Actress Daryl Hannah hasn't made this big a splash since her movie, Splash!: Having been arrested earlier this week in front of the White House for protesting the Keystone pipeline, she has continued to speak out against the project, including braving questions from Bill O'Reilly.
Hannah may have single-handedly brought more attention to this issue -- so familiar to Canadians -- than any Albertan politician; but like so many celebrities who wade into political issues, her involvement will only fan more ignorance about the pipeline rather than less. But maybe worse, why has she chosen to lend her celebrity to a cause that pits her against the interests of the free society she enjoys living in, and on the side of oil producing nations where women don't have free speech to speak about their concerns?
I attended the still-ongoing protests at the White House this morning: Just as I arrived, the police were ushering all observers and press personnel out of the way of the some 50 organized protestors, who had planted themselves in front of the White House lawn.
"This has the potential to destroy ecosystems," said a protester in a "STOP The Pipeline" shirt, Whole Foods bag thrown casually over his shoulder. His cohort, a bandana-clad man with his shirt unbuttoned at the chest, added that, "the oil imports from the Middle East that this pipeline would offset are not that significant, and the cost is great."
They were parroting the same talking point as Hannah, who told O'Reilly:
"And this pipeline is proposed to go all the way to the Gulf of Mexico through family farms, through ranches and over our most precious, fresh water aquifer that supplies water for 20 million people and for a third of the nation's most rich farm lands and ranch lands. And it's just not a wise thing, aside from the fact that the tar sands is just recognized as one of the world's largest ecological atrocities."
Uh, not true. The 1,700-mile pipeline is to run from Western Canada's Alberta province, through six American states, down to Texas' Gulf Coast.
The Keystone XL pipeline has potential to generate more than a million barrels of crude oil per day. That's an insignificant amount? A significant amount of oil from Canada, an ally, no less, as opposed to a Middle Eastern autocracy or Venezuela.
Even if the potential impact on Canadian and American ecosystems were the chief and solitary contention, concerns would still not be well-founded. In fact, installation plans meet very strict environmental requirements, many of which -- such as the commitment to running the pipeline deeper underground at river crossings -- go beyond requisite standards.
But despite the assertions of many green-thumbers, environmental concerns are neither irreconcilable nor paramount. What about simple fact that reliance on Middle Eastern oil imports means funneling money into pockets of regimes that shamelessly oppress women?
When I posed the question to a one of the many women protestors in the crowd, she responded that "oppression of women will continue whether or not we are giving them money. The issue at hand here is the destruction of the environment."
Indeed, just before I arrived, two women had been protesting the protestors clad in full-length burqas. Needless to say, their presence was not well-received by the Mother Earth advocates. The burqa-ladies were accompanied by Ethical Oil's spokesman Alykhan Velshi. When Velshi attempted to take pictures of the burqa women, Keystone opponents threw themselves in front of his camera. The police also issued three warnings for everyone except organized protesters to clear. After 20 minutes and a second warning, Velshi and the burqa women left to avoid getting arrested. When I went to interview Velshi, we had to meet by a statue because he didn't want to get too close to crowd. "I'm not looking to get arrested," he said. "They'll recognize me." Which they did. Within two minutes of walking away, we were harassed by an environmental activist who was videoing us on his iPhone. He was particularly curious to know if I was one of the girls in the burqa. I was not, but didn't give him any information. He followed us and accosted us for about 10 minutes. Apparently, it's perfectly fine to block off Pennsylvania Avenue for hours - nay, days! - on end, but heaven forbid a voice is raised in opposition to the opposition!
No. The issue at hand is that while importation of foreign oil has decreased, the United States is still reliant on countries like Saudi Arabia for 12 per cent of its oil and petroleum. While developing alternative energy is all well and good, oil will remain a necessary commodity for the foreseeable future. Why not get as much of that oil as possible from allied countries like Canada, where the stoning of women is not sanctioned by law and money generated from oil revenues is not lining the pockets of corrupt autocrats?
Follow Rachel Ryan on Twitter: www.twitter.com/rachelryan1004
Daryl Hannah arrested in White House oil protest - Yahoo! News
Daryl Hannah arrested in White House oil protest – USATODAY.com
Actress Daryl Hannah Arrested At White House Protest | FoxNews.com
After WWII the Joint Committee of the Senate House of Commons wanted to extend "human rights" to Indians. In 1969 the Federal Government's Statement of Policy declared total assimilation to be the goal within a short period of time. Indian Affairs was to be abolished. Special Indian legislation was to be repealed. Treaties and Land claims were to be considered insignificant. The provinces would evidentially provide all the services. The primary theme of the Statement of Policy was that the Federal Government would relinquish her responsibility for Indians and transfer it over to the Provinces.
The Red Paper of 1970 prepared by the Indian Chiefs of Alberta condemned the 1969 policy and described it as: "A scheme whereby within a generation or shortly after the proposed Indian Lands Act expires, our people would be left with no land; and consequently the future generation would be condemned to the despair and ugly spectre of urban poverty in ghettos."
As you can see ..this is the BIG PICTURE & CANADA is continuing towards it.
My grandmother always said " Self Education is the great equalizer" .
If the progressive greenies get their way, America will be transformed into a third world nation within your lifetime. By then Canada will be rounding up and deporting illegal American immigrants seeking work just like we used to do with mexicans before Mr. hope and change came around.
" used to do" ...gimme a break, still dealing & using deadly force
Faced with that, the pipeline protesters are doing the only thing they think they have a chance of doing, which is to try to affect activity they think is wrong within their own borders. I do not think they have much choice there, but I salute their efforts.
Furthermore, it is unreasonable to expect people who care about the environment to sacrifice those concerns over the concerns the author expresses, namely, feminism. Although I detest much of the way that many Muslim/oil exporting countries treat women, it is incredibly naive to think that the West has the power or even the right to affect the social structure and norms in other foreign countries.
So not only is it more ethical, it's less harmful to the environment.
http://www.amazon.ca/Ethical-Oil-Case-Canadas-Sands/dp/0771046413
Nigeria has a BP sized spill every year, and they flare so much natural gas that their oil has a bigger carbon footprint than oil sands oil.
That bodes ill for the veracity and reliability of everything else Ryan is spinning here.
Regardless of what one thinks of Hannah or this project, she is correct that "this pipeline is proposed to go all the way to the Gulf of Mexico." When Ryan responds by saying no, the pipeline is going to run to Texas's gulf coast, does she truly not realize that's the coast of the Gulf of Mexico? Seriously?
And Hannah correctly points out that the pipeline will be crossing not just American farmlands and ranchlands, but the famous Ogalala aquifer that supplies all the water for people, for industry, for irrigation.
I cannot imagine how Ryan can say that's untrue. That's like saying it's untrue that the moon is round, it's not something that is open for debate.
Again, I don't know who Ryan is... but I urge caution on giving her any credence.
I am compelled to give the following link that shows the actual route...not to Alaska, nor to California...it goes to Texas, and the Refineries there...
http://www.transcanada.com/keystone.html
strategy for tackling climate change, while allowing business-as-usual in industries
that profit most from the use of fossil fuels. Essentially, governments
made carbon pollution a market commodity by issuing tradable pollution permits.
As the theory goes, the amount of permits issued would decrease year by
year and carbon emissions would be reduced correspondingly.
The world’s largest cap and trade system is in Europe and it has been an unmitigated
failure, beset by fraud and market manipulation. The market includes
large industrial power stations, plants and factories, which comprise just under
half of Europe’s total CO2 emissions. Over 90% of permits are issued free of
charge, yet some power companies have raised prices to “compensate” for the
costs of the scheme, resulting in windfall profits expected to reach $80 billion
by 2012. At the same time, a majority of companies have received more
permits than their actual emissions, leading to bargain-basement prices for
the remaining permits and little incentive to limit emissions. To make matters
worse, emissions monitoring is woefully inadequate: Nearly half the emission
sites that purchase carbon credits in Europe are not satisfactorily monitored.
Proponents say these problems can be fixed, but there are more fundamental
issues. With short-term reductions in carbon emissions relatively inexpensive
in carbon trading markets, there is little incentive toward crucial long term
changes and investments that will be needed to create a post-carbon economy.
more..
cbc.ca refused to publish more than a couple of them..started about 2 yrs. ago in Feb. when it didn't like my pointing out that the Cree were winning @ the UN .
I know it's a lot of research..sigh but self-education is best to understand the BIG PICTURE..
ugh..what I learned about the gulf of Mexico ...just research " NALCO" & COOTS & BOOTS without ignoring the fact that Tony Hayward cashed in right before the blowout & given the golden handshake worth with millions..before moving on to the Alaskan portfolio..
The cap & trade method has been open to too much chicanery and manipulation. Its simply a stock market for CO2 emissions and has shown itself to be largely ineffective in reducing greenhouse gases while raising energy costs.
For the environment and the economy, cap & trade is a lose-lose proposition.
http://www.redd-monitor.org/2010/02/15/redd-in-the-news-8-14-february-2010/
&
... Excluding REDD from an extended CDM reduces transaction volumes by about 20%.
However, the carbon price would rise by a similar percentage and tax revenues would
remain steady at around $10 billion a year..
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421509007095
see the rest @
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=REDD+%2B+Carbon+tax&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart
&
Critical Currents no. 7, November 2009
Carbon trading lies at the centre of global climate policy and is projected to become one of the world's largest commodities markets, yet it has a disastrous track record since its adoption as part of the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon Trading: how it works and why it fails outlines the limitations of an approach to tackling climate change which redefines the problem to fit the assumptions of neoliberal economics. It demonstrates that the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, the world's largest carbon market, has consistently failed to ´cap´ emissions, while the UN's Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) routinely favours environmentally ineffective and socially unjust projects. This is illustrated with case studies of CDM projects in Brazil, Indonesia, India and Thailand.
http://www.carbontradewatch.org/publications/carbon-trading-how-it-works-and-why-it-fails.html
The "strange markets" of the title are those dealing in high-yield financial products such as credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations and currency derivatives that were created in the 1980s & 90s – and that ultimately triggered the financial crisis of 2008.
But "ecosystem service markets", including carbon pollution rights markets have developed over the past few decades as well- can also be considered "strange".
It might at first glance seem just a coincidence that two ambitious and novel markets were created at roughly the same time by some of the same people in the same country (USA). What could a project spearheaded by Wall Street investment banks have to do with the carbon market? Aren't pollution markets about saving the world and uncertainty markets about making money?
Despite appearances, however, the new uncertainty market of financial products and the new carbon pollution market are not only cut from the same cloth, but also interact closely with each other and pose many similar dangers.
The carbon market that now plays such a dominant role in international climate policy is often presented as an environmentalist strategy that should be embraced by all who support pollution control, forest conservation and indigenous rights.
But consideration of the origins, development and politics of this and other "strange markets" of recent years suggests that it should be treated as part of the history of commodification, capital accumulation and capitalist crisis rather than of environmentalism.
REDD
R .... Reaping Profits from
E... .Evictions, land grabs
D..... Deforestation and
D... .Destructionof biodiversity
What is REDD?
According to the publication, “The Little REDD Book”, the basic idea behind Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD) is simple:
Developing countries that are willing and able to reduce emissions from deforestation should be financially compensated for doing so.5 However, according to many Indigenous Peoples, REDD is CO2lonialism of Forests because it allows Northern polluters to buy permits to pollute or “carbon credits” by promising not to cut down forests and plantations in the South.
The newspaper The Australian calls REDD a ““cllassic 21st C scam emerging from the global climate change industry."
Carbon Markets buy and sell permits to pollute called “allowances” and “carbon credits”. Carbon markets have two parts: emissions trading (also called “cap and trade”) and offsets. They are false solutions to climate change because they do not bring about the changes needed to keep fossil fuels in the ground. They claim to solve the climate crisis but really allow polluters to buy their way out of reducing their emissions. These multi-billion dollar trading mechanisms privatize and commodify the earth’s ability to keep its atmosphere balanced.
see: Clean Development Mechanism (CDM)
http://www.ienearth.org/REDD/index.html
ISBN#0-929091-03-5 in the section entitled: The Lubicon of Northern Alberta... page 239
Between 1979 & 1982 more than 400 oil wells were drilled within a 15 mile radius of the Lubicon community.
The gov't liked to say they were included in Treaty 8 signed in 1899, although they never signed it, nor took scrip for it nor sold it, nor ceded it to anybody nor lost it in battle.
Actually DIAND never even showed up until 1939 & promised them a reserve in 1940 which never materialized although they were magicaly added to other band membership lists over the years and in 1942 a DIAND official decided they didn't exist!!
Two judicial commissions of inquiry denounced that tactic but Diand officials ensured no action was taken to undo that tactic. In 1952 when the Lubicon remarked to the feds that they were still waiting for the reserve - it was remarked that both levels of gov't wanted the Lubicon to move the reserve to a more convenient place.
A DIAND memo revealed " There were so many inquires from oil companies to explore the area that it was becoming an embarrassment to state that it could not be entered."
Other people now want the mineral rights, which both levels of gov'ts admitted were included in the original reserve proposed in 1940....
more research:
http://www.bayefsky.com/html/128_canada167_1984.php
http://www.amnesty.ca/lubicon/resources/lubicon%20factsheets%20UN.pdf
Both terms have been in use for well over half a century, and there was a time when even Albertan promoters of bitumen mining saw no slur in the word "tar sands" .
http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/04/25/TarVsOil/
While technically called “bituminous sands,” Alberta’s deposits were originally called “tar sands” because of their thick, sticky properties.
The term “oilsands” gained popularity in the mid-1990s after government and industry efforts to improve public perception of the dirty-sounding tar sands.
http://www.pembina.org/oil-sands/os101
&
"The term "Tar Sands" has been used by the oil industry for decades.
The University of Alberta's library has a scanned copy of The History of Alberta Oil that quotes the December 1939 issue of The Pre-Cambrian.."
http://www.capp.ca/canadaIndustry/oilSands/Energy-Economy/Pages/OilSands-or-TarSands.aspx#vqJEIWR2xNmH
David Schindler, a biologist at the University of Alberta, showed that toxins were being released by the oil sands into water supplies, in a study he released in the journal, "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA."
Because Schindler went to the media with his findings — and because of his prominent international reputation — the Alberta government was eventually forced to address the differences between his research and RAMP's
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1564278/
&
http://burycoal.com/blog/2010/08/30/david-schindler-on-the-oil-sands/
The government only took action to quell the growing uproar after years of critiques against one monitoring program in particular, the Regional Aquatics Monitoring Program (RAMP).Criticism dates back to 2004, when RAMP released its first independent peer review that showed it was statistically biased and had inconsistent monitoring sites."Since then, there's been increased public scrutiny on the resource in terms of how it's being mismanaged, and how the ability to put an environmental management system in place has not kept pace with the scale of development
RAMP is the primary group that monitors the aquatic environment surrounding the oil sands, but RAMP is funded by industry, and the majority of its members are industry players.
Despite this, public scrutiny of the program did not come to light until 2009, when a world-renowned scientist brought forward findings that were very different than RAMP's.
It was an admission, wrested under enormous pressure, that oversight of the oil sands — an industry that has grown from roughly 350,000 barrels per day in 1990 to about 1.35 million in 2009 — is inadequate.
more, next post..sorry
&
I was working in Indian gov't when the Lubicon Lake Cree people asked for help..
I remember the Boycott of the "Spirit Sings" exhibition during the 1986 Olympics & worked the conference that AFN had with the museums after the boycott.
Perhaps the references I add to every comment burns some people's *** but that is one of the cornerstones of activism...ducks in a row...