Keystone Pipeline Battle: Mark Ruffalo Speak Out Against Oil Sands

Mark Ruffalo Oil Sands

First Posted: 08/19/11 03:57 PM ET Updated: 10/19/11 06:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON - With the U.S. State Department expected to release within days its final environmental analysis of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, environmentalists are cranking up their protest efforts by employing some Hollywood star power.

Mark Ruffalo, the Oscar-nominated actor, is the latest Hollywood figure to get involved in organized opposition to Alberta's oilsands, asking people to participate in a series of sit-ins outside the White House that begin on Saturday and continue to Sept. 3.

Organizers say some 1,500 people have signed up to participate in the protests.

Ruffalo won't be at the White House on Saturday, but "is likely to join some time in the following two weeks," a spokesman for Tar Sands Action, the environmental group behind the protests, said Friday.

In a YouTube clip posted earlier this week, Ruffalo calls on Americans to "put your principles into action."

"Up north where the tarsands are located, native people's homelands have already been wrecked," says Ruffalo, who has also opposed "fracking," a controversial process for extracting natural gas, in upper New York state, where he has a home.

Bill McKibben, a journalist and environmentalist who writes about climate change issues, is among those who will court arrest on Saturday. He described the next two weeks as "the biggest organized civil disobedience protests of the climate change movement."

"We've got people coming to get arrested from all 50 states," McKibben said in an interview Friday.

That includes Margot Kidder, the Canadian-born actress who's now an American citizen living in Montana. Kidder will travel to D.C. with three other Montana women, all of whom describe themselves as concerned grandmothers, early next week.

In a recent interview, Kidder didn't have much good to say about the environmental record of her native land, alleging there are few regulatory standards in Canada.

"One of the real horrific results of letting this happen is that we're going to quadruple and quadruple again the output of the tarsands in Alberta because there is basically no governmental control, environmentally, in Canada over the oil and gas industry, far less than there is here," Kidder said in an interview this week with the Livingston Weekly, an alternative Montana newspaper.

"The tar sands is the biggest carbon emitter on the planet ... it's using up something like 20 per cent of Canada's allowed emissions alone."

Ruffalo and Kidder aren't the first to lend their celebrity to the movement. Danny Glover will also participate in the protests, while "Avatar" director James Cameron even visited Alberta last year to tour oilsands facilities and nearby communities.

The goal of the sit-ins is to convince the Obama administration to snuff out TransCanada Corp.'s $7-billion proposal to build a pipeline that would carry millions of barrels of oilsands crude weekly through the American heartland and to a Gulf Coast refinery in Texas.

The U.S. State Department is tasked with making a decision on the pipeline because it crosses an international border. After it produces its assessment, President Barack Obama will have 90 days to determine whether approving the pipeline is in the national interest.

"Here is a decision that gives Obama complete independence from Congress _ he can do this all on his own, he can stop the pipeline without any congressional interference," McKibben said. "So hopes are high among his base of supporters."

But with a presidential election just 15 months away, politics is entering the equation like never before. Obama's liberal base is opposed to the pipeline, whereas his most bitter foes in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives — the people he'll be campaigning against — are passionate supporters of the project.

Late last month, the House passed a bill that demanded the Obama administration make a decision on the pipeline by Nov. 1. The State Department has said it will rule on the pipeline by the end of the year.

There have already been some ominous signs for TransCanada.

Delays in the approval process resulted when the Environmental Protection Agency successfully urged the State Department to conduct the environmental assessment. State's decision to hold hearings in a half-dozen states in the path of the proposed pipeline also made its proponents nervous.

Canadian embassy officials have been devoting long hours to lobbying efforts. One lobbyist says cooler heads are prevailing for the moment, but that full-fledged panic will set in among pipeline proponents if there are any further delays in the process.

The oilsands lobbyists have adopted a relatively new tactic — they're suggesting the pipeline will create thousands of jobs as the Obama administration struggles to bring down the country's stubborn nine per cent unemployment rate.

Environmentalists scoff at that those claims, pointing out they're now vastly higher than they were in TransCanada's original permit application. But at least one observer thinks it's a message that can't help but resonate with the Obama administration as it faces intense criticism that it isn't doing enough to create jobs.

"The damage in terms of job losses, increasing gas prices — all of it's bad, and it's going to be very tough for the president to rule against the pipeline," Chris Sands, a Canada-U.S. relations experts at the Hudson Institute, said Friday.

Sands said he suspects the Obama administration, cunningly, has deliberately done the environmental movement a favour by delaying the approval process.

"It's hard to raise money in this economy, and Keystone XL has given environmentalists a cause. They're raising money, and the delays have given them time to raise even more money. And if they can't raise money, they can't give money to the president's re-election campaign."

McKibben wouldn't speculate about whether the environmental movement would punish Obama if he gives the pipeline the green light by refusing to support his re-election campaign.

Lee-Anne Goodman, The Canadian Press

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

WASHINGTON - With the U.S. State Department expected to release within days its final environmental analysis of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, environmentalists are cranking up their protest effo...
WASHINGTON - With the U.S. State Department expected to release within days its final environmental analysis of TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline, environmentalists are cranking up their protest effo...
Filed by CP  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 89
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Whistlejackett
Hey stop doing that
04:55 PM on 09/04/2011
Marc you are indeed a slacker. They have been raping our land up here for 30 years. It is too late, but your car needs the gas. We need this pipeline.
01:39 PM on 08/24/2011
Hey Yanks, how many US soldiers have lost their lives in Fort Mac? How many US soldiers have lost their lives in the Middle East?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:47 AM on 08/22/2011
Drill, Drill Drill.
09:08 AM on 08/22/2011
Any american who is against the oil sands is clueless. Get informed..... The oil sands are completely govt regulated, any and all expansions have to get approval from the canadian govt, Companies like Suncor and others are spending hundreds of millions of dollars every year to drastically improve efficiency and decrease carbon outputs.

WAKE UP America... You did it to yourselves... You are the largest consumer country in the world, and then complain about where your oil is coming from? Come on !! Is it better from Iran or the middle east where they can siffen off some of the profits to fund terrorist regimes to destroy democratic countries like yours and ours? You farm out all your domestic production to 3rd world countries that have absolutely no human rights or any standards at all and then you complain about Canada's oil sands???? You are hypocrits !!

These overpaid actors that make millions every year can afford $10 a gallon gasoline, so before you side with them, you better take a good hard look at your wallet and see if you can afford it too. They "volunteer" their time between movies to take up these missions to better the world, and then drive home in their limosine or corvette or ferrari to fly to some foreign country, they are some of the biggest contributors to carbon output on the planet !!!!!! GET A CLUE !!
09:12 AM on 08/22/2011
Im also referring to James Cameron's recent rant on oil sands...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce banned
Never let them tell you it can't be done.
10:54 AM on 08/21/2011
The environmental issues are real, though somewhat overstated (one should compare the environmental impacts of 'dirty tarsands oil' and 'clean coal')

But please remember that a pipeline to the US is only a little more politically sellable than a pipeline to the west coast, and China will pay just as much for oil as America will, so there is almost as much profit in going that way, and the way the free market system works, the only responsibility that corporations have is to be profitable. Blocking the pipeline will not have much effect, environmentally speaking, as there is a politically and economically alternative market, so the exploitation will go ahead regardless.
04:20 PM on 08/21/2011
Respectfully, you seem certain that proposed pipelines to Canada's west coast will be approved. You also assume implicitly that the current restriction on supertankers in BC's Pacific waters will be lifted so that unrefined tar sands petroleum can be shipped to Asia. Legal entanglements with land and water claims by Canadian First Nations might very well prevent these changes from ever occurring. At present, affected First Nations are unanimously and unequivocally opposed to new pipelines and Supertankers. Moreover, public opinion is overwhelmingly opposed to approving the pipelines or lifting of the supertanker moratorium,

I also note in your previous posting that you question the possiblity of the U.S. exporting refined Canadian tar sands petroleum to China. That idea has been discussed openly by the companies that will refine the diluted bitumen (heavy tar sands oil mixed with condensate) being transported from Alberta to Texas using TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline. So contrary to your insinuation, the option remains on the table. Even TransCanada has not denied the possibility.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce banned
Never let them tell you it can't be done.
05:40 PM on 08/21/2011
I didn't say the west coast pipeline setup was an easy option, just that it was almost as easy as the pipeline to Texas. And though the option to ship refined products from Texas to China is there, the person was convinced it was the primary purpose of the pipeline, and that what would be shipped was the unrefined bitumen.

Corporations almost inevitably take the easiest, quickest, and most politically palatable option available, and that is, at present, shipping the bitumen to our closest, largest, trading partner along a route that for the most part runs through jurisdictions that already have pipelines running through them. But, if ends up getting blocked due to politics, they turn to the next option, and bring their pressure/persuasion campaign to bear on it. The obstacles to the west coast route you mention have not been tested in the face of that, yet, Given the pressure/concern to increase the amount of trade Canada does with countries other than the US, and the probability of the American recession continuing, with resulting dropping in the amount of US-Canada trade, opening the west coast route if the Texas route is blocked will likely be both a federal and provincial priority.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce banned
Never let them tell you it can't be done.
10:30 AM on 08/21/2011
It was interesting to hear one of the spokespeople for the anti-pipeline movement be interviewed on an American news program.

She was firmly convinced that the pipeline was going to be used to ship the oil to China. I know that American ignorance of the world outside their borders is the stuff of legend, but not knowing that there are major Canadian points that are closer to both the oil sands, and on the right side of the continent to be a lot closer to China as a ship sails, seems too big an ignorance to not be willful.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:41 AM on 08/21/2011
Ahhh! I remember the good old days when the oil companies said it was impossible to extract or separate the oil from the tar sands. What happened to change their tune? Was it the fact that Canadians have been doing just that with tar sands mining since the late 50s? Yet, the oil companies said the technology was not there.

Well, it out of the bag, now, and Canada is sitting on the second largest oil reserve in the world. The Canadians would rather sell their oil to their friends in the US, but, if their friends make too much trouble, the Canadians will instead sell their oil to their new friends in the energy hungry People's Republic of China.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
spinnerator
08:13 PM on 08/20/2011
who cares what he thinks, he's an actor, not an intellectual, not a scientist, just an actor. why do we give these people a soapbox?
sharonlgain
Liberal state of mind in red state of Texas...
03:41 PM on 08/20/2011
It's a no-brainer. Obama's gonna give the heads up on the pipeline. He's little better than Bush re: the environment. After all, he's trying so hard to win over those independents in 2012. It'll be just one more shaft job for his liberal base.
02:00 PM on 08/20/2011
Oil sands huh.. Im pretty sure this process uses excessive amounts of water to be turned into steam, PLUS uses natural gas to power the machines for said process.. seems rather counterintuitive when you consume more energy than your yielding, actually..

Sorta reminds me of a junkie that spills the last bit of his stash on a carpet and manually picks the granules out from the fabric. Of course when he finishes extracting it, he'll just keep wanting more from somewhere else...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AlbanyConservative
Always right!!
02:16 PM on 08/20/2011
Gee, it sounds alot like the argument people make against the continued subisidies for ethanol.

It wastes more energy than it creates, and it drives up the price of ALL foods also.
02:28 PM on 08/20/2011
Indeed, I concur.. the notion of using potential food sources for just fuel is foolish, especially when theres nations starving in the world. Subsidies for farms and oil are bad ideas..
12:45 PM on 08/20/2011
"With the U.S. State Department expected to release within days its final environmental analysis...", Now I know why all those "it's safe energy and it will help us be independent" commercials have been on TV.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
giantsteps
10:39 AM on 08/20/2011
Before Americans criticizes the oil sands, do your homework? Coal burning in the states does more environmental damage than the oil sands. Tens of millions of tons of carbon is created by coal burning. Yes I know some coal burning states are trying to reduce the carbon as is the oil sands.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Skookum1
truth can't be bought, but lies sure can be sold..
09:36 AM on 08/20/2011
The partisan nature of this coverage is clear every time you use the oil industry's preferred misnomer, "the oilsands", instead of the long-standing and CORRECT term "tar sands", which most of the people you talk to will use. Reinforcing the rebranding efforts of the oil industry betrays your own supposed neutrality (as IF)......there is NO oil in the tar sands...there is TAR. it's a long ways from being oil.

And nothing in this article about the reality that the bitumen that Keystone XL would pipe to the Gulf of Mexico shoreline is primarily intended for export to China. That's likely why the GOP are so avidly in support of it - covertly they know they need to pay their Chinese creditors, despite their own nationalist posturings - they're the ones who racked up the bill with the Chinese banks, after all....

And at thetyee-dot-ca there's an article by Michael Byers "Overheard: Asia's View of Alberta, Tar Sands and Pipelines" that's very relevant to the Keystone XL coverage. The Tyee is one of those independent 'zines that talk about all the stuff that Canadian Press WON'T.
05:19 AM on 08/20/2011
Obviously, Alberta should be invaded and annexed NOW!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Richard Pearce banned
Never let them tell you it can't be done.
10:36 AM on 08/21/2011
Well, though starting a war would likely ensure Obama's second term, going down in history as the latest President to get the Whitehouse burned down for making the mistake of attacking Canada would likely, in Obama's eyes, be more embarassing than being a one-term President would be.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:13 AM on 08/20/2011
Oh, this pipeline will be built, there's little doubt. The politicians and their big oil masters will assure the construction. All in the name of a false independance from foreign oil. Until the US begins a serious fuel conservation program along with all the alternatives to produce electricity we will never wean off imported oil. Never. Not in my lifetime anyway. We could drill and frack everywhere possible and it won't make much difference. Except to make a hand full of people wealthy. We just use way to much and most people don't want to stop their consumption. Look at all the big SUV's and pickup trucks speeding down the streets and highways.