Redford writes: "Because Big Oil lost, this is not the end of the fight. This is the beginning of the real battle for America's energy future."

Actor and environmental activist Robert Redford. (photo: Contour/Getty Images)

President Obama Stands Up to Big Oil

Robert Redford, Reader Supported News

18 January 12

et's face it: Big Oil is used to getting its way. But not today... and we have President Obama to thank for standing up to them in spite of the political risk.

President Obama has just rejected a permit for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline - a project that promised riches for the oil giants and an environmental disaster for the rest of us.

His decision represents a victory of historic proportions for people from throughout the pipeline path and all across America who have waged an uphill, years-long fight against one of the most nightmarish fossil fuel projects of our time.

But make no mistake: Big Oil is going to fight back hard and fast.

Why? Because this was a prime-time fight. The oil giants made sure of that.

Big Oil had their Congressional boosters put the president to an election-year test by forcing him to decide the pipeline's fate within 60 days. Then, the oil lobby itself rolled out its biggest PR guns to get the job done.

The head of the American Petroleum Institute sent the White House a very public and blatant warning: Approve the Keystone XL or face "huge political consequences."

Because Big Oil lost, this is not the end of the fight. This is the beginning of the real battle for America's energy future.

That battle will be fought in Congress, where Representatives who've collected $12 million from the Oil & Gas industry over the past two years are sure to try to raise Keystone XL from the dead.

So when you hear Big Oil call Keystone XL a national jobs plan - ask "Are you kidding me?" A single pipeline project is not a jobs plan. Economic security is to be found in clean energy not in dirty energy that threatens us with oil spills and ever worsening harm from climate change.

And when you hear Big Oil say that we need Keystone XL for our security - tell them to get real. Energy security comes from reducing our dependence on oil, not from a pipeline that would leave us with the risk but send the tar sands oil overseas.

The president stood up to Big Oil and listened to Americans saying: "We're done with fossil fuel schemes that destroy our land, poison our water and wreak havoc with our climate so that oil companies can make out like bandits." Now we need to continue to stand with the president and make it clear that tar sands pipelines are not in our national interest.

Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.

Comments

+81 # Holyone 2012-01-18 16:15

There is no other option but to say no to the pipeline.

This demonstrates that Big Business, Oil business care nothing about the American people nor this country.

If we can not trust them , how can we trust the GOP who is their water boy. VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

+67 # portiz 2012-01-18 20:13

We were a NET EXPORTER of oil last year. The pipeline would only skew that balance even further. Thus, the pipeline is ALL about increasing the sales and profits of the oil companies!!!

0 # Ralph Averill 2012-01-19 01:18

Net exporter? Please, your source for that information.

+31 # portiz 2012-01-19 08:10

Quoting

Net exporter? Please, your source for that information.

The Wall Street Journal, "U.S. Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter", * NOVEMBER 30, 2011:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203441704577068670488306242.html

"U.S. exports of gasoline, diesel and other oil-based fuels are soaring, putting the nation on track to be a net exporter of petroleum products in 2011 for the first time in 62 years... the U.S. is exporting more fuel than it imports,"

So, NOW are you convinced that this pipeline has NOTHING to do with energy security (and everything to do with putting more money in the pockets of big oil)?!!

+2 # Ralph Averill 2012-01-19 15:37

Easy does it, portiz. Relax. I never doubted it. I just wanted to know where you got your facts from. You might have sourced that info in your original post and saved yourself some unnecessary grief.

+6 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-01-20 09:06

No, Ralph, as an objective third-party observer, if YOU had couched your question in a less suspicious, ambiguously accusatory "tone," YOU could have saved us all some Ralph-grief.

And don't tell portiz to relax; it comes across as condescending and smug.

+23 # soularddave 2012-01-18 22:47

Oh, they care for us, alright; we're they're MARKET. If they can't make money on us fast enough, they'll peddle their petro elsewhere.

The point is we're not desperate enough to take the monumental risk that comes with tar sand oil.

+5 # CL38 2012-01-19 09:43

I saw an astounding film, "Thrive: What on Earth Will it Take? that lifts the veil on what’s going on in our world by following the money upstream — uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives. Weaving together breakthroughs in science, consciousness and activism, THRIVE offers real solutions, empowering us with unprecedented and bold strategies for reclaiming our lives and our future. You can see it on
goldsilver.com/new/thrive-what-on-earth-will-it-take/

+1 # wolflady52 2012-01-19 10:33

Everyone should watch this film!

-6 # ritaague 2012-01-19 11:07

[quote name="Holyone"] VOTE DEMOCRATIC.

Sorry, Holyone. No good to be naive, and fall again for Oh Bomb Ah's so convincing MSD - manipulation, spin, distraction. Recall so many of his promises, including meaningful healthcare reform - not, even with a vote of 51 possible, inserting a minimal public option. Then there was he promise to veto NDAA, which went even further than the Bushwhackers and Kochsucking pol. minions in stripping away critical rights of due process upon arrest. Just two of many examples.

Oh Bomb Ah's saying no to the 60 day decision deadline is far from his saying no, this is off the table.

Sorry, Holone, but with a Dem. Pres. (Andrew Jackson) hanging in my family tree, and a Dem. precinct chair position that I'm about to rid myself of, I am now a devout independent. No more kneejerk voting, but instead, voting only for those real McCoy progressive, dedicated to change candidates who have walked the walk and not merely are talking the talk. All said, it'w a real good bet that I won't be pulling the lever in the 'death by Diebold' voting booth for a Greedy Old Party candidate.

But, let's not give up hope. Fight we must, Wisconsin style, to make sure we all get to vote, and our vote gets honestly counted. And, a terrific does have a good chance this year of getting elected. We've had it with Bushwacking/Kochsucking and Damn a Dem., but vote for them m.o..
Time for real, true change. Go,OWS,Go!

+5 # genierae 2012-01-20 07:04

ritaague: If you're only going to vote for "those real McCoy progressive, dedicated to change candidates" just who are you going to vote for in November? And your disrespect of our President's name is offensive. If Barack Obama loses the election and Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich gets elected, I will know who to thank! People like you, who expect the impossible, cause a lot of trouble for the rest of us. Instead of looking at things in a negative way, why not vote for the person who will give us the most benefits? Why not elect the person who will bring us the best possible outcome?....Grow up!

+56 # CL38 2012-01-18 20:16

Think of the damage most of the corporate energy industries has inflicted on our air, water and land due to greed. Think of the nuclear waste that authorities have no idea how to securely manage or clean up, that will, without responsible oversight eventually poison our water and land. These corporations deny and turn a blind eye to the potential (and probable) long term damage and continue down the same catastrophic path, as though our planet is disposable.

-22 # MidwestTom 2012-01-18 21:12

I agree with CL38. I think that all airlines should be grounded immediately the production of all plastics and fertilizer, both made from oil and gas, should be stopped immediately. It should be illegal to drive anything propelled by a hydrocarbon substance. This would solve the problem of surplus horses. Mo need for new roads. Think of the savings.

+18 # juliajayne 2012-01-19 08:49

To, you exhibit a great example of binary thinking from the right. It's always either/or with them. No middle ground. Sheesh!

+32 # Cdesignpdx 2012-01-18 21:52

Chernobyl; Bhopal; Fukushima; and Bellingham, Washington USA local headline:
On Thursday afternoon, June 10, 1999, a 16-inch fuel line owned by the Olympic Pipe Line Company ruptures in Bellingham, spilling 277,200 gallons of gasoline into Hanna and Whatcom creeks. The volatile fuel explodes, killing three youths: Liam Wood, 18, and Wade King and Stephen Tsiorvas, both age 10. The massive fireball sends a plume of smoke 30,000 feet into the air, visible from Anacortes to Vancouver, B.C., Canada.

Now an XL controversy ?

Sadly, these companies do not compensate for the heavy externalities (cost) shifted to taxpayers, nor do they have much remorse for lives, land, livelihoods lost to their practices.
It is time to make some very serious commitment to changing this ethos.

Even Marauders must know they, too, will perish under their business models.

+6 # futhark 2012-01-19 12:19

This is the way business is done in this day and age. Shift all of the responsibility for the disorder created onto the biosphere, consumer, and/or taxpayer.

Just curious, is there any requirement that MBA candidates take a course in business ethics? What regulations are there that compel businesses to act responsibly? I am running into more and more situations in which any transaction is structured so that the customer has to pick up all the loose ends.

By the way, I used to live in Anacortes, but missed the fireball by 33 years.

+29 # cherylpetro 2012-01-18 22:36

Yes,I am very glad Mr. Redford wrote this! We must be vigilant about the only place we have to live: EARTH! WE ALSO NEED TO STOP FRACKING! iT CAUSES UNKNOWN DAMAGE TO THE EARTH, AND PUTS POISONS INTO OUR WATER! WE HAVE TO BE SMART! WE MAY NEED FUEL, BUT WHO WILL USE IT, IF WE ARE ALL DEAD? PRIORITIES!

+18 # soularddave 2012-01-18 22:42

Big oil and the political lap dogs have put out so many statements that they begin to conflict with one another. Obvious desperation in the face of mounting odds.

Take almost any of the glib comments and dissect it; you'll discover a lie, an exaggeration, and a wish to take excessive risk. It's all a pipe dream on their part, and an an expectation that we'll be as dumb as usual.

They expected a fight, so they tried to outmaneuver us and circumvent "procedures" by appealing to the President for a "waiver". I hope we provided them more than they bargained for, but I expect they have more dirty tricks up their sleeves.

+24 # ER444 2012-01-19 00:24

Now we have reward President Obama loud and clear with out support !!!! That is how politics work. President Obama must simply see that he has won more through winning our support than he has lost through losing Oil's. If he finally has seen that compromising with uncompromising forces is not going to work maybe he will finally get the balls to do what he knows is right in other areas as well. Let's give him 4 more years to keep his promises.

+20 # brenda heard 2012-01-19 02:18

Well, Mr Colbert, meet your Chief of Staff. Mr Redford, care to move to DC?

Just to think--if we had clean, renewable domestic energy, we wouldn't have to have catastrophic wars for oil. Without the military spending, we would have the money to invest in energy. We just need to get off the carousel....

+8 # Glen 2012-01-19 07:51

Brenda, if it weren't oil, it would be control, which is very much part of the agenda, or it would be water, or mineral resources as are found in Afghanistan. Energy resources are only a part of what is happening with the U.S. attacks on so many countries.

+1 # brenda heard 2012-01-20 03:15

Quoting

Brenda, if it weren't oil, it would be control, which is very much part of the agenda, or it would be water, or mineral resources as are found in Afghanistan. Energy resources are only a part of what is happening with the U.S. attacks on so many countries.

Glen, Agreed! Should have said "we wouldn't have to have AS MANY catastrophic wars for oil" or other such qualifier. I think the prime motivator is power, or at least perceived power. Oil is just one element of having 'power'. Just like the bully who lashes out due to his own basic insecurity, it seems if the US were more settled/confident in its self-sufficiency (eg with energy resources), then it wouldn't feel as compelled to pounce on others. Or would it? Is it sheer greed? racism? sadism? There is a long history of ruthless aggression. . . yet there has been goodness too. Maybe just a microcosm of the human condition?

+7 # samothrellim 2012-01-19 03:36

Is this the light at the end of the tunnel? Do we see the President we thought we elected in his second term? Not if Big Oil can stop him.

+19 # Barbara K 2012-01-19 05:11

Thank you, Mr. President. We have your back -- stand tough. We don't want this piece of future catastrophe going across our land. We have weather disasters, like forest fires, hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, etc., which could cause damage to this thing, besides many other things that could potentially destroy much of our country forever. Keep fighting for us and our country, the place where we live.

NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN !!

the consequences are horrendous

+19 # mwd870 2012-01-19 05:24

It's great to read a positive article, at least in terms of the Administration's actions. Keystone XL is big oil at its worst, and I'm glad there are independent advocates and reporters to refute their lies about the supposed advantages of the project.

-5 # RLF 2012-01-19 05:38

Obama will OK this the minute the election is over. He is a corporate kiss ass!

-13 # burner 2012-01-19 06:16

And as soon as he is elected, he will pass the law in their favor. Wait and see.

-31 # Malley 2012-01-19 07:16

We are to assume that the beach in front of Redford's Malibu digs is covered with windmills, his roofs with solar collectors, and that all his transportation needs are met by a bicycle.

He didn't make any money from 'Big Media' either...

What a guy.

-9 # elmont 2012-01-19 07:58

C'mon, people, we all know that when the dust settles, the pipeline will be a go. The whole 'jobs' issue will give Obama the political fig leaf he needs to okay the deal. RLF and burner are almost correct, but I'm guessing Obama won't even wait for the election kiss this pig.

+8 # wolflady52 2012-01-19 10:51

Above and beyond all the "jobs" lies being touted about this project, bottom line is 5,000 temporary jobs. Temporary, folks. We can do better. Reducing our oil dependency with other projects would create many more jobs. The true cost of this pipeline, environmentally , outweighs any temporary benefits.

-29 # lnason@umassd.edu 2012-01-19 08:17

Redford is, as is often the case, completely missing his mark.

I do have serious objections to the pipeline due to the arguably illegal eminent domain actions that were used to acquire the land. But no environmentalis t rationale could ever justify Obama's decision.

Short of going to war with Canada to prevent them from developing the oil, the oil will be processed and used. It is environmentally preferable to pipe (the safest mode of transportation for oil) the oil south through some of the most geologically stable country in the world than to pipe it west through some of the most geologically unstable country in the world and then ship it by tanker to China where it will be processed and used in a country with virtually no environmental controls. But the dirty oil will be developed, shipped, refined and used regardless of Obama's decision or Redford's silly advocacy.

Nor is the environmentalis t claim that the pipeline would endanger the aquifer or local wildlife valid. There are already well over 2000 miles of oil pipeline traversing this particular aquifer and there has not been any environmental degradation.

Surely Obama is aware of these facts but has chosen to cater to his wealthy ignorant elitist environmental allies rather than address the needs of workers and ordinary citizen consumers.

Lee Nason
New Bedford, Massachusetts

+11 # pbbrodie 2012-01-19 09:14

Where do you get your "information" that the 2,000 miles of pipeline traversing this particular aquifer that you reference has not caused any environmental degradation? That sounds like "information" you obtained from the oil companies.
Where do you get off referring to Mr. Redford's actions of advocacy for the environment silly? You would prefer he sit on the sidelines and do nothing? What do you do to try to improve our environment, write ill informed and nasty comments?

+7 # shortonfaith 2012-01-19 10:00

lnason@umassd.edu

One of the worst earthquakes in US history happened just before Lewis & Clark's journey; http://www.lewisandclarktravel.com/index.php/site/the_new_madrid_earthquakes_of_1811_12/

I'm going to assume the edu @ the end of your email address stands for education? Many of your statements here are just false so please use this time granted by the President to do further research.
Thanks

+7 # reiverpacific 2012-01-19 15:33

[quote name="lnason@umassd.edu"]Redford is, as is often the case, completely missing his mark.

I do have serious objections to the pipeline due to the arguably illegal eminent domain actions that were used to acquire the land. But no environmentalis t rationale could ever justify Obama's decision.

It's you who are missing the point!
Your attitude is backward, reactionary and atrophied in that ALL extractive industries are in decline and the pipeline construction industry is subject to shortcuts, poor and rushed construction practices, political pandering and wasteful of resources (I've done some heavy pipe inspections). Far better to develop rail networks nation wide both freight and passenger, which are heavily regulated, maintained and inspected and are the way of future human, goods and resources transportation.
But before this, the very fact that Obama stood firm and would not be hustled by big extractive industry is a step in the right direction for those of us who thought he'd buckle again and Redford's vision beyond this political move IS the point which people need to be reminded of.
Call me silly but I'm with R.R. who is consistent in his advocacy for the planet first. It's easy to call someone names from ill-informed and blinkered sidelines.

+4 # lcarrier 2012-01-19 16:42

Do you know the havoc created in Canada by this tar sands project? Excrement, as they say, all flows downhill. Why create a pipeline that allows this dirty oil from Canada to be shipped to China? Why else, except to profit the oil industry and keep us hooked to fossil fuels.

+4 # reiverpacific 2012-01-19 09:00

Redford is absolutely right-on, much as I commend Ob' for his current stance.
But let's not forget his stated support for development of "Clean Coal" and "Safe Nuclear", which should be consigned to the garbage can of history: he actually received large campaign contributions from these industries and has not changed his stance in that respect.
So we have to keep after him and put the planet and it's species first and the extractive behemoths in their places.
Check out the following referenced article from the BBC website. This is a miracle plant in Cuba being developed by a joint Scottish-Cuban venture based at Strathclyde University (Scotland creates pioneering engineering again!).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-16597459

+11 # rhgreen 2012-01-19 09:09

I like Robert Redford but this article is very misleading. All that happened is that Obama side-stepped the Republican trap, and only for the time being. The Repubs gave him 60 days and all he has said is that he can't decide it in 60 days, in part because the decision on re-routing the pipeline in Nebraska hasn't been made. All he has said is that he can't approve the pipeline based on the original route while an alternate route through Nebraska is still being worked out. There is no victory here at all, other than Obama cleverly avoiding the GOP trap.

Given that Alison Redford is the premier of Alberta, maybe a Redford vs Redford debate would be fun.

+15 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-01-19 09:29

& here in Canada we carry on the same struggle, also against the proposed 'Canadian energy Security' proposal to have a proven incompetent & polluting corporation, Enbridge,build a dubious pipeline across pristine rivers & Mountains to the as yet-hardly contaminated West Coast to peddle filthy Tars Sands tar-oil to Asia. The only game here is strip the place of cash & devil take the rest.

+3 # Uncle Joe 2012-01-19 14:41

When reviewed from a pragmatic point the XL Pipeline is a bit like the Alaska 'bridge to nowhere'. What idiot would build a pipeline of such enormous proportions to refineries that are all thirty years old or older. If the pipeline were built to Duluth, MN to a new state of the art refinery, all of the NE (USA) & SE (Canada)would have ample refined fuels for industry and home. Permenant jobs would be created (refinery, shipping) and energy would be available for an industry infrastructure laid idle by offshore outsourcing.

0 # ChickenBoo 2012-01-19 20:57

It's wonderful That Obama "Stood up to Big Oil". But he may very well have shot himself in the foot as far as getting re-elected goes. If he won't play Big Oils game, then the corporations that actually own our country might not let him be president. When they warn "Huge Political consequences", they are saying they intend to make him pay dearly for his "disobediance". Even if the entire country votes for Mr. Obama, he won't get to be president unless he plays ball with the corporations. It will be interesting to watch how they'll turn up the heat on him during the next months!

0 # reiverpacific 2012-01-20 09:59

Quoting

It's wonderful That Obama "Stood up to Big Oil". But he may very well have shot himself in the foot as far as getting re-elected goes. If he won't play Big Oils game, then the corporations that actually own our country might not let him be president. When they warn "Huge Political consequences", they are saying they intend to make him pay dearly for his "disobediance". Even if the entire country votes for Mr. Obama, he won't get to be president unless he plays ball with the corporations. It will be interesting to watch how they'll turn up the heat on him during the next months!

Good point in it's intention but I just can't for the life of me see any of the current and appalling Repleteican wanna-be's for his job on the right, even in this amnesiac nation, being taken seriously by most voters, especially as they keep slashing at each other and shooting themselves in the foot individually.
But then I never thought that Reagan or Bush the Twit would be taken seriously either (words of caution).

+4 # pamitty 2012-01-20 14:55

I hope this will remain Obama's position. Once the viability of the Earth is gone, it's gone. THose oil barons are unscrupulous and immoral. I want my grandkids to be able to live here. And their kids after them. Maybe the world will get it. Otherwise humans are as good as doomed.

Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post.

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.