (those that use calcium carbonate to make shells) is not so very sensitive to pH unless the change is large (eg much more than double the present CO2 level). The most sensitive groups are those which live in very cold water and make their shells in the form of aragonite calcium carbonate, rather than the more common calcite form. If atmospheric CO2 wereto reach about 1200 PPM, then these creatures could no longer make their shells din cold water..
With regard to ozone: tropospheric ozone forms as a result of trace levels of organic compounds in the air. The most common sources are solvents, conifer trees, and fuel losses. Tropospheric ozone tends to be a local rather than global problem, and compared to controlling CO2, it is pretty easy to do. California made huge reductions in local ozone levels by restricting the use of certain kinds of solvents and reducing fuel losses.
With regard to trees: all evidence is that plant growth globally is considerably higher than it was several decades ago. Higher CO2e makes plants generally more tolerant of drought, because they need to open their stomata (where CO2 is absorbed) much less when the CO2 is higher…. When they open their stomata, they lose water. Controlled studies of plants grown under increased CO2 mainly show substantial increases up to more than twice the current CO2 or higher. This is so well known that extra CO2 has been added to greenhouses for decades to increase production rates.
There are legitimate reasons to be concerned about future CO2 increases, with the biggest the potential for increases in sea levels due to melting of ice in Greenland, and this deserves continued study and continued monitoring of sea levels via satellites to better define the potential impacts. But the things you seem worried about are not the important threats.
Maybe it’s time for the greenies to abandon these “global” issues and try and do domething useful at a local level?
Maybe tidy up the park or plant some trees along the highway?
That would be a clean fight – a war on litter.
Gail,
first of all there have been 5 great extinction events in earth’s history. … Species cannot adapt when conditions change this rapidly, they simply don’t have time.
Look at the current biodiversity of the planet. It means that the ancestors of all living species have survived all five. That fills me with a lot of optimism. Species can adapt and they do. It’s called evolution.
Second, the ocean is acidifying
As it had before when CO2 levels were much higher. Somehow we have abundant sea life.
and temperatures are rising much, much faster in this climate change event than ever before, by orders of magnitude.
I wonder where did you get that from?
I’m not a scientist and so I rely on scientists who say that climate change will result in mass extinctions of many species,
Species go extinct at much higher rate due to ecological pressure of ever growing humanity. Probably by orders of magnitude.
… quite likely our own
I challenge you to show me who says that and I’ll show you a madman.
All – Ocean acidifying – check the latest studies:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-is-Fatal-To-Fish-.html
Very serious – directly to fish.
It is important to stay current on the science – am not seeing this reflected above.
richard pauli @ 24 –
I don’t think reading that SkS link is staying ‘current on the science’, more like getting a quick brain-wash. Even the title should warn you that far from having anything to do with ‘science’ it is best described as ‘garbage’.
Working very hard to find the larvae of one species of fish that have poor survival rates in waters that may be similar to those found under an atmosphere containing 1000ppm Co2 – when you throw them into it directly, sort of persuades me that the activists involved have a little bit of an agenda.
Then claiming that “Ocean acidification is fatal to fish” is almost hilarious. What you could stay ‘current on’, is the kind of fake-science websites that peddle such alarmist nonsense. The little fishes will be fine.
If you want a genuine problem, how about grappling with over-fishing?
Btw, has anyone taken notice on how the Chinese have been making acquisitions in the Canadian oil sands?
The idea of shipping the oil sands crude to China is not so far-fetched if the Chinese own a portion of the fields.
China’s state-controlled Sinopec has deepened its interests in Alberta’s oil sands by agreeing to pay $4.65-billion (U.S.) for ConocoPhillips Co.’s (COP-N)9 per cent stake in Syncrude Canada Inc.
Sinopec is a subsidiary of China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., one of a triumvirate of state-controlled firms that have been scouring the globe for energy assets in recent years. Sinopec is also 50 per cent joint-venture partner with France’s Total SA (TOT-N)in the Northern Lights oil sands project, a development property 100 kilometres northeast of Fort McMurray.
Last December, Ottawa approved the $1.9-billion (Canadian) acquisition by state-owned PetroChina Co. of 60 per cent stake in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.’s (ATH-T)Mackay and Dover projects.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/sinopec-snags-9-syncrude-stake%20/article1531657/
Continuation to #26:
Canadian Minister sees Northern Gateway approval process expedited 1 year
Vancouver (Platts)–13Nov2011/159 pm EST/1859 GMT
Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said November 13 he wants a regulatory decision by early 2013, a year ahead of the current schedule, on Enbridge’s Northern Gateway project to expedite the shipment of Alberta oil sands crude to Asia.
Back from a week in China and Japan, he said both countries are eager to see Canada start its first large-scale crude exports to Asia.
“The Chinese are ready to buy,” he told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. “The issue is building the infrastructure to get our resources to China.”
To that end, Oliver said he now expects Northern Gateway’s hearings to be completed within a year of starting in January 2012.
Northern Gateway, designed to export 525,000 b/d to the Asian-Pacific region, is seen as one of the strongest export alternatives for oil sands producers in the event TransCanada abandons its Keystone XL pipeline project rather than comply with a decision by the U.S. State Department to work on an alternative route through Nebraska.
While insisting that he will not interfere in the Northern Gateway process, Oliver said it is a “fundamental strategic objective” of the Canadian government to diversify its customer base for oil beyond the United States.
http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/Oil/3783938