The Power of Protest

[brinstar]

I know lots of people (and many here) don't think there's much of a point to protesting and rallying, but in case you haven't heard, check this link:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/1 ... 93661.html

The whole story:

TransCanada, a huge multinational energy corporation based in Alberta, wanted to build a 36-inch pipeline that would carry DilBit, a particularly nasty type of corrosive sludge, at high temperature and high pressure, produced at the environmental slaughterhouse of the Alberta Tar Sands. This pipeline was slated to cut across America, right through the middle, to Gulf Coast refineries - where the refined fuel would then be sold on the open market.

Since the pipe would cross an international border, the Federal Gov't has jurisdiction, and without a Presidential Permit the pipe may not be built. Enter Nebraska. Farmers and ranchers in the northwest part of the state started talking to each other, and they found out that they were all upset with the way TransCanada had treated them - threatening eminent domain to bully them into signing easements, etc. They were also quite wary of burying such a huge pipeline full of such nasty shit just six feet under the surface, especially when the presence of the Ogallala Aquifer means the groundwater table is sometimes as shallow as four feet - in fact, the permeability of the Nebraska Sandhills means that sometimes low-lying grasslands become marshes because the water table rises above the surface!

Nebraskans got all riled up at the idea of a big faceless corporation pumping poison through the largest freshwater source on the continent (as well as the main source of water for our $20B/yr agricultural economy), and we made some noise. Then we found out our state laws do nothing to regulate oil pipelines or protect landowners from them, so we got louder. We marched, we demonstrated, we surrounded the governor's mansion with flashlights, we wrote letters to our newspapers, governor, representatives, and senators. We were joined by environmentalists everywhere. 1600 people voluntarily got arrested picketing the White House, including a close friend's 74-year-old grandmother, a retired elementary teacher.

We kept leaning on our state government to call a special legislative session and put laws on the books, until finally our opportunistic governor realized this populist cry was not getting quieter and called the special session. Our state senators scrambled to put a bill together. Meanwhile, on Nov. 6, a delegation of 12,000+ from nearly every state surrounded the entire White House three people deep, holding up signs which quoted Obama's 2008 campaign speeches that promised to "end the tyranny of oil" etc.

Meanwhile, other groups were calling bullshit on the State Department - evidence of serious conflicts of interest between TransCanada and the State Dept kept surfacing, and it was also pointed out that TC and the firm who performed the required Environmental Impact Statement had deep financial ties. In response to that, the State Dept's Inspector General began an investigation, and the President announced he would be making the decision himself, rather than farming it out to the allegedly conflicted/corrupt State Dept.

Finally, on Nov 10, the President announced that the final decision on the permit will be delayed until early 2013, and ordered TC to use that time to explore alternate routes that avoid the Sandhills. Some believe such a delay will eventually cause TC's investors to pull out, effectively collapsing the entire project. Others believe it's simply a political move, since a no-decision effectively avoids angering both the enviros on one side and labor unions on the other, and by putting it off until 2013 he can still receive support from both sides. Either way, a delay only lets our voices grow louder and continues to cost TC about $1M/day.

Yesterday, the Nebraska unicameral passed the bills regulating oil pipelines and marched them straight to the Gov's office for signing. I was there:



It was pretty cool. Our motherfucking Sandhills are motherfucking safe, thanks to the power of protest.


EDIT: whoa, huge photo. resized lol

[Snero]

it had to feel good actually getting some political action for a change but personally I don't really see the issue with the pipeline. There are already tons of pipelines going through the aquifer,

http://www.consumerenergyreport.com/2011/11/21/how-i-would-decide-the-keystone-xl-pipeline-issue/



personally i would rather see a petroleum refinery built in Canada so we can keep the economic benefits within the country if we're already going to be suffering through the environmental impacts.

Also, I can't speak for how things are run in the states but where i work, the Environmental Impact Statements are pretty much always made by either the company itself or by somebody hired by that company, but that is just the first step in an environmental assessment. The next step is for a governmental officers to review the EIS, in Canada it often goes through multiple departments (health, environment, natural resources) before a determination is made that there are no adverse impacts, or that the risks have been mitigated to acceptable levels and the project can go ahead.

[Kaemon]

Thousand's of job's lost because of a few angry farmers. #Occupy Sandhills. Where's my Mother F'n jobs?!?!

[Zanchief]

Sadly, just because people are loud, doesn't mean they're informed. This is why I often find protests to be silly.

[brinstar]

snero:

yes, it was pointed out several times that there are pipelines running over the aquifer. the particular issue with this pipeline (and i may not have been sufficiently explicit above) was actually that it was slated to go through a smaller area where the sandhills and the aquifer coexist. many pipeline opponents cited the unique combination of permeable sandhills and shallow water table as a great concern for pollution - since, unlike regular crude, this tar sands shit SINKS. plus, there's no real easy way to clean up an oil spill into an underground aquifer, as opposed to maybe a pond over clay soil. a majority of the opponents did not oppose the pipeline, simply the route. at one point TC offered to put up a $100M bond for cleanup "in the unlikely event of a spill." well, ask the people of marshall, MI about cleaning up tar sands oil - there was a spill into the kalamazoo river last july that is still being cleaned up, several miles of river have remained closed, and cleanup costs have surpassed $700M already. as i said, no real way to project the cost of cleaning that shit out of the aquifer - but $100M likely won't even scratch the surface.

kaemon:

TransCanada advertised the project would create over 20,000 jobs. independent studies (including one by Cornell) debunked that little white lie, suggesting instead that the maximum number of jobs would more realistically add up to less than ten percent of that estimate. of course, if you believe Fox News (i.e. if you're an idiot), the pipeline project would've brought FIFTY thousand jobs. lulz! not to mention documents have leaked saying that most of the pipe has already been made in russia, not here in america as they claimed - and a TC whistleblower said they often cut corners on construction quality, safety, and contingency systems.

zanchief:

loud =/= uninformed. why is it inconceivable to you that a group of informed people can effect beneficial change through protest? are you really that cynical?

[Zanchief]

and loud =/= informed.

Loudness doesn't mean the change you have in mind is for the better. It just means you want something changed. Right now we have two fringe groups at the poles of the political spectrum both crying bloody murder about completely different things. Both swear up and down that they are right and that if they don't get their were the country (world) is doomed. Both are completely contradictory.

Doesn't this strike you as odd (scary)? It does to me. Just because someone (people) have the power, influence, and determination to effect change does not mean it is for the better of the world. The best way to effect change? Vote. Run for office.

I'm not against protests, and I'm not against striking. Both have there part in a civilized society. I just think when you have these nebulous issues, that have neither a solution or a mission statement, it's hard to take protesters seriously. We don't want a pipe because it might cause some environmental damage if things happen that aren't ever likely to happen. Hrmm isn't that the reason some people don't like nuclear power?

[brinstar]

and loud =/= informed.

Loudness doesn't mean the change you have in mind is for the better. It just means you want something changed. Right now we have two fringe groups at the poles of the political spectrum both crying bloody murder about completely different things. Both swear up and down that they are right and that if they don't get their were the country (world) is doomed. Both are completely contradictory.

Doesn't this strike you as odd (scary)? It does to me. Just because someone (people) have the power, influence, and determination to effect change does not mean it is for the better of the world. The best way to effect change? Vote. Run for office.

I'm not against protests, and I'm not against striking. Both have there part in a civilized society. I just think when you have these nebulous issues, that have neither a solution or a mission statement, it's hard to take protesters seriously. We don't want a pipe because it might cause some environmental damage if things happen that aren't ever likely to happen. Hrmm isn't that the reason some people don't like nuclear power?

the way you are glossing over the facts in our case is quite disingenuous sir. the damage a spill causes is quite well-documented (cf. the kalamazoo river near marshall MI), and the existing Keystone I pipeline has had 14 spills in its first year of operation.

now, i do absolutely agree with you about the right/left polarization commentary, but this particular issue had nothing to do with left vs right, or even top vs bottom. it was clean water for people, plants, animals, and agriculture vs water tainted with carcinogens.

again, as i said, many within the opposition movement were okay with the pipe going over less sensitive land, and now that that's guaranteed i imagine the overall movement against the pipe will weaken considerably. many of the nonpartisan "common sense" ranchers and landowners, as well as Nebraska conservationists will be satisfied - leaving only the leftists and enviros to fight the battle.

i personally would not like to see it built at all, because of what i know about albertan tar sands and the fact that it's purely an EXPORT pipeline (only about 15% of the fuel made from its output is guaranteed to stay in the US) - but as long as the sandhills/aquifer co-occurrence is avoided i'll still call it a win.

as for voting as a means to effect true change: yes. obviously. a citizen-fueled ballot referendum on the pipeline was our so-called "nuclear option" if our state legislature refused to act. as for running for office... i'm actually considering it.