
(image: cordlesscorey/flickr)
It seemed like the afterthought in the payroll tax cut extension fight, a small consolation prize to the Republicans on what should have been the easiest of bi-partisan votes. But the two-month clock is now ticking on whether Obama will approve the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada’s environmentally disastrous tar sands.
If we want him to make the right decision and deny the permit, maybe it’s time to Occupy Exxon, with creative protests at local Exxon/Mobil stations. Of course we need to keep pressuring Obama. The bill’s deadline precludes anything close to the kind of comprehensive environmental review that he called for after rallies and civil disobedience at the White House led him to delay approval for a year. But why not also go after the oil companies whose influence led the Republicans to hold the rest of the unemployment and payroll tax bill hostage to the fast-track requirement. Exxon/Mobil has long been the dirtiest of the dirty among these companies. This makes them a logical target.
In a week heralding news of melting Arctic methane beds, and a year of record global temperatures and billion-dollar weather-related disasters, demanding Keystone’s approval is a stunning exercise in denial. But that’s the deal that passed. So our challenge is not only to get Obama to reject the pipeline. We also want to make this raw power grab backfire on those who insisted on it by turning at least part of the national conversation back onto oil company greed.
The more we do this, the more political room we create for Obama both to block the pipeline and to act more forcefully on climate change in general. So just as Occupy Wall Street has got us talking about predatory banks, Occupying Exxon would get Americans thinking about destructive fossil fuel interests — whether they’re fighting for the pipeline, convincing the Republicans to block proposed cut-backs to their massive tax subsidies, or paying nothing in federal income taxes, as Exxon did as recently as 2009. Targeting Exxon links an issue most Americans may have barely heard of with a company known as an embodiment of greed. It also links Exxon’s lobbying for the pipeline with their long-time backing of climate change denial. Using strategies, scientists, and PR firms borrowed from the tobacco industry, Exxon contributed $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to groups denying human-caused climate change and spent over $55 million to lobbying, at a time when even BP and Shell were beginning to acknowledge the reality. Exxon claimed they’ve now cut this funding, but continue to back institutes and support politicians who promote denial.
The pipeline matters, because building it invites the acceleration of tar sands extraction. And the process leaves the resulting fuel contributing as much as three times the greenhouse emissions per energy unit as conventional oil. Given the massive size of these deposits, their full exploitation, say NASA’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen, would create “game over for the planet.” For this reason, 20 of Hansen’s most respected climate scientist peers sent a letter to Obama opposing the pipeline, as did Desmond Tutu, eight other Nobel Peace Prize winners, and every major American environmental group, including the most conservative ones.
Given Obama’s two month decision window, we need to keep pressure on the White House, from calling and writing, to public rallies, perhaps even at Obama campaign offices. The chances of Obama again rising to the occasion are far greater if there’s continued public outcry about the pipeline. But one powerful way to create this is to tie the proposal and the politicians who’ve backed it to the greed-driven agenda of the oil companies. I’d suggest we invite the Occupy Movement, environmental groups, and anyone appalled at our pay-to-play politics to show up at local Exxon/Mobil stations in whatever nonviolent and creative ways they can, whether through picketing, vigils, guerrilla theater, or civil disobedience. Other oil companies are also involved in the tar sands, like BP, Chevron, Shell and Conoco. Brand-name gas stations sometimes sell fuel from ostensible competitors. But Exxon remains the most powerful symbol, because of all they’ve done and are continuing to do in promoting blanket denial.
As always, the Republicans claim this is a jobs issue. Yet a credible Cornell study points out that the pipeline could actually cost American jobs, and even if the pipeline backers are right, we’re talking only 5,000-6,000 temporary positions for two years. That doesn’t count the climate change risks or the potential for the pipeline to break and pollute the massive Ogallala aquifer that sustains America’s agricultural heartland. The latter possibility impelled Nebraska’s Republican governor to speak out against the pipeline, in the wake of major citizen outcry and a 42,000-gallon leak this past July that spilled into the Yellowstone River from Exxon’s Silvertip Pipeline. So any economic benefit would go largely to the project’s promoters.
For most Americans, I suspect Keystone feels like an obscure minor issue worth the tangible gain of extending unemployment benefits and the payroll tax cut. I doubt they’re highly invested on either side. But we know that the groups that lobbied for the Pipeline will go all out this round, so staying silent or confining ourselves to virtual lobbying is a bad option. But if we make Exxon and the oil companies the sleazy face of the fight, we can change the political context. Occupy Exxon protests would invite people to undertake flexible and creative approaches to the issue in their own backyards. They’d highlight the oil companies as the heart of the issue, so if Obama allows the pipeline, he’ll be seen as supporting them, and if he blocks it, he can justly frame it as challenging corporate greed. Exxon’s long undermined the habitability of the planet, from their day-to-day operations to their long-term political role. Targeting them just might make their latest destructive power grab finally backfire.
Paul Loeb is the author of Soul of a Citizen, with 130,000 copies in print including a newly updated second edition now being used in hundreds of schools to promote civic engagement. He’s also the author of The Impossible Will Take a Little While: A Citizen’s Guide to Hope in a Time of Fear, named the #3 political book of 2004 by the History Channel and the American Book Association. See www.paulloeb.org To receive Paul’s articles directly www.paulloeb.org/subscribe.html .<



8 Comments

There are a couple of points that are hard to explain to my climate denying friends.
1. Why does increasing the supply of oil increase the price? Supply/demand theory suggests the opposite.
2. If we don’t use the oil, Canada will likely sell it to China. Why is it better to have China burn it that the US, where we have a much better chance to mitigate the harmful effects in the refining process?
3. Jobs are jobs. Our union allies are in favor of this project.
If we are supporting a denial solely on environmental grounds, why bring up these topics?
Or else…
Japan Tsunami Debris Starts to Hit US Coast
As much as 20 million tons of debris is estimated to have washed out to sea when the tsunami struck Japan in March. Now the first traces are appearing on the other side of Pacific ocean, on US and Canadian shores. http://www.newslook.com/videos/385241-japan-tsunami-debris-starts-to-hit-us-coast?autoplay=true
I have to say that if you wish to have clean air, water, food, and life worth living you gotta understand a few things.
The first and most important one is that our economic system both here at home and abroad rests on fuels. NeoCons and those behind the scenes in government know nothing else. If you thought the war on terror was about a boogey man, you are wrong. Our military is being used and abused by corporate heads and their need for power and greed. What was the war on terror about?
What are the war drums concerning Iran about? Take a look at this link:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/12/27/iran-signs-fuel-deal-with-afghanistan-media/
Obama has already dropped climate change as an issue to be concerned about. The US delegations practical sabotage of Durban was very real evidence of this. Is there any hope that Obama will do anything at all? I am rather pessimistic. He seems to follow the dictates of AEI and ExxonMobil the same as any other president that came before him. In one sense I am happy the repukes pushed this issue to the forefront so it cannot be pushed back after the next election. It will show clearly where Obama is on the issue of climate change, and how Americas response to climate catastrophes will affect us all.
As far as greybeards questions, I don’t want to insult him but anyone who thinks there will be jobs because of this pipeline is as shortsighted and dimwitted as those still scratching their heads about what the OWS/99% movement wants. Willful ignorance about cause and effect of CO2 climate catastrophes is not going to help anyone, but it will force the tar sands to be strip mined, processed into sludge, and used to exacerbate the collapse of a biosystem already on the brink. But, if they can’t use Keystone they will have to find an alternate, and that will also be fought and stopped.
People do know, I believe, that there is something wrong with the climate. I believe too that people know that Keystone is dangerous and risky. I also think they know the oil companies have gamed the system so that they will profit whatever happens. The oil companies, like the Pentagon, have so much control over our govt and president that none of that really matters however. We do not have any rights, apparently according to Obama, regarding the protection of our biospheres health and our future descendants ability to inhabit a diverse and livable world. I guess if you have the money you can buy a shuttle ticket to Kepler 22b or Enceladus. Just watch as Obama does what the oil companies tell him what to do.
What if a less-than-impressive display of activity is delivered, in spite of what may be actual, sending a wrong message. We already know where corporate media stands.
“So if Obama allows the pipeline….” we will once again see his support for the corps as we did during the BP spill. Maybe something has changed this time; the precedent is not encouraging.
Just replying to point 2: If China gets the oil, that affects the supply/demand curve even if we don’t get it. So, let them have it. There’s nothing we can do about that. I don’t think we need another pipeline with this shit in it.
Don’t forget this article in your summary of current environmental problems:
[UXBRIDGE, Canada, Dec 27, 2011 (TierramÈrica)]
No Time Left to Adapt to Melting Glaciers By Stephen Leahy
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=106312
Even without the tar sands projects, the climate is shifting faster than people can adapt to.
So by the end of the next presidential term the increasing ferocity of the storms that rage across the world now will be harder to sweep under the denial carpet. Of course it appears that any political recognition of climate change is going to be much too late to have some way to mitigate it’s effects.