Prime Minister Stephen Harper's pledge to ship oil sands crude to China, should Keystone XL get kiboshed, is pure political grandstanding, a lead U.S. environmental organizer argues.
"I think he is kind of trying to bluff," Bill McKibben told a crowd of dozens Monday night at the Occupy Vancouver encampment.
McKibben is a long-time environmental writer who founded 350.org, a global campaign to fight climate change.
He's recently become somewhat of a hero in green circles for leading massive protests against TransCanada's Keystone XL.
Those protests likely played a role in the Barack Obama administration's recent decision to delay the pipeline by up to 13 months.
Wearing a blank baseball cap and yellow scarf, the 50-year-old McKibben told Vancouver occupiers there's now more pressure than ever for them to oppose both Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline and Kinder Morgan's competing pipeline expansion.
"It's incredibly important for you guys to figure out all the ways you can to stop them," he said to scattered cheers and twinkling fingers.
Canada's federal government has effectively shrugged off recent Keystone XL delays, saying it will merely focus on shipping Alberta's oil sands crude to China and beyond.
"Canada must increase its efforts to ensure it can supply its energy outside the United States and into Asia in particular," Prime Minister Harper told reporters this week in Honolulu.
Already, at least one major U.S. environmental group says it will fight Enbridge's plans to build a pipeline across B.C.
The Natural Resources Defense Council claims that more than 60,000 of its members and supporters have sent emails opposing the project to Premier Christy Clark.
McKibben told The Tyee in an interview he'll provide any support necessary to Canadian activists, but won't take a lead role in the fight.
"I'm an American," he said. "Canadians don't want me coming up here and telling them what to do."
Geoff Dembicki reports on energy and climate issues for The Tyee.
6
Login or register to post comments
realisticman
1 year ago
Who?
The Athabasca oil sands first came to the attention of European fur traders in 1719.
In 1926, Karl Clark of the University of Alberta perfected a hot water separation process which became the basis of today's thermal extraction process.
Dmitri Mendeleev first suggested using a pipe for transporting petroleum in 1863.
Oil, and many other things including beer, has been and is being shipped by pipeline all over the world since long before Stephen Harper's parents were even born and it will be for many years ahead.
"Oil is a global market and simply making the logistics for its use harder doesn’t stop it getting around."
Wall Street Journal.
Eco jet-setter tourist Bill McKibben flew in to tell us about piping our oil. He knows his audience and carefully selected the Occupiers:
"It's incredibly important for you guys to figure out all the ways you can to stop them," then, "I'm an American," he said. "Canadians don't want me coming up here and telling them what to do."
At least he's inconsistent!
RockyRacoon
1 year ago
I think Robert Redford has as much to do with Obama's decision
than any protests I am sorry to say. There are very sound economic and environmental reasons to NOT continue down the path of resource extraction as the fundemental pillar of our economic well being. To begin, the environmental costs must be factored into the equation. The free water we give them a precious resouce in itself much be considered in any development. The hollowing out of our manufactureing sector as a result of this dependence on the Tarsands is another net loss. Overall-the oil industry in Canada is a net loss for Canadian's. As are the mining and any other resource sector projects. All we will be left with are the liabilities. Who is going to pay for all of that carbon? The rest of Canada who imports it's oil in the East and West? None of that tarsands oil goes to Canadian's the US is the only end user to my knowledge.
RR
Waltz
1 year ago
Water, not oil
If Canada were economically strategic it would focus on water, not on oil. As climate change progresses rapidly, we will soon regret fouling our nest both in the great northern watersheds and in British Columbia.
From the standpoint of economics, tar sands oil has has one of the lowest energy returns on investment (EROI) of any source of energy including wind, tidal, photovoltaic and geothermal. Only bioenergy from biomass has a lower EROI.
The extraction of bitumen from the Alberta tar sands uses incredible amounts of shale gas and badly pollutes water. Worse still, fracking requires enormous amounts of hydro energy, which, in British Columbia, will require three site C dams and the destruction of vast areas of our natural world to keep the tar sands in production
From the standpoint of environmental and human health, the conservation, preservation and management of clean, pure water are critical to survival under a changing climate. Fortunately, in western Canada we have the the lions share of the world’s fresh water.
Why destroy our water so that that we can keep on consuming a finite Earth beyond the carbon cycle’s capacity to supply and absorb? With strong national and provincial laws and policies for water, this whole site C, fracking and tar-sands shenanigan would be less likely to happen.
G West
1 year ago
Sorry ....but that's incorrect
The Tar Sands were historically called the TAR SANDS - it is only in the politically correct and disingenuous recent past that spin doctors and obfuscatory illusionists have tried to clean up their image by calling them the 'oil sands'.
Something which should be a matter of personal shame and embarrassment to honest people.
As far as the history of pipelines goes, anyone who is sanguine about them and the problems which, not infrequently, come with them, ought to speak to the people of Michigan about their safety. After the failure of Enbridge's line at mile 608 (near Marshall Michigan) on July 26, 2010 at significantly lower than normal operating pressure I think inquiring minds would report a different reaction to claims that pipeline safety is a done deal.
Sask Resident
1 year ago
Nobody pays for water
Nobody pays for actual water but for the delivery, treatment and disposal of water. Same for air. Why else would home owners in Vancouver or Cranbrook be allowed to use as much water as they want, without any measurement (metering) of the amounts taken in and run down the drain. But some people want some groups or industries to pay for water but not themselves. Just like environmentalists that have multiple large homes and fly by petroleum burning jet aircraft want people to protect the environment, except themselves.
gadrogeek
1 year ago
McKibben and Pipelines
Sorry, Saskatchewan, we will never support tankers going up the BC Coast (period). It is completely misleading to suggest that there are hypocrites within the Environmental Movement. This is the same type of comment as saying "Why aren't you driving an electric car, if you don't like oil?" Simply put, we need to put our resources into very serious R&D. There is no shortage of water in the world, just "fresh" water. How about solving the problems associated with desalinization? We need to find a way to store energy in batteries. It is time to act, not form committees to discuss possibilities. Stop the subsidies.
As far as tar sands bitumen is concerned, why are refineries not being built in Alberta to produce oil for Canadians? Is it NIMBY?