Photo from Fox News
After Barack Obama made the oh, so predictable “decision” to not pursue the Keystone XL Pipeline construction in the United States, the environmentalists among us have been jubilant. From Time Magazine:
“It’s good, and at the same time it cannot be the extent of Obama’s work on climate,” said Lindsey Allen, Rainforest Action Network executive director, of Obama’s Keystone decision. “This is an opportunity to build on momentum and work to stop other projects like this.”
Oh, really? Have these people taken a good look at the major pipeline map of the United States of late?
Oh, that’s just the majors. Check out the ENTIRE network.
Given that the pipeline that has not really been cancelled (it can always be resurrected), but postponed until more sane people are in both the White House and Ottawa, some of us with at least a remedial knowledge of energy production, transport and refining are wondering just what the “victory” is?
(Personally, I want to know how earthquake proofed those lines on the New Madrid Fault and seismic zone are. That would be a worse danger.)
The next frontier—a campaign known as “keep it in the ground“—has been in the works since long before Obama reached his final decision about Keystone. Activists have used the phrase, which refers to stopping new and continued drilling of fossil fuels, in protest since at least the summer….
Most of the “keep it in the ground” activism thus far has focused on attracting the support of elected officials and has been met with some success. Just this week Democratic Senators Jeff Merkley and Bernie Sanders introduced legislation to prohibit new leases of federal land for extraction. With the Keystone victory under their belt, environmentalists say they will begin to highlight a slew of other fossil fuel projects that require government approval.
“Moving forward it’s going to be very difficult for any fossil fuel project to move forward without opposition,” said Benjamin Schreiber, a director at Friends of the Earth. “We have new metric: if a project worsens climate change, we shouldn’t be approving it.”
Uh, guess these people don’t know that the term “fossil fuel” is passé. The word petrochemical is more appropriate since the darn stuff bubbles up from the earth’s mantle and various studies are reporting that when it comes to energy, oil and natural gas are the ultimate in renewable resources. But, of course, that would defeat the purpose of getting Americans and the rest of the world to live as if it were still the early 19th century. (Some say 16th, but in the 19th the west got past the cleanliness phobia of the late 17th and 18th.)
Now, the environmental wackos have their sights set on the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris later this month with the goal of getting yet more obstacles put in the way of energy exploration and production. So long as the prices are low enough, the consumers – the people who will go and find the pitchforks when their lives are too impacted by the insanity – won’t really notice this interference other than to celebrate not further polluting the planet by driving their SUVs to a rally.
At this point, the environmentalists are looking for Obama to help further their goals during the remainder of his presidency. Too bad it’s only got fourteen and a half months to go. (They don’t realize that bans and moratoria were meant to be reversed.)