Our Sponsors:

Read more »

Our Members

Many thanks to Weldon Ihrig and Donna Totten some of our many supporters.

ALL MEMBERS »

Want to shut down tar sands pipeline? Occupy Exxon

A pesky little rider on the payroll tax cut extension has placed the Keystone XL pipeline decision back in the spotlight. Now it's up to environmentalists to pressure Obama not to approve the controversial project.

The way to Obama's heart? Through Exxon Mobil.

The way to Obama's heart? Through Exxon Mobil. Future Atlas

Pre-Occupy movement, protestors picketed at the White House against the Keystone XL Pipeline. Now, Paul Loeb recommends environmentalists occupy Exxon.

Pre-Occupy movement, protestors picketed at the White House against the Keystone XL Pipeline. Now, Paul Loeb recommends environmentalists occupy Exxon. Tar Sands Action

It seemed like an afterthought in the payroll tax cut extension fight, a small consolation prize for the Republicans on what should have been the easiest of bi-partisan votes. But the two-month clock is now ticking on whether Obama will approve the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada’s environmentally disastrous tar sands.

If we want him to make the right decision and deny the permit, it’s time to Occupy Exxon: with creative protests at local Exxon/Mobil stations.

Of course we still need to keep pressuring Obama. The bill’s deadline precludes anything close to the kind of comprehensive environmental review that he called for after rallies and civil disobedience at the White House led him to delay approval for a year. But why not also go after the oil companies, whose influence led the Republicans to hold the rest of the unemployment and payroll tax bill hostage to the fast-track requirement.

Exxon/Mobil has long been the dirtiest of the dirty among these companies. This makes them a logical target.

In a week heralding news of melting Arctic methane beds, and a year of record global temperatures and billion-dollar weather-related disasters, demanding Keystone’s approval was a stunning exercise in denial. But unfortunately, that’s the deal that passed.

Our challenge now is to convince Obama to reject the pipeline, but also to make this raw power grab backfire. To turn the national conversation back onto oil company greed. The more successful we are at this, the more political room we create for Obama to block the pipeline and to act more forcefully on climate change in general.

Just as Occupy Wall Street has America talking about predatory banks, Occupying Exxon would get Americans thinking about destructive fossil fuel interests — whether they’re fighting for the pipeline, convincing the Republicans to block proposed cut-backs to their massive tax subsidies, or paying nothing in federal income taxes, as Exxon did as recently as 2009.

Targeting Exxon links an issue most Americans may have barely heard of with a company known as an embodiment of greed. It also links Exxon’s lobbying for the pipeline with their long-time backing of climate change denial. Using strategies, scientists, and PR firms borrowed from the tobacco industry, the  contributed $16 million to groups denying human-caused climate change and spent over $55 million on lobbying between 1998 and 2005, at a time when even BP and Shell were beginning to acknowledge the reality of human-caused climate change.

Exxon has claimed that they’ve now cut this funding, but the company continues to back institutes and support politicians who promote denial.

Why does the pipeline matter? Building the Keystone XL Pipeline guarantees the acceleration of tar sands extraction, the fuel from which contributes as much as three times the greenhouse emissions per energy unit as conventional oil. Given the massive size of these deposits, their full exploitation, says NASA’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen, would create “game over for the planet.” For this reason, twenty of Hansen’s most respected climate scientist peers sent a letter to Obama opposing the pipeline. So did Desmond Tutu, eight other Nobel Peace Prize winners, and every major American environmental group, including the most conservative ones.

Given Obama’s two month decision window, we need to keep pressure on the White House, from calling and writing to public rallies, perhaps even at Obama campaign offices. The chances of Obama again rising to the occasion are far greater if there’s continued public outcry about the pipeline. One powerful way to create this is to tie the proposal and the politicians who’ve backed it to the greed-driven agenda of the oil companies.

I’d suggest we invite the Occupy Movement, environmental groups, and anyone else appalled at our pay-to-play politics to show up at local Exxon/Mobil stations in whatever nonviolent and creative ways they can, whether through picketing, vigils, guerrilla theater, or civil disobedience.  Other oil companies are also involved in the tar sands — like BP, Chevron, Shell, and Conoco — but Exxon remains the most powerful symbol, because of all they’ve done and are continuing to do in promoting blanket climate change denial.


Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!

Comments:

Posted Wed, Jan 4, 12:58 p.m. Inappropriate

The tar sands pipeline and coastal coal ports are both being opposed based on the potential atmospheric toxicity of the product being transported. One should ponder whether focusing on a secondary impact is really the best political approach. The immediate pipeline issue is the threat a leak creates to the underlying regional aquifer system. It seems that should be the primary focus of the opposition's analysis.

After all, as pipeline proponents will surely emphasize, if the southern pipeline is not built the tar sand oil just goes west to Vancouver for shipment to Asia. Stopping the tar sands project altogether isn't going to happen unless the Canadian government has a change of heart. I have no love for Exxon, but it's hard to see how boycotting their retail products ends up changing the vector of Canadian politics. This kind of indirect tactic seems inefficient and smacks of desperation.

woofer

Posted Wed, Jan 4, 1:24 p.m. Inappropriate

Given the massive size of these deposits, their full exploitation, says NASA’s leading climate scientist, James Hansen, would create “game over for the planet.”

And what of this? Too hard to put a sleazy face on?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2073686/Fountains-methane-1-000m-erupt-Arctic-ice--greenhouse-gas-30-times-potent-carbon-dioxide.html

BlueLight

Posted Thu, Jan 5, 5:08 a.m. Inappropriate

Are you aware that most gasoline stations are independently owned by local business people? Even if the sign on the station says Exxon, more likely than not it does not sell gasoline produced by Exxon. Therefore any disruption of their business will result in hardship on the local economy, with no real impact on the oil industry. Plus the lost taxes from the loss of sale of the gas will act to further reduce state services to the public.

What I would suggest is that people who want to benefit the environment just stop using all petroleum derived products and stop using transportation powered by oil.

Herb

Posted Thu, Jan 5, 4:43 p.m. Inappropriate

Ah Blue light you missed the key phrase in that article:
"The melting of the arctic shelf is melting 'permafrost' under the sea, which is releasing methane stored in the seabed as methane gas."

So the global warming which is caused by burning fossil fuels is melting the arctic pack ice, which is allowing methane to escape into the atmosphere.

What part of that don't you get? It's like starting an avalanche, once it gets going no amount of cut backs from driving is going to stop it.

GaryP

Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.

Join Crosscut now!
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Follow Us »