Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 03:23 PM Mar 2013

Thomas Friedman (NYT): "I hope that Bill McKibben and his 350.org coalition go crazy."

An unexpectedly rational op-ed from a staunch supporter of the Iraq War.



"I HOPE the president turns down the Keystone XL oil pipeline. (Who wants the U.S. to facilitate the dirtiest extraction of the dirtiest crude from tar sands in Canada’s far north?) But I don’t think he will. So I hope that Bill McKibben and his 350.org coalition go crazy. I’m talking chain-themselves-to-the-White-House-fence-stop-traffic-at-the-Capitol kind of crazy, because I think if we all make enough noise about this, we might be able to trade a lousy Keystone pipeline for some really good systemic responses to climate change. We don’t get such an opportunity often — namely, a second-term Democratic president who is under heavy pressure to approve a pipeline to create some jobs but who also has a green base that he can’t ignore. So cue up the protests, and pay no attention to people counseling rational and mature behavior. We need the president to be able to say to the G.O.P. oil lobby, “I’m going to approve this, but it will kill me with my base. Sasha and Malia won’t even be talking to me, so I’ve got to get something really big in return.”

Face it: The last four years have been a net setback for the green movement. While President Obama deserves real praise for passing a historic increase in vehicle mileage efficiency and limits on the emissions of new coal-fired power plants, the president also chose to remove the term “climate change” from his public discourse and kept his talented team of environmentalists in a witness-protection program, banning them from the climate debate. This silence coincided with record numbers of extreme weather events — droughts and floods — and with a huge structural change in the energy marketplace.

What was that change? Put simply, all of us who had hoped that scientific research and new technologies would find cheaper ways to provide carbon-free energy at scale — wind, solar, bio, nuclear — to supplant fossil fuels failed to anticipate that new technologies (particularly hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling at much greater distances) would produce new, vastly cheaper ways to tap natural gas trapped in shale as well as crude oil previously thought unreachable, making cleaner energy alternatives much less competitive. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/friedman-no-to-keystone-yes-to-crazy.html?_r=3&
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Thomas Friedman (NYT): "I hope that Bill McKibben and his 350.org coalition go crazy." (Original Post) wtmusic Mar 2013 OP
But Tommy won't be risking his phat lifestyle with them now will he? Warren Stupidity Mar 2013 #1
The problem is that the oil's going get to market one way or the other al bupp Mar 2013 #2
Currently Western Canada Select futures are 1/3 cheaper than Texas crude wtmusic Mar 2013 #3
Thanks for noting that! eom Kolesar Mar 2013 #7
+++ Champion Jack Mar 2013 #8
As one of the comments says: XemaSab Mar 2013 #4
LOL wtmusic Mar 2013 #5
Heh! That's fucked up. joshcryer Mar 2013 #6
no truer words. nt motocicleta2 Mar 2013 #9

al bupp

(2,179 posts)
2. The problem is that the oil's going get to market one way or the other
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 03:41 PM
Mar 2013

As along as the price of a barrel remains as high as it now, if they have to, and there's no pipeline, they'll just ship the oil by truck or rail. We have to ask ourselves which is better for the environment?

wtmusic

(39,166 posts)
3. Currently Western Canada Select futures are 1/3 cheaper than Texas crude
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 04:17 PM
Mar 2013

meaning tar sands oil is worth a lot less on the market, due to fears about the scenario you describe actually becoming reality.

It's already more expensive to extract, without Keystone XL it will be more expensive to ship. The bottom line: the more expensive tar sands oil is to sell, the more of it stays in the ground. That's a good thing.

XemaSab

(60,212 posts)
4. As one of the comments says:
Sun Mar 10, 2013, 04:18 PM
Mar 2013

"Man, when Friedman himself is advocating chain-yourself-to-the-fence protests, you know we've crossed the Rubicon!"

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Thomas Friedman (NYT): &q...