Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "Thousands of protesters, including a Nobel laureate and a movie star, gathered near the White House on Sunday in opposition to TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline."

Demonstrators protesting the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline march around the White House, 11/06/11. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)
Demonstrators protesting the proposed Keystone XL Pipeline march around the White House, 11/06/11. (photo: Evan Vucci/AP)



10,000 Surround White House in XL Pipeline Protest

By CBS News/AP

06 November 11

 

Occupy Wall Street: Take the Bull by the Horns

 

housands of protesters, including a Nobel laureate and a movie star, gathered near the White House on Sunday in opposition to TransCanada's Keystone XL pipeline.

The demonstration is the latest in a series of White House protests aimed at convincing US President Barack Obama to block the $7 billion project that would carry Alberta oilsands crude through six American states to Gulf Coast refineries.

Mark Ruffalo, nominated for an Academy Award last year, and Jody Williams, winner of the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize for her work on banning landmines, were among the celebrities who intended to join hands and encircle the White House despite the fact that Obama was golfing in northern Virginia on a stunning autumn afternoon.

"I'm here to get a message to President Obama to stop the tarsands, Keystone XL pipeline," Ruffalo told The Canadian Press.

"I voted for him because he promised us change and he promised us we were going to be the generation to end tyranny, and now is his chance to come through."

Canadian actress Margot Kidder, arrested at a summer White House anti-Keystone protest, was back on Sunday amid thousands of peaceful protesters who waved banners and chanted anti-pipeline slogans across Pennsylvania Avenue from the presidential residence.

"I have heard he's gone golfing but he has to drive through the wonderful circle to get back to his house, so that's perfect," she said.

The Obama administration is currently weighing whether to give the green light to Keystone XL.

The US State Department is making the ruling because the pipeline crosses an international border, but the president has said the final decision will reflect his views and suggested he isn't swayed by the argument that the pipeline will create jobs.

"Folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren't going to say to themselves, 'We'll take a few thousand jobs if it means our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health,"' Obama said in an interview with an Omaha TV station.

"We don't want, for example, aquifers to be adversely affected. Folks in Nebraska obviously would be directly impacted."

A decision on the pipeline was supposed to be made by the end of the year, but the State Department suggested last week that it might defer the decision as they continue to assess whether Keystone XL is in the national interest of the United States.

Keystone XL has become a political hot potato for the Obama administration, especially since the release of emails that suggest a cosy relationship between State Department officials and TransCanada's chief lobbyist, Paul Elliott.

Elliott worked on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's unsuccessful presidential bid in 2008.

There have also been allegations that the State Department failed to do an impartial environmental assessment of Keystone XL by hiring an environmental consulting firm, Houston-based Cardno Entrix, recommended to it by TransCanada itself.

With a presidential election less than a year away, key Obama advisers are reportedly growing increasingly nervous about losing supporters if they approve Keystone XL.

The pipeline's opponents point to a series of recent spills along oil pipelines and argue the Keystone XL project is a disaster waiting to happen as it would carry millions of barrels a week of carbon-intensive oilsands crude through environmentally fragile areas of the US Great Plains.

Proponents, meantime, say the pipeline will create thousands of much-needed jobs and help end American reliance on oil from volatile and sometime hostile OPEC regimes.

The project has not only become a symbol of the increasingly heated debate in the United States about the country's reliance on fossil fuels and a perceived reluctance to embrace renewable sources of energy, but also the distrust many Americans feel towards big corporations.

Pipeline opponents have said their anti-Keystone protests reflect larger scale public anger at corporate greed, pointing to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations.

"You can't occupy the White House, but you can surround it," Bill McKibben, a leading US environmentalist and one of the protest's organizers, told a news conference last week.

Keystone XL has become a flashpoint for the environmental movement in the US following last year's failed federal climate change legislation. More than 1,000 protesters were arrested this summer in two weeks of sit-ins outside the White House.

The Nebraska legislature, meantime, is in special session considering legislation that could force TransCanada to reroute the pipeline away from the Ogallala Aquifer, a major source of drinking water for the region.

 

Comments  

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+48 # twainpaine 2011-11-06 19:25
Power to the circle around the White House.

This proposed pipeline is one more smells-to-high-heaven government/private enterprise romp over the people and the environment with no thought toward the future of anyone's grandchildren. To hell with the planet we are leaving for them. Profit Before People is the battle cry of the Republican Party, and battle seems to be all they know. Unbelievable and shameful.
 
 
+16 # futhark 2011-11-06 20:35
Oh boy! Another president golfing when the people are trying to tell him what kind of world they want for themselves and their children in the future!

Does anyone still HOPE there will be a CHANGE?
 
 
+13 # jon 2011-11-06 21:51
"Does anyone still HOPE there will be a CHANGE?"

We ALL hope. That is why we are here and why there is a Reader Supported News in the first place.

Hope is foundationary to ALL Spiritual yearnings.
 
 
+8 # DPM 2011-11-06 21:19
Why don't the Canadians want the jobs? Why don't they refine it in Canada? Because it is going to an export port. Houston.
 
 
+16 # Regina 2011-11-06 22:05
Maybe Canadians are smarter than certain manipulative -- and manipulated -- Americans, and know that they shouldn't move that filthy sludge through Canadian aquifers to a Canadian port. If they can con Americans into doing the dirty work while paying Canadians for the dirt, they'll collect the cash and we'll choke on the poison.
 
 
+8 # genierae 2011-11-07 07:11
The original objective was to pipe the sludge to the Canadian west coast, but the native tribes legally stopped that plan. Now they think that we Americans are so brainwashed by big oil that they can use our precious prairie lands for their own personal profit. They need to think again! I am so proud of those patriots who encircled the White House yesterday, they are true American heroes. I watched the whole thing online, it was a beautiful sight to behold!
 
 
+22 # CL38 2011-11-06 22:01
"With a presidential election less than a year away, key Obama advisers are reportedly growing increasingly nervous about losing supporters if they approve Keystone XL."

As well they should be. This is NOT the "change" Obama promised or that we voted for!!
 
 
+8 # mwd870 2011-11-07 04:24
Obama's advisors have shown a propensity for supporting profit before people. Ironic that worries about losing supporters in the upcoming election would be the motivation for not approving Keystone XL.

Obama should not approve the pipeline because it is the right thing to do, for all the reasons stated by others commenting on the protests at the White House. He most certainly will lose supporters if he makes the wrong decision.
 
 
+15 # JWMchew 2011-11-06 22:25
Tarsands (oilsands?) emit three times the Greenhouse Gases emitted by conventional oil from extraction thru refinement. Couple that with the recent report that GHG emissions increased 6% over the most recent reporting period - a level beyond the IPCC's most pessimistic scenario - and you have a very compelling reason, not only to block the pipeline, but to aggressively begin implementing an oil depletion protocol (see Colin Campbell). Of course, the risk of polluting the Ogallala Aquifer should really do it, but accelerated global warming might help to seal the deal.
 
 
+10 # sandyboy 2011-11-06 22:30
Everyone MUST wake up to the disregard shown by big biz to our environment. For instance, a newspaper here in UK ran a large story saying fracking is the way to unlimited energy - only a few days later we had several earthquakes which the frackers admitted they caused but were unconcerned by!
 
 
+5 # genierae 2011-11-07 07:18
The earthquakes in Oklahoma over the weekend included the largest one ever recorded there. And the number of quakes has increased dramatically. "Coincidentally", there's been an upsurge of fracking in the same areas that produced the quakes. The mainstream media conveniently forgets to mention this as a possible cause.
 
 
+6 # brianf 2011-11-07 07:40
A recent study showed that fracking for natural gas is likely just as bad for global warming as oil, when you include the extraction process, which leaks large amounts of methane into the atmosphere.
 
 
+11 # She Cee 2011-11-06 22:52
And where does the pipeline go?

Answer - To Texas.

And who do you think it will benefit?
Answer: The Koch brothers.

And if it is approved, who will be selling us out?
Answer: Our President

DISGUSTING!
 
 
+7 # jwb110 2011-11-06 23:13
The average guy who hears about tar sands and pipelines thru Nebraska doesn't get the sight gag of it all. The pipeling will go thru areas packed with wind generators that make the need for tar sand unnecessary.
The joke is nearly Vaudevillian!
 
 
+2 # sharag 2011-11-06 23:39
Obama is not currently weighing whether he should give the green light to Keystone XL pipeline or not. He's already done that. He's now wrestling with how he's going to pitch this to a hostile public opinion.

Change we can believe in? He needs to hear that again and again until he stops this thing.
 
 
+12 # m... 2011-11-06 23:46
IT ALL BELONGS TO US--- NOT GLOBAL CORPORATIONS..!

OCCUPY IT..!

TAKE IT BACK AND LITERALLY SAVE THE WORLD AND MANKIND..!

Corporate Greed and the Greedy Self Serving Politicians in their pockets are destroying everything--- Our System of Government.., Our Country.., Our Economy.. Our Environment--> The entire Global System, The Entire Ecosystem all the way down the very Planet we live on.

THEY HAVE EVEN GUNKED UP OUTTER SPACE ALREADY AND CHANGED THE CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF THE VERY AIR WE BREATH EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD..!

And all because its ''''Profitable'''' for THEM..!
 
 
+12 # LWH 2011-11-07 02:42
"Proponents, meantime, say the pipeline will . . . help end American reliance on oil from volatile and sometime hostile OPEC regimes."

The refineries have said that they will use tarsands oil primarily to produce diesel for shipment overseas, not for use in the US. The proponents lie.
 
 
+9 # imanikazana 2011-11-07 04:35
This tar sand pipeline provides massive income for Canadians & the oil industry in Texas, but also provides the real potential of screwed up drinking water & massive environmental destruction for everyone in between. This is absolutely the time for the 99% to say NO to the 1%, now instead of after the fact. Force Hillary Clinton & her boss to protect the 99%.
 
 
+3 # Alice W 2011-11-07 05:29
ok, I'm in. I've given one time donations to RSN a few times, but I'm going for a monthly contribution. RSN has become my dependable lifeline for news throughout the day. This morning I imagined how I'd feel without it and realized how much I'd miss it. Let's get on board--and stop the need for incessant fundraising. This team has better things to do! Thanks.
 
 
+11 # lonestarcornhusker 2011-11-07 06:12
Stop this nonsense. This is the dirtiest of oil. Lots of spills in
Canada. My home state is Nebraska. This pipeline will ruin the
beautiful rolling green Sandhills of Nebraska. It goes near my hometown and also my husband's hometown. It goes by and over
millions of people's drinking water from the amazing Ogallala
aquifier. Save this wonderful water source for people to drink.
One spill could be devastating. STOP THIS NOW! Nebraskans
are resilient and strong but small in numbers. When Memorial Football stadium fills up each Saturday to watch the Cornhuskers, it is the 3rd largest city in the state---my hometown has 2200 people and is dwindling. The few jobs this might possibly provide do not outweigh the need for clean
drinking water as well as being a good steward for this fertile land. Oil spill---ugly---we lose drinking water AND farmland to grow food.
Go CORNHUSKER STATE! And, if your crappy republican in Democratic clothing votes for this (i.e. Ben Nelsen)--FIRE THE
MORON!!!! He must truly love profits above his state. Shame. Shame. Shame.
 
 
+1 # in deo veritas 2011-11-07 07:04
If Hillary had gotten the presidency in 2008 would anything be different considering her support for everything Obama has done or is doing like even considering o.k'ing the Tar Sands disaster? LOL!NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN! Get a viable candidate to get a nomination at the next Dem convention or earlier in primaries. We do NOT have to settle for a leaderless incumbent or lunatic Repugs. Don't believe the "lesser of two evils" bs. We did that with Johnson and Goldwater and look what we got-Vietnam. What next? Iran? Syria?
 
 
+1 # genierae 2011-11-07 07:35
idv: Instead of seeing it as the "lesser of two evils", why not see it as which candidates most benefit the people? We live in an imperfect world and so we will not have anyone to vote for who is even close to perfect. When you are hungry, a half of a loaf is definitely better than none. And looking at the clowns that are the Republican leading candidates, you begin to realize that Barack Obama looks pretty darn good!
 
 
+2 # brianf 2011-11-07 07:46
When it comes to global warming, the lesser of two evils is just as evil as the greater. The end result will be exactly the same, unless we make large enough cuts to greenhouse gases in time. And we (in the United States) are still INCREASING emissions. The difference between Obama and a Republican is at best a delay of a few years before the worst effects come. We need someone who takes global warming and the future of life on earth seriously.

Bernie Sanders for President!
 
 
+2 # Lolanne 2011-11-07 09:54
Quoting
When it comes to global warming, the lesser of two evils is just as evil as the greater. The end result will be exactly the same, unless we make large enough cuts to greenhouse gases in time. And we (in the United States) are still INCREASING emissions. The difference between Obama and a Republican is at best a delay of a few years before the worst effects come. We need someone who takes global warming and the future of life on earth seriously.

Bernie Sanders for President!


I would agree with you, brianf, except for two facts: one, Bernie has stated clearly that he has no interest in running for president, and two, a third-party candidate wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning in 2012. This is not the way I want it to be, but it is the way things are right now, so we have to face reality. If OWS can hold it together and continue to grow, I think the story might be very different by 2016. But in 2012, a vote for a third party candidate would be the same as a vote for a RepubliPIG -- it would just split the Dem vote and hand the election to them. And quite honestly, if we think things are bad under Obama, putting in a total Rep government would be exponentially worse. I suspect we have no idea just how bad things could get under those conditions!
 
 
+1 # Lolanne 2011-11-07 09:59
Have any of you seen the movie "Gasland"? If not, I suggest you do so, immediately -- especially if you have any doubt about how bad fracking is. It's available on Netflix and also for sale on gaslandthemovie .com for about $16.50. Get it and show it to all your friends who may not quite understand the seriousness of this. We may be toast anyway, but if our drinking water is polluted we will certainly be gone a lot sooner, but it will be a painful death, given all the illnesses drinking this tainted water causes. The people promoting this are vermin, the lowest of the low. I do not see how they can look in the mirror at their evil faces.
 
 
0 # in deo veritas 2011-11-07 07:08
There is NO way this environmental disaster in the making will help US. The oil will be exported out of Houston to go elsewhere in the world. What do we do-buy it back? Just another phony con job by the oil companies, the Koches, and other enemies of the American people. If Obama o.k.'s this he may be a one-term president as the chimp should have been.
 
 
-5 # John Locke 2011-11-07 08:06
Obama will approve it, his handlers want it, and he does as he is told...we should elect a Republican President and give complete control of both houses to democrats, that way the government will come to a stand still
 
 
+2 # Tippitc 2011-11-07 08:13
RE: idv - 'the chimp" ?!?!?!?! Excuse me? RE: Pipeline - "they" say it will create jobs and once this nightmare is built the jobs go away. Once again, a short-term solution to a long-term problem. The government is good at that, in fact, one of the things they do best!!
 
 
+1 # treehugger 2011-11-07 09:27
Let the Canadian pipeline bullies build this contraption on their own soil, toward their own beaches. I bet Canadian citizens would not allow it just as American citizens will not allow it. Is all this really just to sell gas to China?
 
 
+1 # Regina 2011-11-07 11:30
The Indigenous Peoples have already vetoed that alternative. At least in Canada they have that right. In the good ol' U.S. of A., the rights of ALL people are sold out to the conniving 1%.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.