HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Thousands Surround Obama'...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:54 PM

Thousands Surround Obama's White House: 'Stop Keystone XL!"

Source: Common Dreams

Published on Sunday, November 18, 2012 by Common Dreams

Thousands Surround Obama's White House: 'Stop Keystone XL!"

- Common Dreams staff

Thousands of people began a planned march around the White House on Sunday afternoon, calling on the Obama Administration to reject the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline and keep tar sands crude out of the US.

The demonstration, organized by 350.org, the Sierra Club, and other public interest and environmental groups, followed a “Do the Math” climate event at Washington, DC’s historic Warner Theater earlier in the day.

"Do The Math" is a 21-city nationwide tour by 350.org—headlined by 350 co-founder Bill McKibben and author Naomi Klein—aiming to connect the dots between extreme weather, climate change, and the fossil fuel industry. Designed to galvanize the climate justice movement in the wake of the election, the tour is helping to launch a direct assault not only on politicians, but the big oil and gas companies that finance their campaigns and hold enormous political sway in Washington.

“It’s time to start holding the fossil fuel industry accountable for the wholesale damage they’re doing to our planet,” said McKibben just prior to the march on the White House. “If Sandy showed us anything, it’s that the hour is late and the need is urgent–but the fossil fuel industry has terrified our politicians and the result has been two decades of inaction. We need that to change.”


Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/11/18-1

42 replies, 5925 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Thousands Surround Obama's White House: 'Stop Keystone XL!" (Original post)
Judi Lynn Nov 2012 OP
nilram Nov 2012 #1
mimi85 Nov 2012 #2
olddad56 Nov 2012 #20
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #32
lbrtbell Nov 2012 #21
gateley Nov 2012 #26
Summer Hathaway Nov 2012 #29
hughee99 Nov 2012 #3
nolabear Nov 2012 #4
SoapBox Nov 2012 #6
Sekhmets Daughter Nov 2012 #17
polichick Nov 2012 #5
Agony Nov 2012 #7
ReRe Nov 2012 #8
socialist_n_TN Nov 2012 #36
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #9
Overseas Nov 2012 #11
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #13
Kolesar Nov 2012 #19
limpyhobbler Nov 2012 #22
Summer Hathaway Nov 2012 #28
Cal Carpenter Nov 2012 #30
socialist_n_TN Nov 2012 #37
Overseas Nov 2012 #10
naaman fletcher Nov 2012 #31
Overseas Nov 2012 #38
naaman fletcher Nov 2012 #41
stupidicus Nov 2012 #12
Cleita Nov 2012 #14
gateley Nov 2012 #27
naaman fletcher Nov 2012 #33
nmbluesky Nov 2012 #15
bvar22 Nov 2012 #16
DirkGently Nov 2012 #18
Ash_F Nov 2012 #23
flamingdem Nov 2012 #24
Overseas Nov 2012 #25
alcibiades_mystery Nov 2012 #34
flamingdem Nov 2012 #35
NickB79 Nov 2012 #39
Nihil Nov 2012 #42
humanistcafe Nov 2012 #40

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:03 PM

1. k&r

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:05 PM

2. Obama's White House?

Didn't know he was a landlord as well as POTUS.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:08 PM

20. I found that reference odd also. It was never Bush's White House.

But at least protests are allow at Obama's White House, at Bush's White House, protesters would be whisked away to an out of the way, fenced in, designated protest area.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to olddad56 (Reply #20)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:22 AM

32. Not quite true

While that type of thing happened for W's second inauguration and at the RNC convention, there were dozens of other, major protests that marched past and surrounded the WH during bush's reign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #2)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 08:10 PM

21. As long as it's not "Romney's White House"...

I'm a happy camper!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lbrtbell (Reply #21)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:06 AM

26. +1

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mimi85 (Reply #2)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:15 AM

29. It's part of current DU culture

E.G. If the Department of Justice does something a certain contingent here applauds, it will be described simply as the DOJ.

However, if the department does something a certain contingent doesn't like, they label it as "Obama's DOJ."

Ergo, it becomes "Obama's WH" if and when convenient.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:12 PM

3. It seems to me that if they wanted to have more influence on this issue,

and felt it was something President was specifically capable of fixing, they could have had this protest a few weeks ago instead of waiting until after the election.

Now is the time when the politicians don't have to care what anyone thinks, at least for another year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:42 PM

4. Meanwhile, in Thailand with President Obama...

Right planet, wrong half.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:53 PM

6. Exactly.

Oh for heavens sake...he wasn't even in town.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nolabear (Reply #4)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:36 PM

17. Exactly...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 04:50 PM

5. The beginning of holding his feet to the fire...

If he's serious about dealing with climate change, this is low hanging fruit and a good place to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:09 PM

7. unconventional gas development that President Obama supports is likely just as dangerous

SoMAS - Fracking, Shale Gas, and America's Energy Future
Robert W. Howarth, Professor of Ecology & Environmental Biology from Cornell University
speaks at SoMAS on Friday, November 9, 2012.

"The Sustainable Energy Dilemma"
70 minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=X9kpXr7IZM0

natural gas may be dirtier than coal

Howarths paper and website
"The past few years have seen major changes both in our understanding of the importance of methane as a driver of global climate change and in the importance of natural gas systems as a source of atmospheric methane. Here, we summarize the current state of knowledge, relying on peer-reviewed literature.
Methane is the second largest contributor to human-caused global warming after carbon dioxide."

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al.%20--%20National%20Climate%20Assessment.pdf

http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Marcellus.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

8. K&R

Thanks for posting this news from commondreams about the protest. So many people are misinformed about this issue. People think that that oil will be for us in the USA. It's not. All it's doing is traveling through and despoiling our environment on its way to the southern coast, where it will be shipped elsewhere in the world. It reminds me of how GW administration misinformed the American people about Saddam Hussein being responsible for the 9/11 tragedy.

Who will pay for those inland environmental mishaps when they occur? The American people will, with their lives, and their money. Not the Canadian company. Why can't Canadian Co run that pipeline through their own country to the shore... over to BC for example? Because the Canadian government knows there will be a heavy environmental price to pay. And unlike our country, the Canadian government CARES about it's environment, i.e. it's people more than it cares about that buzzard company making a buck on their dime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #8)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:18 PM

36. THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That's why "Drill baby drill!" is such an idiotic slogan. ALL oil extracted or shipped and transported, anywhere in the world, goes on the international market and is sold to the highest bidder. That's capitalism. And you're also correct in that any mishaps that occur will be the cleanup responsibility of the citizens of the individual countries and states where the mishaps happen, NOT the conglomerates that will profit from the transactions.

Welcome to DU BTW.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:20 PM

9. Obama will approve the pipeline because he is a puppet of the oil industry and the big banks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:27 PM

11. We need to protest more and more to counter the great power of the oil industry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #11)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:39 PM

13. Yes.

Our government is incapable of making a rational response to the climate crisis.

We need more people to tune in to this issue.

We should ban oil companies from spreading their lies in TV ads, the same as we ban cigarette companies from TV ads. It is a public health issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #9)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 07:32 PM

19. Are you feeling all right?

I'm concerned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kolesar (Reply #19)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:52 PM

22. you think he'll block the pipeline?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:10 AM

28. And whose puppet are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to limpyhobbler (Reply #9)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:17 AM

30. To be fair, it's the economic system that allows

this moreso than a particular president. There is no democracy in capitalism, and the political system will always be aligned with private economic interests unless/until capitalism falls. These are losing battles for the activists. They may delay or slightly alter the project but in the end it will happen.

Without economic democracy, there is no political democracy. For now, we the people aren't of consequence to the ruling class, except as wage slaves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cal Carpenter (Reply #30)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 05:20 PM

37. Yes. To the crux of the matter.........

Without economic democracy we aren't of any consequence to the ruling class. And there's only one way to gain economic democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:26 PM

10. So glad they are speaking out as we were all asked to do. Opposing dangerous oil for export.

Glad they are speaking out for the millions of us who know global warming is accelerating and the climatic changes are far more severe than was anticipated a decade ago.

Letting our president know we want our billions in subsidies to go to the alternative energy sources and conservation technologies after decades in which billions have been poured into wars to secure fossil fuels and billions in subsidies that have not been used to improve clean up technologies as we saw in BP. Nor have the billions been poured into finding less toxic ways to get oil out of shale. That process should not be approved until they can find less toxic ways to extract the oil.


Millions of us know we need to oppose dangerous schemes like the XL Pipeline shipping dangerous tar sands oil for export across the USA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #10)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:22 AM

31. What is dangerous about tar sands oil?

 

More so than regular oil?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to naaman fletcher (Reply #31)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 08:59 AM

38. Oil sands projects are the fastest source of greenhouse gas production in Canada

Oil sands extraction pollutes water
Oil sands extraction uses significant amounts of water (2-4.5 barrels per barrel of oil produced), which ends up in toxic tailings lagoons that have never been successfully reclaimed. An analysis using industry data estimated that these lagoons already leak over a billion gallons of contaminated water into the environment each year.



More details http://dirtyoilsands.org/thedirt/article/quick_facts

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Overseas (Reply #38)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 02:14 PM

41. ok fine

 

I thought you meant there was something about the oil itself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:33 PM

12. as they damn well should

it's far more important than the fiscal curb that seems to have most of his attention

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:50 PM

14. I suddenly seem to have a question about this. Maybe some DUer knows the

answer. If the oil is being transported to a refinery in Texas and then to be shipped around the world, why can't they just ship it in trucks like they do gasoline, or even on rail cars. Do we really have to have something as destructive as a pipeline? Personally, I would like to see the whole thing stopped, but if they can prevail to transport their goo across our states, why can't it be with existing transport methods? For that matter, why can't Canada just ship it to one of their ports and put it on tankards to wherever it's going? Or, do I have the whole concept of this wrong?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:09 AM

27. Good question. I'm guessing the answer, as always, is money. Somehow this will

net them higher profits.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cleita (Reply #14)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 09:23 AM

33. It's just economics

 

It's very cheap (and safer) to put it in a pipeline. You put it in the pipeline, and by managing the pressure it goes down the pipe on its own accord. It costs fuel and manpower and equipment to truck it, and its the same with rail (although rail is less costly than trucks)

If people are worried about the environment, just wait until there are 10,000 trucks on the road moving this stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:04 PM

15. But Obama isn't at home

Obama is in another country

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:10 PM

16. I STAND with these protestors in spirit.

Unfortunately, the election is over,
and we no longer have a voice that those in power must pretend to hear.


Obama Asserts HE is "The Decider" on the Keystone Pipeline
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x809952


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 06:40 PM

18. Good (re)start to pushing on this.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 10:55 PM

23. Even my Repub friend from Nebraska is against the pipeline. Reccing this

This is an issue for Dems to campaign on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 11:22 PM

24. This feels kind of like a last hope tour, we need to support it

I love both McKibben and Klein!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to flamingdem (Reply #24)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 02:05 AM

25. K&R. I do too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:01 AM

34. Sometimes harder to tell who is angrier at Obama's reelection: right wing kooks, or

Common Dreams type pseudo-progressives.

In any case, we know both groups spent in ordinate amounts of time predicting that Obama would be a "one-term" president, so it's likely the same weird depression infecting both: when your "certain" political judgment smashes into the wall of reality.

Temper tantrums all around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #34)

Mon Nov 19, 2012, 11:50 AM

35. Can you elaborate?

Was it Klein and McKibben doing that or others? I don't know that much about the organization and would like to know more. I get that Obama is going to have to use up a lot of political capital with unions to nix the pipeline. In this case though I'm not sure we get a second chance to get it right, and other pathways to jobs and energy are the way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #34)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:14 PM

39. Wait, are you saying the protestors are throwing temper tantrums?

WTF?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #39)

Thu Nov 22, 2012, 08:37 AM

42. Didn't you know?

Anyone who isn't in lock-step with the cheerleaders for the pro-coal, pro-gas, pro-oil president
is a "Common Dreams type pseudo-progressive" ...


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Wed Nov 21, 2012, 01:27 PM

40. A chance for the president to ...

... get back to his roots. Time for Barack to act like an environmentalist - a steward of the earth. One suspects that this is in his make up. Let us hope so - for the sake of mother earth.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread