Another Pointless Climate Protest

Even as I write this, global warming protestors are being arrested in front the White House. You can get the story at tarsandsaction.org. They are opposed to the construction of the 1700 mile Keystone Pipeline, which will transport tar sands oil to the refineries of south Texas (video below). The State Department, and President Hopey-Changey himself, must vote up or down on constructing the pipeline by the end of this year.

Producing unconventional tar sands oil is very dirty in terms of CO₂ emissions and direct environmental damage. Those in favor of the pipeline want that (relatively) cheap, politically safe Canadian oil, especially because Mexico's oil production has a bleak future. Today we'll consider the problem from the DOTE point of view.

Andrew Leonard of salon.com took on the issue in Obama's big dirty oil test. He starts by presenting the environmentalist case.

"The Keystone Pipeline," wrote global warming activist Bill McKibben, in a letter urging concerned citizens to join a two-week protest in front of the White House, would be "a fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet ..." In an essay titled "Silence Is Deadly," NASA climatologist James Hansen declared that if the tar sands are fully exploited for their oil deposits, "it is essentially game over" for the planet.

Hansen is sometimes criticized even by other environmentalists for the audacity of his rhetoric, but that doesn't mean he or McKibben is necessarily wrong. Extracting oil from tar sands is an expensive, massively environmentally destructive process that produces more greenhouse gases than the exploitation of conventional sources of oil. If the world continues down its current pell-mell path, avidly devouring dirtier and dirtier sources of fossil fuel, the amount of carbon dioxide in the earth's atmosphere will surely go far past the point of no return. The droughts currently plaguing exactly those regions where the southern end of the pipeline will stretch may one day be remembered fondly as an era of balmy weather.

Leonard doesn't know what "the point of no return" is and neither do I, but the phrase certainly sounds good. In fact, it's already "game over" for the planet according to McKibben and Hansen because they have determined, based on some not-widely-accepted research led by Hansen, that anything above 350 parts-per-million by volume (ppmv) constitutes dangerous interference with the Earth's climate. I recently noted in The Idiot Assumptions Of Mankind that we now stand at 392 ppmv. The generally accepted level for dangerous interference is 450 ppmv. And we should bear in mind that CO₂ emissions from the tar sands are a drop in the bucket compared with global emissions. But let's continue.

So it has been inspiring to see how environmentalists have heeded McKibben's call to action. Each day this week, 50 or so protesters have linked arms in front of the White House and proudly waited their turn to get handcuffed and arrested, only to be replaced by a different 50 activists the next day. Their stories are invigorating. Environmental advocacy groups with a long history of squabbling with each other have joined together in an impressive display of unity. If Obama approves the Keystone Pipeline the backlash from the environmental community will be intense.

Inspiring, invigorating, impressive, intense. And I thought I had a way with words!

And now a strange thing happens. Caught up in environmental rapture, Leonard suddenly switches gears and starts dealing with Reality. This being Andrew Leonard and salon.com, he first explains that it would be political suicide for Obama to oppose the pipeline. Although Leonard doesn't get into it, Republicans don't even believe in anthropogenic climate change, having decided that this theory, like Darwin's theory of evolution, may not reflect the true situation. On these matters, Republicans feel they are entitled to an opinion, which kind of does away with the whole point of Science.

Leonard makes the simple point that any politician opposing "cheap" oil from the Great White North would have to explain to Americans why they're paying so much for gasoline. And Big Labor favors the job-creating pipeline construction. As Leonard continues, obstacles to change get more and more impenetrable.

Even worse, there's zero chance that Obama actually will be able to avoid a "potential environmental disaster," even if he directs Hillary Clinton to put the kibosh on the pipeline. Without a global commitment to a carbon tax or cap-and-trade regime that properly penalizes the production of greenhouse gases, the tar sands will be fully exploited. If the dirty oil doesn't end up in Texas refineries, it will go straight to China. (It may end up going to China anyway, but but that's a separate story.)

This is where the rubber hits the road. Yes, the tar sands will be fully exploited, whether the United States gets the oil or not. There is absolutely no doubt the Chinese would find a way to consume that oil. It's not as if the world is drowning in the stuff

Unfortunately, there is no conceivable chance that any significant carbon-limiting legislation will come out of this U.S. Congress —

Or any U.S. Congress, I should add.

and even if Obama had thrown the full weight of his bully pulpit into the climate change battle before the 2010 midterms it is far from obvious that he could have gotten anything through the Senate even when Democrats had a 60-seat majority. Too many members of his own party had cold feet — whether because of powerful energy-related special interests in their own states, or because of the dreadful condition of the U.S. economy.

Guess what? The economy is still dreadful, and that puts Obama, again, in a tough position...

When push comes to shove, economic concerns will always trump environmental concerns. That's a Rule of Life. Get some small magnets, write it down on a piece of paper, and put it on your refrigerator door. For humankind, environmental concerns are a luxury they can afford when the economy is doing well. And in so far as the economy can not be expected to do well in the foreseeable future, environmental concerns are off the table for many years to come, if not forever. Leonard concludes—

But at the same time, many voters have come to see Obama as a president unwilling to take strong stands. The Keystone Pipeline offers yet another test of this evolving consensus wisdom. Obama appointed a head of the EPA who has been willing to make tough decisions; maybe it is time he followed her lead. Because even though whatever he does, he won't be able to save the world — there's still something to be said for saving your reputation.

We have traveled a long way in a short space, moving from inspiring, invigorating, impressive, and intense to Obama at least being able to salvage his reputation, presumably for future generations. Protesting the construction of the Keystone Pipeline is yet another symbolic, futile gesture. Humankind will never act in concert to mitigate global warming. In fact, humankind is completely incapable of acting in concert about anything if there's a large shared cost to be borne.

And it is impossible to halt a certain amount of warming anyway. There's at least 1.6°C of warming in the pipeline, so to speak, and to halt any increases in atmospheric CO₂, or limit them to 430 ppmv (to pick a target), humanity would have to tear down industrial civilization. Needless to say, that's not China's current plan (or ours). That's the part of the equation environmentalists never mention. We are currently adding 2 ppmv to the atmosphere annually. At that rate we will reach 431 ppmv in 2030, a scant 19 years from now. Some resource scarcity people believe peak oil and peak coal will do the trick, but if fossil fuel production falls off a cliff, we would lose industrial civilization in that case, too. Some salvation!

I'm not a fan of Alcoholics Anonymous—I would have to quit drinking!—but the opening stanza of the Serenity Prayer seems apropos here.

God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference

Remember what I've told you as you watch the usual pointless debate.

Watch the full episode. See more PBS NewsHour.

Comments

[Distant Observer]

Ah, for once I must tell you you're wrong and singing the song of those you so well criticize. Let's begin with this tidbit:

"For humankind, environmental concerns are a luxury they can afford when the economy is doing well."

Except when the economy is doing well, they say addressing environmental issue would slow and hurt the economy so we can't deal with it then, either. In short, the environment is a "luxury we can't afford", period.

Then you inform us, "There's at least 1.6°C of warming in the pipeline, so to speak, and to halt any increases in atmospheric CO2, or limit them to 430 ppmv (to pick a target), humanity would have to tear down industrial civilization."

Guess what ecological collapse will do? And it won't limit itself to industrial civilization.

The great failure of the self-professed intelligent species is the inability to recognize real wealth. We confuse the abstract, represented by numbers and bits of data as being wealth, when, in fact, all wealth, from the very essential piece of property we all own, as recognized by John Locke, ouer very bodies, comes from the Earth. Our skin, hair, muscle, food, water, air, clothes, homes, cars, roads, etc, etc, etc ... is all dependent on a functioning and sustainable biosphere. Separating economy from ecology is the stupidest, most ignorant, and ultimately suicidal achievement of the self=professed intelligent species.

Sit back, relax, and enjoy the collapse.

[Dave Cohen]

Distant Observer --

Re: ecological collapse

Thanks for telling us the obvious. And although I have written about such collapse (e.g. in the oceans) many, many times, it seems that unless it comes from YOU, we are all ill-informed.

Why don't you poll humankind to determine whether they should 1) stop economic growth OR 2) continue business-as-usual.

Let me know what you find out. Schmuck.

-- Dave

[Gail]

Aw, Dave, and here I am packing up this morning for DC, and arrest tomorrow. I have friends from Boston on their way to pick me up in their car because we can't take Amtrak, it's still not running from here to Philly.

True, we have misgivings, because it IS pointless. But futile gestures are all that's left to us...and I've always wanted to be a criminal! I have an email correspondent whom I've never met, I don't think she'll mind if I quote her savagely funny message to me today:

Now what? What do you or the tar sands people plan to do...after the arrests....and most important, after the pipeline is approved?
Do you have a strategy? Don't you think it is a good idea to plan long-term? What other things besides direct action are planned, if any? I havent seen anything along these lines yet, I havent seen any unified energy policy, and all I see are religious wusses like McKibben preaching "action". Are you one of his acolytes who think he is the best thing since sliced bread? (or since tall lattes)? Havent you figured out that he has no political strategy at all, no plans, no platform? That he is actually hindering and DELAYING the formation of a strong uncompromising unified movement? How long will it take for you to see that you are wasting your own valuable time, when you could be organizing productively?

What is the "growing movement" you refer to? More people gathering around McKibben waiting for his blessing?

[Derek]

"I have written about such collapse (e.g. in the oceans) many, many times . . ."

Don't be challenging, Dave . . . he is T-H-E M-A-N!!!

Tell him like it is!

[Dave Cohen]

Have fun at the protest, Gail! I admire futile gestures, but only when those making them know they are futile.

And give us a report on going to jail!

Re: McKibben

Yes, a Christian wuss. God Only Knows how he's got things figured out. Literally! Honestly, I can't abide that man.

But then again, I think the Prince of Darkness runs this world...

-- Dave

[John D]

Gail- you go girl! Rage against the machine!

[xraymike79]

Cohen said: "But then again, I think the Prince of Darkness runs this world..."

As time passes, this phrase becomes even more solidified in my mind. Only Satan would want to spread toxic depleted uranium(with a half life of 4.5 billion years) all over the planet:

Uranio 238

Part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3EUp5j1481g
Part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNgZs1lyuGQ
Part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZ4h6IeCalo
Part 4:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9uodiHzrefI

Why there has been no official study on the health and environmental effects of DU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlGPtBX0IRY

[william mcdonald]

Good thing the protesters aren't out here in Kalfornia.

I seem to remember watching video of a gloved deputy applying full strength pepper spray directly to the eyeballs of a few some years ago.

Barbaric but effective.

I am not approving it, just pointing out that peaceful protest in the empire today carries some risks.

[Tony Weddle]

I'm not sure what Dave and Distant Observer have to argue about. It seems you're both on the same page. Is this what collapse looks like, people with the same views arguing with each other?

I sympathise with Distant Observer, actually. Although I know Dave completely understands the predicament of the planet, not just the US, his posts often slip in a phrase like "we should have done that 30 years ago" which kind of implies that doing X a while ago would have done the trick. I know he doesn't think that so I don't know why he says it. Yes, ecological degradation will do for us, regardless of the level of CO2 but maybe 350 ppmv is the safest level. We know so little about feedbacks that stopping emissions now (which is impossible) would only make things slightly less bad.

In one sense, blogs like these (in fact, all blogs) are pointless given that there is no chance whatsoever of humanity waking up (in a phased way as the earth spins) one day and thinking, "shit, we've really fucked this up, let's do something completely different". Consequently, a slow (at least) grinding collapse is inevitable, regardless of what McKibben or Cohen says to try to wake a few people up.

[BS]

Well, this party sure turned to shit. Pass me another shot, or turn on hopey changey to inspire me.

Back in the day, the young would have stood up. Where are they? Old man Hanson protesting. Bet that scares Inhofe and Perry.

[Robert Colgan]

A drug person can learn to cope with things like seeing their dead grandmother crawling up their leg with a knife in her teeth. But no one should be asked to handle this trip.

There was only one road back to L.A. - U.S. Interstate 15. Just a flat-out high speed burn through Baker and Barstow and Berdoo. Then onto the Hollywood Freeway, and straight on into frantic oblivion. Safety. Obscurity. Just another freak, in the freak kingdom.
(Raoul Duke)

[Dr. C]

Hey, this is Dave's blog and he can post whatever he wants here. Even if he does come off from time to time sounding like he wrote the column while fighting an urgent need to go take a piss.

[Distant Observer]

Wow. Dave is an asshole. Who knew?

[ChicagoMark]

I agree with Dave that there is nothing that can - or will - be done until the collapse is in full swing. Whether it is economic collapse or environmental. My only hope is that a severe economical collapse will slow the environmental one.