35,000 Rally Against Pipeline in D.C.

Monday, February 18, 2013

Thousands of protesters gathered on the Washington's National Mall on Sunday calling on President Barack Obama to reject the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline proposal and honor his inaugural pledge to act on climate change. Organizers estimated that 35,000 people from 30 states turned out in cold, blustery conditions. "For 25 years our government has basically ignored the climate crisis: now people in large numbers are finally demanding they get to work," said climate activist Bill McKibben.

Posted by rcade at 03:36 PM | 52 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

rcade

Joined 2003/04/04
Visited 2013/05/17

Status: editor

Report: Toronto Mayor Smoked Crack (10 comments) ...

Gallup: Public Interest Low in Current Scandals (68 comments) ...

New 'Idol' Crowned as Show Fades (15 comments) ...

Live: House Hearing on IRS Targeting (104 comments) ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Too bad they don't have jobs to be at.

#1 | Posted by bogey1355 at 2013-02-18 03:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah, nobody has off on Sunday.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2013-02-18 04:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

I'm not sure I get the climate change angle. All that oil is going to burn, pipeline or no pipeline.

#3 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-18 04:06 PM | Reply | Flag:

Its the US environmental risks in exchange for nothing and rate of burn that matters. Why risk it when its all bound for export? Why invoke eminent domain over another private venture, sending US citizens to jail for trespassing in the middle of their own land. The project is a violation of our Constitution and Washington's speech.

#4 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-02-18 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:

If one argues against the "eminent domain" power being used, I am sympathetic, but that problem can also be largely solved by paying people 2-10x market value for there property. Paying market value to someone who doesn't want to sell by using eminent domain is thievery.

The climate change issue is irrelevant since, as #3 stated, its all going to burn. Better to keep the oil in our hemisphere then to ship it to China, where it will go if feds keep up this stalling of construction.

#5 | Posted by danv at 2013-02-18 04:41 PM | Reply | Flag:

#4 | Posted by nutcase

VALID environmental issues aside. I personally agree eminent domain should not be used on this project given that version of the facts. Personally I think they should have to work it out with property owners and only when a SMALL fraction of parties are blocking it use eminent domain if there is any reason for the "greater good" of the country to do so. I don't mean the greater good of 1%.

Except here's the thing - it won't all be bound for export. We are still a massively net importer of oil. I don't know the specifics off hand; but we are building our own developed oil producing region in ND that could/probably will piggy back on this. There is a HUGE glut of oil in ND region selling extremely cheap (69-75 per barrel while oil is 95+) because there is no good way to get it out of there...

What gets me is such a huge concentration of refining is on the gulf coast and more is concentrated there all the time. It just does not make sense given the impact of hurricanes on the region. Disaster waiting to happen in more ways than one.

#6 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2013-02-18 05:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...the environmental group 350.org. Other major organizing groups on Sunday included the Sierra Club and the Hip-Hop Caucus."

The hip-hop caucus helped organize this?? C'mon, Rcade.
The 35,000 crowd size was the estimate of organizers of the rabble. I wonder what the official count was?

#7 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-18 05:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thirty five thousand stupid people all in one place?

#8 | Posted by madbomber at 2013-02-18 05:21 PM | Reply | Flag:

" calling on President Barack Obama to reject the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline proposal "

A fat lot of good that will do. Look for another Obama sellout coming soon to a theater near you.

#9 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-18 05:27 PM | Reply | Flag:

Better to keep the oil in our hemisphere then to ship it to China, where it will go if feds keep up this stalling of construction.

#5 | Posted by danv

If you are of the opinion that the pipeline will help keep the oil in America, where do you believe the pipeline terminates?

By design, this pipeline will be built to facilitate the export of said oil.

#10 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2013-02-18 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Is oil from the middle east cleaner burning? Hello??? Pull it out of your {censored} folks.

#11 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-02-18 05:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

Prediction: Obama will approve a "revised" pipeline, one that is "environmentally friendly" like "clean coal."

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-18 05:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"By design, this pipeline will be built to facilitate the export of said oil."

I expect the idea is to export the refined products rather than the oil itself. Way higher return that way.

#13 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-18 05:33 PM | Reply | Flag:

I remember a headline that we had already become a net exporter in 2011, in part because of the recession. But current headlines say 2017 to 2030. Bakkan crude is so light it is difficult to pump in hot weather. All the oil companies and gubment regulators care about is jacking the price up. Another Cheney success story. The problem is our standard of living depends on cheap energy, so this is part of a broader campaign.

#14 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-02-18 05:38 PM | Reply | Flag:

I expect the idea is to export the refined products rather than the oil itself.

Since the pipeline terminates at the Gulf, it could be for the export of either crude oil or refined products.

I think the pipeline should be built. But I don't think it will result in the type of job creation that some hang their hopes on. For select areas it will result in some glorious economic booms, followed by some disastrous economic failures.

If you have property in North Dakota you'd better sell it now. If you wait until the end of the boom, you're going to be sitting on some seriously impoverished real estate.

#15 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2013-02-18 05:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"But I don't think it will result in the type of job creation that some hang their hopes on."

I don't either. I used to work for TCPL and once the construction phase is complete pipelines are pretty simple to operate.

Be huge bucks in it for Exxon and Shell though, and a host of smaller players.

#16 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-18 06:11 PM | Reply | Flag:

How much did the Dems get from the Teamsters? They will be trucking the oil if no pipeline is built.

#17 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-18 06:22 PM | Reply | Flag:

Railcar diablo, railcar. There's too much for a truck.

#18 | Posted by nutcase at 2013-02-18 07:37 PM | Reply | Flag:

"There's too much for a truck."

Realistically there's too much for rail, but that's the next best option.

#19 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-18 08:24 PM | Reply | Flag:

In any case, a pipeline steps on the toes of some powerful contributors. But it's about the environment, right?

#20 | Posted by Diablo at 2013-02-18 09:07 PM | Reply | Flag:

Warren Buffett does not want this pipeline to be built because the oil is currently being shipped via rail, which he owns. He also owns the newspaper in Omaha. I know people from Omaha, who are very conservative, that are against this pipeline, largely due to his propaganda. Obama owes him so we'll see if Warren gets his payoff.

#21 | Posted by visitor_ at 2013-02-19 07:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I don't either. I used to work for TCPL and once the construction phase is complete pipelines are pretty simple to operate."

Except when they burst, which they do quite often.

en.wikipedia.org

#22 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-19 07:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

#18 stop the charade, the primary reason for opposition to TCP is their stance on fossil fuels. The left has trouble telling the truth.

#23 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-19 08:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

#22 more mis direction. Stop it, just admit it you hate gasoline. Which is crazy cause you drive a car.

#24 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-19 08:55 AM | Reply | Flag:

Thirty five thousand stupid people all in one place?
#8 | Posted by madbomber

....must have looked like Kansas ......

#25 | Posted by skizziks at 2013-02-19 09:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

#25

ouch!!!

#26 | Posted by eberly at 2013-02-19 09:58 AM | Reply | Flag:

" Stop it, just admit it you hate gasoline."

I wish we didn't need gasoline but I recognize the need for it, however that doesn't mean that I believe we should do completely irresponsible things like pipe the very thick goo which comes out of tar sands all the way across the nation at high pressure due to the thickness of the goo. It isn't that there is a chance of accidents and pollution, it's that it is a foregone conclusion that it will happen. Wonder why Canadians don't want it piped across their country?

#27 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-19 10:10 AM | Reply | Flag:

Stop it, just admit it you hate gasoline.

Do you have any idea how stupid that argument sounds?

#28 | Posted by 726 at 2013-02-19 10:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure they could have found many more stupid people.

#29 | Posted by Sniper at 2013-02-19 11:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

I'm sure they could have found many more stupid people.
#29 | Posted by Sniper

How many people live in your neighborhood?

#30 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-19 11:13 AM | Reply | Flag:

Put windmills and solar panels on top of the pipeline and all the wackos will be for it.

#31 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-02-19 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"I'm not sure I get the climate change angle. All that oil is going to burn, pipeline or no pipeline.'

Duhhhhh...is Brazil still gonna drill offshore also?

#32 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-19 11:23 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Wonder why Canadians don't want it piped across their country?"

Maybe they're more realistic than our average "progressive" environmental wacko in the U.S. and they DO want it to? You DO realize, don't you, danni, that it WILL go across Canada to the Pacific to be shipped to China if we don't approve it here, right?

#33 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-19 11:29 AM | Reply | Flag:

#30 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis

Uh oh...looks like the uniDoc is stockpiling materials for burning down some billboards or somethin'. He's probably researching neighborhoods for environmental "violations" and if I was Sniper I'd be a little worried.

#34 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-19 11:34 AM | Reply | Flag:

#34 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Jest's idea of paradise.
artragegallery.org

#35 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-19 11:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

Hey Jest, you ought to cleanup your backyard.

glossynews.com

#36 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-02-19 11:38 AM | Reply | Flag:

if I was Sniper I'd be a little worried.
#34 | Posted by jestgettinalong

Being a little worried is the least of his problems.

#37 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2013-02-19 11:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

#36 | Posted by nullifidian

Damn, Nulli...where do you live, China? India? Mexico City? Somalia?Tell me, how is denying the pipeline across the U.S. going to clean up pollution where you live? It's really pristine here in the Great Smoky Mountains where I live. Even your hero, Algore, isn't listening to you so you oughta wise up

#38 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-19 12:16 PM | Reply | Flag:

Air pollution is shrinking scenic views, damaging plants, and degrading high elevation streams and soils in the Great Smoky Mountains.

Even human health is at risk. Most pollution originates outside the park and is created by power plants, industry, and automobiles.

www.nps.gov

#39 | Posted by Corky at 2013-02-19 12:31 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Air pollution is shrinking scenic views, damaging plants, and degrading high elevation streams and soils in the Great Smoky Mountains."

We got it, Dor...er, Corky. I don't think you read far enough. Now, maybe you can concentrate your efforts on L.A....or Detroit or somewhere. Places like that are where the stuff that's here comes from anyway. I really don't think that oil pipeline is gonna have much effect on it. From where I sit right now, the visibility is clear for at least fifteen miles because I can see Dandridge. I'm all for clean air, water etc., but I don't think the austere measures our little enviro wacko friends wanna do to destroy our economy are a viable solution.

"-Briefing Statement"

Bureau: National Park Service
Issue: Air Quality Issues
Park Site: Great Smoky Mountains National Park
Date: April 26, 2010

"The most recent NPS 10-year air quality national assessment (1998-2007) shows that air quality trends at the park is improving (ozone concentrations, visibility, fine particles, sulfate deposition, and nitrate deposition) or remaining stable (ammonium deposition)."

Here's part of the daily Sevier County report:

Health
UV3 out of 16
Pollen.50 out of 12
PM2.5Good

#40 | Posted by jestgettinalong at 2013-02-19 01:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

First off, there were over 35,000 SMART & brave people there, the number would approach 50,000 and it was very cold. If Obama approves the pipeline, it is game over for us all. It is symbolic of the foot dragging our nation has been doing when it comes to renewable energy. The folks who think this pipeline is a good thing are the ones that need to pull their heads out of their asses because if you have been paying attention, countries around the world have been building up their renewable energy technologies and along with this, jobs and investing in clean energy that will not destroy our environment. Why don't we just try it? Say, 10 years. Shut down all the archaic, dirty ways of how we get energy and REALLY develop renewable. We are the USA for cryin out loud! We are leaders, innovators, why are we so FAR BEHIND?? It is time to be free of the hold of the dirty gas, dirty oil dirty energy people. just THINK with your own head! IMAGINE! If we don't stop, there will be no future, this is a guarantee. Climate change is real and it is accellerating at an alarming pace and it is MOSTLY because of human activity. The moment we realize this and start the action of fixing what we have destroyed, then we will see improvements. Be the change, we have the power, the technologies and the innovation to be leaders of clean energy. The pipeline will only keep us in the dark ages, we cannot afford any more mistakes. IF the pipeline gets approved, we are truly fracked. /Users/Shared/iPhoto Library/Originals/2013/Roll 1089/n85re.AuSt.79.jpg

#41 | Posted by reginabee at 2013-02-19 06:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

www.kentucky.com

#42 | Posted by reginabee at 2013-02-19 06:15 PM | Reply | Flag:

"Wonder why Canadians don't want it piped across their country?"

Athabasca is a long way north of the US border. Is the oil going to fly as far as Montana?

#43 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-02-19 07:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

McKibben the theologian ftw.

#44 | Posted by Tor at 2013-02-19 07:20 PM | Reply | Flag:

Building the pipeline is the wrong thing to do.

It is not a jobs vs the environment issue. We could create many more jobs in clean energy and more efficient infrastructure than what will be created by the pipeline.

Leave that crap in the ground.

#45 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-19 08:19 PM | Reply | Flag:

35,000 Rally Against Pipeline in D.C

or according to Fox News

35 Rally Against 553,000 pipeline jobs

#46 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-02-19 08:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

Yeah why would America want good jobs? We don't need no stinkin jobs!

#47 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-20 07:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

Why bother when we can get those $9 an hour jobs BHO promised at government industrial hubs!!!

#48 | Posted by DavetheWave at 2013-02-20 08:00 AM | Reply | Flag:

" I'm all for clean air, water etc., but I don't think the austere measures our little enviro wacko friends wanna do to destroy our economy are a viable solution."

I remember when idiots like you were saying things like that before we had the EPA. I remember when breathing in LA was close to the equivalent of smoking a pack of cigarettes a day. Fools like you should do the world a favor and just keep quiet. You don't know what you're talking about. Completely clueless.

#49 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-20 08:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

"Why bother when we can get those $9 an hour jobs BHO promised at government industrial hubs!!!"

But Republicans don't want them to even pay $9.00 per hour.

#50 | Posted by danni at 2013-02-20 08:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

Re #41 - If you think a few solar cells and wind farms will power the base electrical load that are country requires, then you are the one with your head in the sand.

No renewable energy source currently available or combination there of will do the job. The only true way to get lessen our dependence on fossil fuels is to invest, and invest heavily, into more exotic forms of energy conversion. Particularly on algae based bio-fuels, nuclear fission and fusion, space based solar, or anti-matter.

Everything else like solar and wind, hydro-electric are great for local needs, but can never power our society on the whole.

Unfortunately, our k-12 education system is so backwards, it might take up to 50 years of dedicated effort to produce the scientists and engineers we so desperately need to find solutions to our energy conversion problem.

#51 | Posted by danv at 2013-02-20 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's not as if it were a Million Man March or something.

#52 | Posted by MSgt at 2013-02-20 01:55 PM | Reply | Flag: