You are viewing the NationofChange archives. For the latest news and actions, visit the new www.NationofChange.org.
Thursday, November 27, 2014 / PROGRESSIVE JOURNALISM FOR POSITIVE ACTION
Get Email Updates | Log In | Register

Bill McKibben and Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska on Obama Rejecting Pipeline

Amy Goodman
Democracy Now! / Video Interview
Published: Thursday 19 January 2012
“President Obama said he was turning down TransCanada’s application for the pipeline because there was not enough time to review an alternate route that would avoid the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska.”

The Obama administration has rejected the Keystone XL tar sands oil pipeline that would stretch from the Alberta tar sands to the Gulf Coast. On Wednesday, President Obama said he was turning down TransCanada’s application for the pipeline because there was not enough time to review an alternate route that would avoid the Ogallala Aquifer in Nebraska. Obama had tried to delay a decision until next year, but Republicans responded by passing legislation forcing a decision by the end of February. Environmental groups have hailed the permit’s rejection, but it does not mark the end of the pipeline fight. TransCanada has already announced it will reapply for a permit based on a different route, and Obama said he was only making his decision based on time constraints, not on the pipeline’s "merits." We get reaction from Jane Kleeb of Bold Nebraska and 350.org founder Bill McKibben, an expert on climate change who has led massive protests in Washington, D.C. against the pipeline over the past six months. "This was a real victory for people standing up," McKibben says. "If we hadn’t gone and done what we did in the streets ... then the oil industry, as usual, would have gotten away with a really bad idea."



Author pic
ABOUT Amy Goodman

Amy Goodman is the host of "Democracy Now!," a daily international TV/radio news hour airing on more than 900 stations in North America. She is the author of "Breaking the Sound Barrier," recently released in paperback and now a New York Times best-seller.

I don't understand either how

I don't understand either how environmental groups give a free pass to animal agriculture. The protests over the pipeline are all well and good - But unless this movement also takes personal accountability in (meat/dairy/egg) food choices that have outstanding impact on global health - It fails to strike the problems at the root. It appears pragmatic and ingenuous.

I can't cite better reasons to reject animal raising/killing industries, than what James McWilliams wrote in his article Agnostic Carnivores and Global Warming: Why Enviros Go After Coal and Not Cows
http://www.freakonomics.com/2011/11/16/agnostic-carnivores-and-global-wa...

It's been said a million times before - So I'm in good company when I repeat: You can't be a meat eating environmentalist - It just can't be done.

Kleeb and McKibben --

Kleeb and McKibben -- sellout, delusional, facilitating faux-enviros! Obama did not stop this pipeline, and I'll bet all I have that by next year this project will have been approved by the State Department. Only the deluded would really believe that Obama's political grandstanding will have any effect whatsoever on the criminal shale-oil extraction industry. Only militant action against those responsible for pillaging the planet will yield real results.

Kleeb and McKibben --

Kleeb and McKibben -- sellout, delusional, facilitating faux-enviros! Obama did not stop this pipeline, and I'll bet all I have that by next year this project will have been approved by the State Department. Only the deluded would really believe that Obama's political grandstanding will have any effect whatsoever on the criminal shale-oil extraction industry. Only militant action against those responsible for pillaging the planet will yield real results.

I'm happy about this first

I'm happy about this first push back against Big Oil.

But I'm puzzled as to why an environmentalist with the intelligence and passion of Bill McKibben doesn't acknowledge that the way of life of those Nebraska farmers and ranchers, most of whom raise either cattle or crops for animal feed, is just as harmful to the climate.

Studies conducted by the UN's Food and Agricultural Organization, by nonpolitical scientists writing for World Watch magazine and by professors at the University of Chicago have documented beyond the shadow of a doubt that livestock's impact on greenhouse gases is huge -- outdoing, for example, the entire transportation sector.

So why does this old-fashioned animal agriculture way of life, which seems so bucolic but is actually deadly to humans and to the earth, not to mention to the animals, get a free pass by 350.org?

Big Ag isn't exactly helpless; it's heavily subsidized just like Big Oil.

Don't misunderstand: I'm in 350.org's camp. I agree with Bill's statement that the oil industry is comprised of dangerous radicals who would, if they could, ruin our good green earth.

It's just that we as a nation of meat-eaters are slow to admit that our centuries-old addiction to animal flesh and milk and eggs is, in this day and age, equally insane, outmoded, selfish, and dangerous to land, water and air.

Animal agriculture, like oil and gas, is fueled by the desire to make money at the expense of others. A growing number of us find both industries immoral.

... Or the thousands of

... Or the thousands of products we use everyday that come from fossil fuels.

It also amazes me how the republicans and democrats have an extreme hate for one another. The republicans want it to go through, but will do everything in their power to make Obama look like the bad guy.

If the pipeline does not go through don't you think they will just use oil tankers to send it to the refineries on the gulf coast, that is far worse than any oil spill on land.

The Alberta tar sands are

The Alberta tar sands are connected to US refineries by an existing pipeline, but there's no pipeline to an ocean port. God willing, our success blocking the Enbridge North pipeline across boreal and rain forest to the beautiful, but treacherous Pacific coastline will continue.

... and they're STILL going

... and they're STILL going to get away with it. Don't for a minute delude yourself into thinking this is the final word, just a delay that'll work its way back into the forefront when it's politically expedient for one side or the other. Hang climate change!! The people making these decisions don't care squat about climate change. They care about making money. Did you see that Boehner has significant investments in things that benefit greatly from things like the pipeline? Sheesh. It's just such a mess.

Comment with your Facebook account



Comment with your Disqus account

Top Stories

comments powered by Disqus

NationofChange works to educate, inform, and fight power with people, corruption with community.

If you would like to stay up to date with the best in independent, filter-free journalism, updates on upcoming events to attend, and more, enter your email below:

7 Compelling Reasons Why You Should Support NationofChange

Our readers often tell us why they’ve decided to step up and become supporters. Here are some of the top reasons people are giving.

1. You’re keeping independent journalism alive
The corporate owned media has proven that it can’t be trusted. In a media landscape wrought with spin and corruption, NationofChange stands in very scarce company.

2. You’re sticking it to the rich, powerful, and corrupt
When you have money in this country you can get away with damn near anything, and they do. NationofChange isn’t afraid to expose these criminals no matter how powerful they are.

3. Your donation is 100% tax-deductible
NationofChange is a 501(c)3 charity. People tend to assume that many other organizations are (most nonprofits are NOT) but it’s that 501(c)3 status is a bit more rare than you think.

Read the rest...