Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Maude Barlow

GET UPDATES FROM Maude Barlow
 

I Occupied the White House

Posted: 11/06/11 11:56 PM ET


Yesterday, I stood in the warm Washington sunshine and joined thousands of peaceful demonstrators as we surrounded the White House in a shout out for climate justice. We were there -- 12,000 of us from all over North America -- to urge President Barack Obama to say no to the highly controversial Keystone XL, a proposed pipeline that would carry bitumen -- the dirtiest oil on earth -- from the tar sands of Northern Alberta over an ancient aquifer and prime farmland to the Texas Gulf Coast for refining. American citizens and communities along the pipeline's path have joined forces with environmentalists, scientists, and First Nations groups on both sides of the border to mount a fierce opposition to the project.

The Canadian government has given the go-ahead for Keystone. The State Department has weighed in with its opinion (in favour), as has the Environmental Protection Agency (opposed). The decision to give TransCanada the go-ahead for its pipeline, or not, rests entirely with President Obama. He is supposed to reveal his decision this month.

Until recently, the common wisdom has been that the president would reluctantly agree to the pipeline because of the demand for domestic jobs and the call for the U.S. to secure more energy supplies here in North America. But the latter argument has been turned on its head with reports that much of the Canadian tar sands oil will actually be exported to Europe after it is refined in the U.S.

And even the president admits that the jobs issue must be weighed against environmental concerns. Last week, he went on Nebraska TV to empathize with the growing opposition in that state to the pipeline: "We don't want, for example, aquifers that are adversely affected." President Obama was referring to the Ogallala Aquifer, a major fossil aquifer already in distress from over pumping that has become a flashpoint for opposition over fears that a spill could irreversibly damage this vital water source. In fact, Nebraska state legislators have recently moved to block the project altogether in their state, a move that would force the re-routing of the pipeline and perhaps result in its cancellation altogether.

The president and the energy industry have clearly noted the sustained opposition in the U.S. and Canada. For two weeks in late August, hundreds of peaceful demonstrators deliberately got arrested in an act of non-violent civil disobedience in front of the White House. And in Canada in late September, close to 200 Canadians, including myself, got arrested for crossing a police barrier on Parliament Hill in a similar protest. The Canadian government has also noticed the increased opposition and has upped the ante with expensive advertising on American television praising the tar sands as a safe and "ethical" energy source for the U.S. Clearly the stakes are growing and the turn-out shows that the opposition to not only Keystone, but the expansion of the tar sands, will not stop growing.

The atmosphere here was joyful, the speeches powerful, the mood hopeful. I addressed the demonstrators and in my remarks, I assured them that the majority of Canadians want a safe energy future and support policies that promote climate justice. I told them about the damage done to the water of Northern Alberta -- damage that will come to Texas and the Great Lakes and other sites in the U.S. as these pipelines spread across their country and ours like a toxic board game of snakes and ladders. I told them about the harm done to the First Nations communities that live downstream from the tar sands. I told them what might happen if there are spills along the route as we have already seen 14 serious spills in the first phase of the project.

I return home now filled with hope. And not just about the possibility of winning this fight. I am filled with hope at the number and diversity of people I met and continue to meet around the world and the coalitions and networks we are building. There may be many differences among us, but we know that the current model of unfettered market growth is killing the planet and crating class warfare unlike anything we have seen in modern times. I am hopeful because I see an articulation of an alternative as we struggle to find a better way of living with one another in harmony and stepping more lightly on this fragile planet that give us life.

 
Yesterday, I stood in the warm Washington sunshine and joined thousands of peaceful demonstrators as we surrounded the White House in a shout out for climate justice. We were there -- 12,000 of us ...
Yesterday, I stood in the warm Washington sunshine and joined thousands of peaceful demonstrators as we surrounded the White House in a shout out for climate justice. We were there -- 12,000 of us ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 49
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
Iamrebelriser
iamrebelriser
12:42 PM on 11/09/2011
OOPS, again I didn't proof read before hitting "send." But my lap top was doing some tricks too, but lame excuse.
photo
Iamrebelriser
iamrebelriser
12:38 PM on 11/09/2011
Good for you, Maude, that you stand up to yours & lour convictions. If we could physically be there or at all protests which we believe in too, we would gladly. We want to trust that President Obama will listen and will decide not to give in to this attempt of oil companies to run over our best interests & safety. If it were a Bush or McCain or Romney or Perry, we know we wouldn't have an ounce of listening or protection.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
06:10 PM on 11/13/2011
Why does she feel she has to lie to make her case?
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
08:34 AM on 11/08/2011
Thank you Maude Barlow for your activism and this article. Let's hope President Obama hears us loud and clear and says no to the Keystone XL pipeline.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
02:37 PM on 11/07/2011
It is easy to protest against something, it is much harder to come up with a solution. Energy is vital for keeping our 7 billion alive. If we had to rely on burning wood and harnessing animal muscle, 6 of the 7 billion people on the planet would die. If we tried to rely completely on renewable energy, our civilization would likely collapse - resulting in billions of deaths.
We need to replace all coal plants with nuclear power and develop technology to synthesize fuels from air, water and nuclear energy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html
10:49 AM on 11/08/2011
Ever heard of solar energy? Totally free 360 days of every year, every decade, every century. Why isn't it being developed? PROFITS aren't big enough - so to hell with our planet, and the pollution, and the destruction. Remember: extinct is forever. And nuclear most certainly is NOT the answer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
01:32 PM on 11/08/2011
"[solar] totally free 360 days of every year" Not at night, and not on overcast days. You either need energy storage, which is more expensive than generating energy to begin with, or you need conventional energy as your base. In reality, solar would require thousands of square miles of panel and energy storage systems, all of which require toxic substances to manufacture. In reality, nuclear is far more environmentally benign than solar. I support nuclear because I care about the planet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
02:22 PM on 11/07/2011
There are a lot of protests of what we shouldn't do, how about some ideas of what we should do? First step would be to replace all of the coal plants with nuclear. Second would be to develop an industry to synthesize fuel from air, water and nuclear energy.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/science/19carb.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quillerm
02:05 PM on 11/07/2011
What is the logic in opposing a pipeline that would safely transport millions of gallons of fuel to refineries? The alternative is to use trucks and trains to ship the same oil on our highways and rail lines. Over 5000 people a year die in serious fuel truck accidents that cause major spills. This pipeline would eliminate thousands of polluting trucks clogging our roads? Are these protesters working for the Trucking Union Bosses or what? Can they really be so uninformed about the realities of this issue?
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
08:17 AM on 11/08/2011
Are you really so uninformed about TransCanada's safety record? Try reading up on the issue before commenting. There is *nothing* safe about the Keystone XL pipeline.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
quillerm
09:45 AM on 11/08/2011
TRANSCANADA SAFETY RECORD IS ONE OF THE BEST IN THE INDUSTRY

TAPS is indeed held in highest regard by the oil industry. In addition to winning API’s “Distinguished Environment and Safety” award for the fifth consecutive year in 2008, TAPS won an API award “reserved for pipeline operators that demonstrate excellence in safety, environment and integrity.” Given the distinction it has achieved, let us hope TAPS significantly outperformed Alaska’s statewide averages in both spill count and spill volume in recent years. During the decade from 1995 to 2005, Alaska documented 732 pipeline spills totaling more than 506,000 gallons over 1,100 miles of crude oil transmission pipe. Including the 800 miles that run from Prudhoe Bay to Valdez but excluding the TAPS bullet hole spill, these pipelines on average leaked ~0.48 barrels per mile per year.
10:51 AM on 11/08/2011
Safely transport the oil? There have been enough spills - Alaska comes to mind - because the oil companies don't see the need to spend money on pipeline repairs. Nothing is done until a major catastrophe strikes. And take a very good and close look at all the destruction that the Alberta Tar Sands are causing. But as usual, the US only cares to look after itself and to hell with the rest.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
07:59 PM on 11/19/2011
What destruction is that?
All the land is being reclaimed.
After the oil is cleaned out of it...
02:05 PM on 11/07/2011
Thankyou....and the earth thanks you
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Charles the Great
Canadian/Israeli Goy in Alert,Nunavut
01:27 PM on 11/07/2011
and she does not even speak for the Majority of Canadians either. The Council of Canadians is just a leftist joke and most Canadians do not even care about this organization . Canada is a oil producing nation and the Canadian Dollar is a petrol currency. If it was not for all that oil then I think Maude Barlow could not even afford to travel to the USA. It is because of oil is the reason why the Canadian Dollar is at par with the American Dollar.

Also to the The Council of Canadians: Please STOP saying you speak for all 33 million of us. You do not I wonder why the Conservatives have a majority government in Canada
12:48 PM on 11/07/2011
Obama will approve this. He has way too much pressure politically not to.
After he approves it, there will only be one option let to stop it.
Unfortunately, Maude's crew, and in fact most people, are loathe to explore that option.
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
08:19 AM on 11/08/2011
Why so cryptic? What option are you talking about?
09:02 AM on 11/08/2011
Think carefully about other options.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Henk Bos
12:24 PM on 11/07/2011
Maude Barlow is up to her regular distortion and misinformation tach. While claiming that 12 thousand protesters on Keystone XL pipeline were present, the Washington DC police put the figure at around 5 thousand. This is a normal practice of the Bolshevik left. During the Russian revolution of 1917, the Bolsheviks under the leadership of Lenin claiming they were the majority but rather they were the minority. This political tactic is call inflation the facts.
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
08:32 AM on 11/08/2011
Bolshevik left?? I have never gotten a satisfactory explaination of why some people equate the left with socialism or communism. Can you possibly provide one?
The political tactic of inflating numbers at a rally/protest is pretty universal, certainly not unique to any given faction.
10:57 AM on 11/08/2011
What has this got to do with left, or communism, or bolsheviks or nazis??? Those people who can't come up with reasonable arguments always resort to the ridiculous thus displaying their ignorance.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Glass Cannon
Let every eye negotiate for itself.
10:04 AM on 11/07/2011
This oil, if it is to be refined, can easily be refined where it is mined. It certainly does not have to cross a continent. What a ridiculous proposition!

Environmental issues aside, what's wrong with Canadian resources being refined by Canadian labor?
12:47 AM on 11/08/2011
This is a common misconception. At its roots is the science of the petrochemical industry. Canada is exporting an upgraded synthetic crude. It contains something called volatiles. Basically, they are relatively unstable hydro carbons with extremely low activation energies. In other words, when refined, they are highly explosive. If there is any question re the danger of piping oil to refineries, pumping volatiles puts the concept to rest. Volatiles are among other things, aromatic hydrocarbons with in crude oil molecularly isolated within the oil matrix until refined. They are effectively neutralized visa vis their inherent tendency to explode, when they are transported with in the oil. To separate the constituent parts of crude oil in Alberta, would result in product that could not be transported to market--beyond the paltry market of western Canada. Furthermore, if there were any real concern about pollution, that concern would be amplified by the long distance trucking to market--vastly more inefficient, requiring far more energy, and posing far greater danger to move it to market. Actuarial tables would explode in comparing the relative dangers.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Glass Cannon
Let every eye negotiate for itself.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
08:01 PM on 11/19/2011
How many pipelines do you want, one for crude oil, or many for the many different products from the oil?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sgillhoolley
Occupy the discussion.
09:55 AM on 11/07/2011
There is no such thing as ethicial oil. At best it is a necessary evil, but an evil nonetheless. Even the Koch brothers are in agreement on this issue, at least the scientist they hired to provide doubts to the world about cimate change seems to think that climate change is very real, and most certainly caused by man. Oil is not the only culprit, but it is public enemy number one. Clearly oil is not going anywhere, at least until we run out, or it gets so expensive that alternative energy sources become more viable. So we just have to accept that our planet is being not-so-slowly poisoned. For such a smart species, we are rather dumb.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MrBIgp
If I'm wrong, please show me
02:08 PM on 11/07/2011
Oil has done more to improve the quality and length of life than any substance in human history (besides water). We need to look at the benefits of oil, not just the drawbacks. Without fossil fuels, we could not support 7 billion people - 6 billion of use would have to die. Solar and wind can't work without fossil fuels or nuclear.
www.bit.ly/ksWnN8
photo
Iamrebelriser
iamrebelriser
12:53 PM on 11/09/2011
There are other much cleaner, better sources of energy, and it was time already in the 80's to manufacture the electric cars which Reagan & Bush & Bush the 2nd helped oil companies & car manufacturers to trash. Oil man Reagan set back the alternative energy sources too as well as removing the solar panal from the Whitehouse roof. Alternative energy sources would help prevent lots of pollution from our soil & air as well as stop supporting terrorist nations.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
CanadaStan
Cogito ergo spud, I think, therefore I yam
08:01 PM on 11/19/2011
You mean coal, don't you?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RocketPower
09:39 AM on 11/07/2011
Yes please! My Canada has to look PAST oil and move to more forward looking industries like high tech. The brain drain still exists and will continue to do so unless we encourage high tech entrepreneurship and companies to take root over here. Quebec did a good job with gaming software, let's see what more we can do!
04:35 AM on 11/07/2011
Right on, Ms. Barlow, let's hope President Obama hears the message, though I suspect if the oil industry says it will produce jobs, will be difficult to say "No". Why does no one ever talk about the jobs that could come from alternative energy sources?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Miller Time
06:56 AM on 11/07/2011
You mean like Obama's "green" jobs that have cost the American taxpayer millions if not billions of dollars?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Creox
Life is too important to take seriously.
11:13 AM on 11/07/2011
Those were not really green jobs though.

Green jobs is a misnomer at any rate.
Jobs that are created by investing in alternative fuels such as wind, solar and geo thermal will definitely create many jobs. The problem is trying to foil the oil industry and get that first foot down on the ground.
10:40 AM on 11/07/2011
The jobs that could come from alternative energy sources are not the type that will put Americans to work now. The wind turbines will be made overseas and the environmental groups will fight to prevent the farms farms being constructed in the areas where wind is of the strength and consistency to be profitable. Attenative energy can not produce oil or the products made from oil (i.e. plastics for our electronics and football helments). Simply put if the USA does not get the Canadian oil China will).
photo
girldog
I support Elizabeth Warren
08:25 AM on 11/08/2011
"Simply put if the USA does not get the Canadian oil China will)."

The Keystone XL pipeline oil is headed for the Gulf of Mexico to be sold on the world market. It was never intended that the USA would be the intended market for the oil. Because it will feed an increased demand for oil (China) it will likey raise the price of oil for all markets, the US included.