Today Claire McCaskill did it. She voted with all Senate Republicans and nine Senate Democrats to pass the House’s Keystone XL authorization. Of course, nine Democrats won’t be enough to override a presidential veto, so maybe she was hoping to get some red Missouri love without having to make anyone pay too big a price.

That line of thought might, though, give McCaskill too much credit. Even most Republicans have to know in their secret hearts that as far as jobs go Keystone XL is very small potatoes indeed.

As Steve Benen writes today:

As for the substance, let’s recap our discussion from a few weeks ago, noting just how straightforward the case against Keystone is. At issue is a proposal to build a pipeline to transport oil, extracted from tar sands, from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico. Critics have said the tar-sands process is environmentally hazardous, which is true. They’ve said the project would have no real impact on already low gas prices, which is also true. And they’ve said Keystone would be largely meaningless to the U.S. unemployment rate, which, once again, is completely true.
And on the other side of the aisle, Republicans have an equally straightforward rejoinder: they really, really, really like this project. Why? Because they really, really, really do

And for some reason, McCaskill, the only Democrat I’ve got representing me in Congress, seems to share the GOP infatuation with the pipeline. She seems to really, really, really like it too. Even pertinent reminders of the problems that plague oil pipelines, events like this month’s disastrous spill into Montana’s Yellowstone River, fail to sway her infatuation with the project – and if you think such spills are rare events, take a look at this list of hundreds of such spills in the United States in the last 14 years alone. And no, engineers can’t really make credible promises to do better. As a USGS engineer observed apropos the problem of protecting pipelines routed beneath rivers, “it’s nature […]. Is it going to follow the equation? I don’t know for sure.”

So does this mean that McCaskill, who seems uber-cautious when it comes to politics, is inclined to be reckless when in the throes of fossil-fuel passion? There must be some explanation for McCaskill thowing her constituents under the bus. And don’t let anyone fool you. The answer can’t be jobs. The Keystone impact will be so small that Chuck Todd and some of his fellow NBC news staff members, deride the entire effort as laughably “small ball politics.”

Steve Benen has a persuasive take on why Republicans keep batting that diminishingly small ball back and forth:

Rather, Keystone has become a totem of sorts. Its actual value has been rendered meaningless, replaced with post-policy symbolic value that ignores pesky details like facts and evidence. Indeed, the more Democrats and environmentalists tell Republicans this is a bad idea, the more Republicans convince themselves this is The Most Important Project In The World. It’s ideologically satisfying.

Taking this one step further, my suspicion is that GOP officials find all of these circumstances quite convenient. Republicans don’t have a jobs agenda, or much an economic vision in general, but they have a Keystone bill that those rascally Democrats won’t accept.

And when pressed for an explanation on why congressional Republicans aren’t working on economic development, they immediately turn to their talking point of choice: “Keystone! Keystone! Keystone!”

So that explains why Republicans are doing what they are doing. It’s just another Benghazi in a long list of Benghazis, symbolically loaded tags that come in handy when you’re asked why you and your political allies can’t do anything worthwhile.

But this still leaves us with the question of Senator McCaskill and her Democratic allies. Surely, their goals aren’t to provide cover for GOP ne’er-do-wells. Surely, they can’t think that siding with idiots who are running for cover will provide them with the same type of cover. Haven’t they noticed the President’s spiking approval numbers now that he’s showing a tendency to stand up for a progressive agenda? Isn’t that proof that there are still people out there who reward leaders who can act the part?

[Republished from Show Me Progress]

The post Claire McCaskill’s doomed love affair with Keystone XL appeared first on Occasional Planet.

350.org, The Sierra Club and The Hip Hop Caucus organized the largest environmental protest in US history, on February 17^th, 2013, with attendance estimated at 40,000 plus. The event was held on a frigid (sub-freezing) day, limiting attendance from climbing still higher. The immediate goal was to encourage President Obama to refuse permission on construction of the XL Pipeline, and more generally to increase awareness of environmental concerns. I attended this event along with several local activists from the Saint Louis metro area, and would like to share some personal observations.

 Marshals

Several of us signed up to be volunteer marshals at the event, attending a training the day prior to the event at St. Stephen’s Episcopal Church, arriving early and leaving late. We were instructed on proper methods of handling hecklers, to pass on instructions and encouragement to the participants and provide what organization is possible on such a large and diverse group of people. Our reward for playing this role was a yellow stocking cap marking us as a marshal. I found this role rewarding if occasionally trying.

 Speakers

The rally consisted of moving speeches by Bill McKibben, US Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Van Jones, and Native American activist Chief Jacqueline Thomas, who expressed a willingness to fight the XL pipeline with absolutely every possible means, even giving their lives if called to. Each speaker met a resounding response from those attending with popular support from all those present. The messages focused particularly on holding President Obama accountable for the decision he will be making on granting permission for the Keystone Pipeline to begin construction across areas of the US with vital aquifers that are highly vulnerable to damage from oil spills.

 Crowd

After the speeches, we began the actual march around the blocks, which the White House sits on, providing a chance to interact and observe the crowd. Though the weather was cold and windy, the chill became much more noticeable once the crowd began to spread out and fill the streets. Despite our training on how to deal with hecklers, there was no one to practice these great anti-heckling skills on – probably too cold for them. People I talked to were from all over the nation with particular emphasis on the East Coast, though some came from California, Washington and other western states.

 Signs

There was a plethora of homemade signs, even though the organizers provided signs for participants. A personal favorite was a sign, which read, “I’m so mad I made a sign”. You can always count on participants to come up with better sign material than the organizers! The costumed participants included a bald eagle and a polar bear, who both garnered much attention.

The mix of people struck me as healthy with a fair showing by those with a lot of experience (also known as the gray hairs) in this type of protests and young people from colleges and even children with their parents. I noticed that the mix of ethnicities also looked pretty healthy – it would be difficult to pinpoint any dominant group.

The eye catchers in the crowd included the bucket drummers, who kept up a steady tempo for the marchers who happened to be near them. There was also a contingent of dancers who appeared to have way too much energy on a cold and blustery day, even after walking a good mile. One group was burning sage to purify the air and spirits of the area. I seem to remember a time when this type of protest would have called for the burning of other herbs, though the numerous park police and DC’s finest may have inhibited those types of celebration.

The most enjoyable portion of the march when we rounded the final bend and headed back to the Washington Monument. This portion of the march is downhill and gave us a magnificent view of the numbers of marchers. We were an impressive sight, with the street completely filled for almost as far as you could see. It was at this point we encountered several tourists who were non-participants. As we attempted to apologize for any inconvenience we might have caused, they responded quite favorably to the nature of our cause and general acknowledgement that protests are expected in the nation’s capitol.

Afterwards

The march ended the Washington Monument, with a short musical concert from Eve. The crowd had thinned by this point. with mainly younger members holding on to see the guest artist. Others stuck it out to participate in the cleanup, and they did an admirable job. We picked up almost all of the trash, leaving minimum damage to the grounds.

 Reflections

There is always a little let-down after such a big event, but we found ourselves still energized and eager for more. We agreed that the effort was well worth it. Before hitting the road, we ate at the Capital City Brewery. where our yellow marshal hats earned us a number of compliments for participation. Everyone we encountered was positive and felt that the rally was a big success and a great jumping off point for further actions on the environment.

To those who support the environmental cause, or any cause that is holding a protest or rally in DC, I would encourage you to take part. Writing letters and emails, etc., only goes so far.Turning out in numbers takes commitment and demonstrates a willingness to sacrifice that gets the attention of our congressmen, senators and President. You will have the opportunity to meet like-minded people from around the nation and will be rewarded with a feeling of satisfaction and encouragement that you are not alone.

On the practical side, find a hotel near the event. and do not count on finding parking. The  Metro system is a great alternative to driving. DC is a navigational nightmare with one resident claiming this was on purpose to make defending the city, in its early days, easier. I believe it.

The post What I saw at the “Forward on Climate” rally appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Recent tv ads are touting how green natural gas is, extolling the local production, job creation and environmental friendliness of natural gas. Of course, the big oil producers are not far behind with commercials selling the idea that tar-sands oil from Canada is much better for America than that nasty old crude from Saudi Arabia, with images of friendly Canadian wilderness comparedto the scorching sands of the Arabian Desert. Well, of course, I want my oil fresh from the virgin woods up north – none of that sand-choked oil for me, at least when you put it that way! As long as you can promise me that pristine wilderness will still be pristine when you are done drilling

Natural gas

Exxon has put out an ad on “fracking”, the practice of inserting a mélange of water, salts and toxic substances into a natural gas well, which forces the gases together making it easier to extract. The advertisement states that large quantities of cement, steel and natural rock separate the fracking process from groundwater, strongly implying that nothing could possibly go wrong. The documentary “Gasland” features scenes where individuals are able to light their own water faucets on fire due to the presence of natural gas and other pollutants in their water supplies. Youtube now feature dozens of videos where individuals are able to burn water due to the chemicals that have been introduced to the groundwater through fracking. It should be obvious that it is not a good idea for people to drink anything that smells like a refinery and is combustible.

The natural gas advertisements fail to mention the added problem of disposing of the injected water and chemicals. Water and chemicals injected for the purpose of fracking return to the surface as part of the extraction process and must be disposed of. Until recently, this was not regulated and was commonly dumped on-site or into local streams. The EPA has only  recently  ended this practice.

In addition, 1.6% of all natural gas produced is leaked into the atmosphere. If that does not sound like much, consider that it is equivalent to 50 million cars running for a year, or 20% of all methane released into the atmosphere from human causes every year. That is just leakage – there are still other pollution problems with natural gas.

Burning natural gas at power plants (or anywhere) produces methane, one of the most significant greenhouse gases. Methane is 25 times more potent a greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. There are currently no laws  requiring that natural gas power plants report the amount of greenhouse gases emitted.

The ads being put out by the natural gas industry fail to address, or even mention. the real issues with frackings. Although natural gas may be less polluting than coal or tar-sand oil, it is a long way from being a “green energy” source.

Canadian tar-sand oil

Perhaps even more cynical is the advertising campaign for “ethical oil” from the tar sands of Canada, as part of the Keystone XL project. Tar sands oil is a particularly dirty type of crude oil that must be processed in order to remove the sand from the oil, producing a lot of pollution in the process. In addition, the Canadian tar sand oil would be piped across America, including the Ogallala aquifer which supplies the middle of the country with much of its water supply. Even small leaks in the pipelines could result in the pollution of a key water supply for millions of American citizens, as well as wildlife.

Big oil has responded to these concerns by issuing ads telling us that tar sand oil is the only “ethical” solution,  because Saudi Arabia treats women as second-class citizens. Ethical oil is an astroturf group set up as a front for the oil companies, and has even managed to persuade Oprah Winfrey to endorse the idea. Of course. the rights of women in Saudi Arabia are respected, just as in many other countries around the world, but the concern for this problem skyrocketed when American oil companies saw a burgeoning backlash by environmental groups against their latest proposed pollution of our nation. There is a petition effort to convince Oprah to drop her support for the tar sands pipeline (link: http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/oprah_tar_sands/).

The idea that the US would benefit from the Keystone XL effort in any way is misguided.  The oil from Canada is slated to be turned into diesel for export to Latin America and Europe. The jobs involved would be a relatively small number and short lived. The amount of carbon released by tapping into Canadian tar sand oil has been called “the fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the planet.”  In other words, we have much to lose and little to gain.

The latest media buy in favor of the Canadian tar sands has been appearing on MSNBC, perhaps most jarringly when Rachel and Ed are on. A google search for “MSNBC” and “tar sands” yields few major stories covering the controversy, instead showing a number of pro-business slanted stories. Certainly MSNBC is a business, but this once again shows the problem with American media and its connection to corporate America. That, however, is another story.

The post Dirty is the new green appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The proposed Keystone XL Pipeline extension would transport crude oil from the Athabasca Oil Sands in Alberta, Canada to refineries in Illinois and Oklahoma, and then to the U.S. Gulf Coast for transport. The Keystone extension has faced criticism from environmentalists and some members of Congress. In 2010, the U.S. Department of State extended the deadline for federal agencies to decide if the pipeline is in the national interest. In the end, it will be President Obama’s who makes that decision.

A video primer on the Alberta Tar Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline

It is August 25, the sixth day of demonstrations against the Keystone XL taking place in front of the White House. Before the demonstrations are over, organizers estimate at least 1000 will be arrested in one of the biggest environmental actions its kind in decades. The stakes are high for those who live along the pipeline’s proposed route, as well as for the entire planet. According to environment activist Bill McKibben, the proposed pipeline, could be game over for climate change. The pipeline extension would insure an expansion of the extraction and processing of the thick oil, thus increasing greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the pipeline would raise the risk of spills and damage to aquifers and waterways along its path.

The Koch brothers. who have bankrolled the Tea Party movement, climate change skepticism and right-wing think tanks, such as the Cato Institute, are involved in the Alberta Tar Sands oil industry, and stand to gain financially if the pipeline is approved.

A map of the existing and proposed Keystone pipelines

Eminent research scientists oppose the Keystone Extension.

The following is a letter from twenty climate change scientists urging President Obama to stop the Keystone extension. They work at top institutions such as Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Cornell, University of Chicago, the Woods Hole Research Center, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, and others.

President Obama:

We are researchers at work on the science of climate change and allied fields. We are writing to add our voices to the indigenous leaders, religious leaders, and environmentalists calling on you to block the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline from Canada’s tar sands.

The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, but one that does not make sense to exploit. It takes a lot of energy to extract and refine this resource into useable fuel, and the mining is environmentally destructive. Adding this on top of conventional fossil fuels will leave our children and grandchildren a climate system with consequences that are out of their control.  It makes no sense to build a pipeline system that would practically guarantee extensive exploitation of this resource.

When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the Earth’s climate system and to its oceans. Now that we do know, it’s imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy—and that we leave the tar sands in the ground. We hope those so inclined will join protests scheduled for August and described at tarsandsaction.org.

If the pipeline is to be built, you as president have to declare that it is “in the national interest.” As scientists, speaking for ourselves and not for any of our institutions, we can say categorically that it’s not only not in the national interest, it’s also not in the planet’s best interest.

(To see the names of the scientists who signed this letter, click here).

map:solveclimatenews.com

The post Alberta Tar Sands, Keystone XL Pipeline: Game over for climate change appeared first on Occasional Planet.

The Koch family fortune has its roots  in the Metro East area of Illinois, with branches radiating in many directions. The patriarch of the clan, Fred C. Koch, started as an engineer in the oil and gas industry. In 1940, Fred Koch partnered with a fellow MIT alumni to found Wood River Oil and Refining Company. After the elder Koch’s death in 1967 the company was renamed Koch Industries in his honor. The company is currently run by two of Fred Koch’s sons, Charles (CEO) and David (executive VP). These two brothers bought out the remaining heirs of the estate in the 1980’s, in a deal worth over a billion dollars.

Sins against the environment

From the beginning, a major part of Koch Industries has been oil and gas pipelines, with the Wood River- Hartford area of Illinois serving as a major terminus connecting the Wood River refineries with facilities from Indiana, New Orleans, Minnesota and North Texas. This network of pipelines has a long history of problems.

The worst inland spill in American history took place in Vienna MO, in 1983 spilling over 800,000 gallons of oil. Koch Industries was criticized for failing to report the spill to authorities until well after the event. The spill was bad enough that beer tasters at Anheuser Busch in St. Louis reported an “oily smell” to the product they were testing.

According to Wikipedia:

During the 1990s, Koch Industries’s faulty pipelines were responsible for more than 300 oil spills in five states, prompting a landmark penalty of $35 million from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). In Minnesota,[ Koch] was fined an additional $8 million for discharging oil into streams. During the months leading up to the 2000 presidential elections, the company faced even more liability, in the form of a 97-count federal indictment charging it with concealing illegal releases of 91 metric tons of benzene, a known carcinogen, from its refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas.

The Koch Industries website would have us believe that “When challenges arise, Koch companies’ approach is to move quickly to correct the situation (clean up a spill, rectify a reporting issue, etc.) and take responsibility with the appropriate regulatory authorities.” The reality has been that when a spill occurs, the company attempts to escape blame, delays cleanup, and opposes efforts of regulators and officials overseeing the cleanup.

Currently, Koch Industries is pushing for the addition of the “Keystone XL” pipeline to be constructed from Alberta to tie into the current pipelines. This would allow tar sand oil from Alberta to be piped to refineries in Minnesota, and the refinery in Wood River, Illinois. The pipeline developer is lobbying for the same type of environmental waivers for the tar sand pipeline that were granted to BP prior to the Gulf spill, prompting some to label this a “BP on the Prairies”.

Charles and David Koch have become familiar to most Americans as the deep pockets behind the Tea Party. Funding of conservative causes also includes groups such as “Americans for Prosperity” and “Freedomworks”. Totals spent are difficult to track given the wide variety of companies owned or controlled by the Kochs (Georgia-Pacific, Invista, Koch Minerals, etc.) but has been estimated in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Anti-government hypocrisy

Among the causes that the Kochs, or their proxies, have fought against include healthcare reform, spending millions in political efforts to deny access to healthcare . At the same time, Koch Industries applied for healthcare subsidies made possible by a program vigorously opposed by groups funded by the Koch brothers. They have fought worker’s rights, most dramatically through their support of Governor Walker’s (WI) efforts. PACs funded by the Koch brothers spent $1 million in TV ads attacking Walker’s opponent and contributed $48,000 directly to his campaign.

The Koch brothers argue against government funded assistance at every turn, except when it directly benefits their business. Matador Cattle Company, a Koch brother’s subsidiary, grazes cattle on government-owned land, at no cost. Georgia-Pacific (another Koch owned company) logs national forests with the financial assistance of the federal government. The forest service cuts roads and is paid only a modest fee when vast areas of America’s forests are laid bare.

David Koch ran for Vice-President on the Libertarian ticket in 1980. The platform included the end of Social Security, public schools and a long list of government agencies (FBI, ATF, EPA, etc.) and especially those regulations seen as hindering business. The family has a long history of attempting to influence the political scene. Fred Koch (the company founder) helped found the John Birch Society. His sons have founded The Cato Institute, Heritage Foundation and many others. These groups are pushing America in a direction that benefits the Koch brothers greatly, but not the average American.

The post Kochs: Southern Illinois roots, national clout appeared first on Occasional Planet.