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

GET UPDATES FROM Mitch Wolfe
 

The Anti-Keystone Movement Should Know When to Fold 'Em

Posted: 03/11/2013 12:44 am

In the last few weeks the American environmental anti-Keystone movement has been dealt several very bad hands.

Al Gore, former Vice President, self-acclaimed discoverer and developer of the internet and the Godfather of the climate change movement, embarrassed the movement, by selling his interests in Current TV to the fossil fuel, oil-producing nation of Qatar -- which owns Al-Jazeera, Gore's purchaser. Even Gore publicly admitted that the optics of this sale to Qatar were not positive.

A few days ago, and referred to in my previous Huff Post article, the US State Department came out with a 2000 page report that concluded that the proposed Keystone pipeline would have little effect on warming the planet.


Other State Department reports have concluded that in the absence of Alberta oil, the US would still import Venezuelan oil, which may produce greater GHGs, than the Keystone alternative.

Recently, no less than the liberal Washington Post referring to the above 2000 page State Department Report, editorialized that anti-Keystone protesters should give up their fruitless crusade against Keystone. In effect, the movement is wasting its time. The Post editorial bitingly stated:

"The analysis underscores the extent to which activists have trumped up a relatively mundane infrastructure issue into the premier environmental fight of this decade, leading to big marches and acts of civil disobedience to advance a cause that is worthy of neither. The activists ought to pick more important fights. Until they do, the President should ignore their pressure."

Ouch! The Washington Post gave the protesters a real smack down!

Obviously, this time, leading anti-Keystone activist and sometime actress Daryl Hannah, failed to make much of a "splash" in Washington.

Also the same Post reported on a poll that 70 per cent of Americans approve Keystone. Keystone has a higher approval rating than President Obama. Even 57 per cent of Democrats support Keystone.


President Obama may be a bit aloof and self-contained and the smartest person in the room, and perhaps the planet. But he is no fool. Neither is his close advisers Plouffe, Axelrod and his counsel, Bob Bauer ( my old Exeter buddy and Harvard classmate). They read the polls. They know where the political winds are blowing. Public support for the anti-Keystone position is plummeting.

Republicans know they have a winning issue. House and Senate Democrats are heading for the exits.

The anti-Keystone types have lost the food money. If I was their adviser, I would strongly urge them to fold now and walk away, with the few political chips, they still possess. Otherwise, they may lose all their credibility, the mortgage money and then the house itself.

They would be nuts to bet the farm on Keystone. That is to say, bet the Democratic Senate, on Keystone. Because the pro Keystone gamblers are sitting with Four Aces. And the anti-Keystone hand is just full of Jokers.

Loading Slideshow...

 

Follow Mitch Wolfe on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MWolfe9216

FOLLOW CANADA BUSINESS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
D J B
11:16 AM on 03/15/2013
lol. Ya how could this, http://bit.ly/YfZFWC, have no effect whatsoever? Oh but wait, sorry, I guess you are writing solely from an American perspective. Who cares what damage this is doing to a foreign country right? Your pipeline will have little environmental damage in your own country. So screw the rest of the world. It is not just the pipeline people should be worried about! It's the whole thing.
12:08 AM on 03/12/2013
This is so full of fails it is hard to go past paragraph 1....

1. Al Gore never claimed to of created the internet, he was part of the group that authorized their funding. the "creation" is internet sensationalism to the max, like Chuck Norris's magic powers. Does david pup believe that as well?

2.. AL Gore sold his station one of the USA's major allies, they even have troops stations there i believe. AL jazeera just somehow managed to spring up in a pro-US Arab regime, and not be a gov mouthpiece and actually held the US accountable. Pup and the US are mad because they do legitimate journalism and they hate facts. Current is fair more legitimate and left leaning.. Only fox news sucklings would, ironically the largest single largest shareholder in fox news is a sharia arab prince from Saudia Arabia... is fox news legitimacy now gone oh ya they never had any!

3. He admitted the optics were bad?? you are talking about a country where 30% of people believe in angels and 20% still think interracial marriage should not be allowed. Trump for Zeus's sake still believes Obama was born n another country...If you are left wing, The right wing/center right/ corporate media conglomerate (FOX,CNN, MSNBC (some host are legit occasionally) ect) will show you in a poor light even if you just saved a group of orphans from a fire.
10:48 AM on 03/11/2013
Jokers can be better than aces. You should try playing poker.
10:20 AM on 03/11/2013
A half-truth is a whole-lie. Many of which are in this article.

His ability to be critical of everything except the US State Department's report discredits this article.
10:00 AM on 03/11/2013
The mathematics of the anti-Keystone position are ludicrous. Canada produces 1.9% of the global GHG emissions. All of the oil sands represents 6.5% of Canada's emissions. The oil transported by Keystone would be about 20% of the oil sands production at most. Therefore stopping the Keystone project (and assuming that the oil producers would not find other ways to get the oil to market) would reduce global GHG emissions by 1.9 x .065 x .2 = 0.0247%, or 0.0002 of global emissions. Insignificant!
06:29 PM on 03/11/2013
Are you saying that you think global warming is a serious problem but that stopping Keystone will do little to help deal with it?
07:20 PM on 03/11/2013
I am saying that, even if you believe climate change is induced my human GHG emissions (which I don't), refusing to permit the Keystone pipeline will have an insignificant effect in terms of reducing emissions, but a hugely harmful economic effect.
11:53 PM on 03/11/2013
Firstly they are concerned with a potentially environmentally devastating massive pipeline crossing their land.

Secondly this oil will be hipped to world markets and sold.. yay for!! Oil companies profits... the sole winners in this situation.

Thirdly most jobs are being created at US refineries, not building Canadian ones.

These are all mathematical and real factors that effect the 100s of thousands of peoples land nearby it crosses and can potentially destroy. despite those people gaining no benefit and having all the risk while the government subsidies oil companies have 0 risk and all to gain. Talk about government corporate socialism/ collusion.

Under normal circumstances In Since I would agree this is simply government promoting an industry but this situation is unique. they are directly negotiation for the corporations almost, and certan deals such as the chinese ownership of an oil company will only benefit china (whose will get most of the profits from this state owned corporation, taxes from its multinational corps and all workers will be Chinese) . It is as if our government has forgotten good old realist politics (which is all about expanding the power of your nation) and moved to a new form of neo-feudalism/ neo-corporatism, where the elite live by a different set of rules, have more allegiance to the dollar than their home countrymen, and wages among the middle class and poor is slowly heading toward lving wage/poverty.
04:49 AM on 03/12/2013
Let's deal with the facts about oil pipelines. Within North America, there are about 200,000 miles of pipelines. These pipelines have been a vital part of the continent’s energy infrastructure for several decades. Pipelines, in fact, have long been demonstrated to be the safest, most reliable, economical and environmentally favourable way to transport crude oil and refined oil products.

The “International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 15649: 2001 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries Piping” is an international standard that specifies the requirements for design and construction of piping for the petroleum industry, and the American Petroleum Institute and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have sponsored supporting industry initiatives in this area.

Data on oil spill trends are kept rigorously in Canada and the United States. The annual number of pipeline spills has decreased by 500% over the last 30 years, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data. The amount of oil spilled is less than 3 million gallons per year, compared to the 130 billion gallons per year of oil that is consumed. In other words, the oil spilled is 0.002 % of the oil consumed. To be sure, that is not zero, but it is a remarkably low amount.
09:50 AM on 03/11/2013
there is anarticle by ANTHONY SWIFT------RAIL IS NOT AN ALTERNATIVE .....here on HP

he says cost of producing a barrel is 100$ ---current selling price is between 50-60 $ a barrel and he sees no reason for higher prises soon

producers are losing 35 $ a barrel

you might want to review your stance on who should know when to fold 'em ------losing 35 bucks a barrel does not look like four aces ----and that makes it look like you are the joker in the deck
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:43 AM on 03/11/2013
The 2000 page report from the State Department also described there would be little benefit to the USA from the Keystone.

"The DEIA specifically evaluated what would happen if President Obama said "no" and denied Keystone XL a permit.

It concluded that not building the pipeline would have almost no impact on jobs; on US oil supply; on heavy oil supply for Gulf Coast refineries; or even on the amount of oil sands extracted in Alberta.........The DEIA has effectively neutered the pipeline; stripped it of its power."
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/keystone-xl-pipeline-not-needed-us-state-dept-report

Today the New York TImes comes out against the Keystone.
09:19 AM on 03/11/2013
"""still import Venezuelan oil, which may produce greater GHGs, than the Keystone alternative"""

MAY????----how about you prove it before you put it out the mr harvard man?
09:17 AM on 03/11/2013
the route was changed was it not ----a major win for the sanity side

and my guess is it will be delayed until obama leaves office ---just to stick it to the kochs
08:50 AM on 03/11/2013
good thing you're not their advisor
05:24 AM on 03/11/2013
Al Gore did not say he invented the internet. And he has said climate warming is a product of the burning of fossil fuels. The tar sands is the scaping of the barrel for oil. It is destroying the boreal forest which we need more than we need the Aazon jungle. It is destroying Canada's water. It will go down the Keystone XL to be refined in special refineries owned by the Koch brothers. They are the ones who gave a minimum of one hundred million to support Mitt romney. After it is refined it will go by tanker to Asia. There it will provide energy for the factories which crete junk and sell it to Canada and America. Along the way, hile it is corroding the pipeline and threatening the environment, you may be sure more money will funnel to the Cpty for more negative ads. Actually, it will go directly to negative ads and ads talking about "ethical" oil. What a massive lie.
10:04 AM on 03/11/2013
a) You are correct about Al Gore. I dislike Al Gore because he as the carbon footprint of a 100 people.
b) Why do we need boreal forest more than jungle? I hadn't heard that.
c) They replant trees after the open pit mining is done. Also open pit mining is out of style and now they focus on SAGD. This won't destroy trees even though it will use a lot of fresh water.
d) Keystone won't stop the oilsands, it will barely slow them down. Check out how much oil is being shipped by rail. It's mind boggling.
10:11 AM on 03/11/2013
How exactly would the Koch refinery in the U.S. mid-west produce refined oil products that would get to the Asian market? That is physically impossible, I believe. Most of the crude oil pipelines and almost all the refined oil product pipelines run from south to north.

Where do you get your information about the regional effects of oil sands production? Did you ever hear of the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and the National Energy Board, all of which spend many years and millions of dollars evaluating and regulating every aspect of oil sands development? You might want to find out more about the facts.
10:46 AM on 03/11/2013
in sinc face facts. Use Google.

But they have no choice, the Koch brothers, but paying Hugo for his gunky oil, [because the Gulf coast refineries, especially those controlled by the Koch brothers in Flint Hills, can really only handle heavy crude oil].

Now, on the other hand, the Canadians not only are selling for less than Texas oil—they’re selling, as of today—if you check out this week’s reports, about $33 a barrel less is the price of West Canada Sands (WCS) oil, as they call it, versus WTI, the West Texas Intermediate. So you’re saving about $35 a barrel—$35 a barrel—if you can get the oil from Canada as opposed to Venezuela. So they’ve got to cut off Chávez and they’ve got to bring the oil in from Canada.

And that’s the reason why we are talking about endangering the most sensitive aquifers and important—that is, water sources in America—to have a pipe with the filthiest oil in the planet, the most polluting oil on the planet, to drag it all the way from Canada all the way down to Texas so that the Koch brothers at Flint Hills can make—their savings would be about $2 billion a year that the Koch brothers will make off our risking the aquifers across the United States.

there are a gazillion sites which will tell you the facts
photo
cheena1
myhuffpost
02:56 PM on 03/11/2013
Yes, and you may want to ck out how much BS they spit out, day after day, according to THG's scripts .............
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul Stacey
Kill guns, not children.
04:24 AM on 03/11/2013
35 jobs?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:45 AM on 03/11/2013
"Building Keystone XL would create 35 permanent US jobs -- plus 3,900 jobs for one or two years during construction. That's it. The construction jobs represent three hundredth of one percent of America's 12.5 million unemployed workers."

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/blogs/climatesnapshot/keystone-xl-pipeline-not-needed-us-state-dept-report
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitch Wolfe
11:15 AM on 03/11/2013
Marion Ambler: The US economy is suffering. The US government has huge annual deficits and the Republicans want to further reduce the annual deficit by cutting government expenses and programs. President Obama and the Democrats think that those austerity measures are not necessary. Their answer is to grow the economy through creating jobs. For example, infrastructure jobs, like building roads, bridges and rail lines. Please note that these construction jobs are inherently temporary. They are not permanent. But they create well-paid jobs. Which in turn have a multiplier effect, and create many more indirect jobs, to service these construction employees, ie restaurant workers, hotel workers, etc. Transcanada, the Keystone builder, thinks, 10,000 temporary jobs will be created and 120,000 indirect jobs as a result. The State Department thinks 5,000 construction jobs will be created for two years and probably closer to 60,000 indirect jobs to service these jobs. Keystone is not going to alone solve America's unemployment problem. But the jobs created by Keystone are consistent with Obama's and the Democrats' job creating policies. Again I repeat that Democratic unions, who are also the base of the Democrats and Obama, want these Keystone jobs and the indirect jobs created. If Obama kills Keystone, he also kills his position that his government can create jobs, and grow the economy, as opposed to the Republican position that the answer is cutting government programs to reduce the deficit.
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/13/news/economy/keystone_pipeline_jobs/index.htm
03:32 AM on 03/11/2013
Speaking of jokers, this is an absurdly facile, transparently partisan take on the issue. I don't think I've encountered so many red herrings in one editorial before. What Al Gore does with his television station has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand. And anyone who reads Washington Post editorials knows they contain a diverse array of opinions (many of them far-from-progressive). Why doesn't this laughable editorial address the broad array of justified environmental concerns expressed by indigenous bands, environmental activists, and concerned citizens (of which there are a great many)? They are far from reducible to global warming. The oil sands have been an unmitigated ecological disaster for surrounding communities.
10:16 AM on 03/11/2013
Setting aside for a moment your incorrect statements about the environmental effects of oil sands development, the issue with Keystone is whether a pipeline will be built, not whether the oil sands will be developed. (They most certainly will.) Would you care to explain why the United States has several million miles of oil pipeline already built and many thousands of additional oil pipeline construction underway, but the only pipeline that is the focus of environmentalist opposition is the one from Canada?
06:39 PM on 03/11/2013
Actually, the whole point of opposition to Keystone (and Northern Gateway) is the extent to which the tar sands will be developed. If you think it's fait accompli, then why waste your breath arguing against the opposition? Just dismiss it and go about your business.
02:43 PM on 03/11/2013
Let's not set aside my well-substantiated statements about the environmental effects of oil sands development. They have been devastating. Very high levels of carcinogenic polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons have been turning up in surrounding lakes and streams. The government and oil industry have responded by attempting to cover these findings up. Consolidating and amplifying oil sand development to service US demand is a terrible, short-sighted idea.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Mitch Wolfe
08:25 PM on 03/11/2013
Dan, no less that the US State Department has stated in its exhaustive 2000 page report, that the development of the Keystone pipeline will have negligible effect on the environment. You can talk about the alleged devastating effects of the oil sands, but the State Department report has undercut the anti-Keystone's best argument, that is, the construction of the pipeline will have a signficantly adverse effect on the environment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. The Keystone opponents' main argument and main plank is off the table. The science has spoken. Or do anti-Keystone types only care about the science, when it supports your argument? Your own Washington Post has queried. Why aren't you protesting against US coal-fired plants? Why aren't you pushing for a carbon tax? Oil will still be extracted with or without this pipeline? Your group will have expended all its political capital for nothing. And the joke will be on your group.
01:52 AM on 03/12/2013
Wow, if the US State Department contradicts the science coming out of Canadian universities, I
guess you win the argument. I simply can't imagine a reason why an organ of the US government would dissimulate on this issue. There's absolutely no history of collusion with Big Oil there.

I don't know what group you're identifying me with or why you're expressing concern about wastes of political capital, Mitch. But thanks for your input. I'm just a concerned citizen. And I recommend that anyone who's persuaded by such oil industry propaganda go visit the tar sands and surrounding communities to witness the devastation with their own eyes.

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2008/01/25/TarSands/