On the Stop It! side of addressing the climate crisis, everybody seems to be waiting for the shoe to drop on the Tar Sands Oil Pipeline, with the assumption that sometime soon President Obama is going to approve its extension from Canada to the Gulf.
The issues involved continue to be clarified in opposition, however. Bill McKibben has been leading a vocal and demonstrative opposition on the basis of the effect on climate of a lot more carbon burned from dirty tar sands oil, a stand backed up by the premier scientific voice on climate, James Hansen, although he seems to be more focused on promoting a carbon tax that would be especially high for tar sands oil and the like.
But this week President Obama's former advisor on climate matters, Van Jones, was especially aggressive in his opposition to the pipeline. In media statements and a YouTube video, he is calling out President Obama on the issue. He joins others in asserting that tar sands gunk is especially dangerous, that spills of it are proving impossible to clean up, and that the jobs it will create are minimal, with less than 50 non-temporary jobs. He also asserts that the idea that this oil contributes to U.S. energy independence is false--that there is no guarantee the oil will stay in the country--he asserts that it will probably end up in China.
Also the 350 organization (McKibben's) claims in an email that "big chunks" of the favorable environmental review of the pipeline issued by the U.S. State Department (their clearance--and Obama's--are necessary because the pipeline crosses from another country, Canada) were written by a client of the very company that is building the pipeline. This consultant, Environmental Resource Management, not only has TransCanada as a client, it is" a dues-paying member of the American Petroleum Institute, big oil’s top lobbying group that has spent millions trying to get Keystone XL built."
There's a lot of politics going on, and possibly institution-building, but the issue is serious. For example, Organizing for America--the former Obama for America--is building support for addressing climate change, but is notably not opposing the pipeline. Other organizations, including 350.org, are trying to organize demonstrations and civil disobedience, even if the pipeline is approved.
All this in the week that President Obama remarked that he has no patience with climate crisis deniers, but amidst criticism that his actual efforts are insufficient. Jonathan Chiat put this in perspective, as noted in this report:
However, others argue that Obama has been a good steward of the environment. As New York's Jonathan Chait pointed out, under Obama, carbon dioxide emissions have fallen, vehicle emissions standards have gone up, and the government has poured tons of new funding into green technology and research.
"The assumption that Obama's climate-change record is essentially one of failure is mainly an artifact of environmentalists' understandably frantic urgency," he said. "The sort of steady progress that would leave activists on other issues giddy does not satisfy the sort of person whose waking hours are spent watching the glaciers melt irreversibly."
Even Gore gave Obama some credit, saying he'd "accomplished more than any president before him" in combating climate change.
Meanwhile, it's worth noting that positive steps in replacing the need for fossil fuels is proceeding significantly, though they don't get much press. Solar power is becoming better and cheaper, wind power is contributing more and more to electricity generated and used, and electric cars are coming down in price, to be competitive with the fossil fueled.
In terms of addressing the climate crisis with clean energy initiatives, Republican Senator Lamar Alexander made a strong speech in support last week. This is not new for Alexander, but it's news for a Republican to take the climate crisis seriously. Alexander is one of the few who hasn't recanted. It remains to be seen however how influential his position actually can be.
