75,000 Commit to Civil Disobedience if Obama Cuts Deal on KXL

[bananas]

Source: Common Dreams

Leading green groups warn president against deal-making with Canadians on tar sands pipeline.

Amid rumors that the Obama administration might try to cut an emissions deal with Canada in order to justify approval of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, leaders from 25 US environmental groups—backed by millions of members and at least 75,000 individuals willing to engage in civil disobedience—warned the president on Tuesday that such a deal would be considered nothing less than a bitter betrayal.

In a tersely-worded letter signed by 350.org, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, NRDC, Sierra Club, and twenty other well-known green groups, the signers welcomed the idea of Canada finding new ways to reduce its growing rate of carbon pollution, but were direct in saying that making promises of future reductions the basis of a deal on Keystone would ignite a serious backlash.

"On behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide," reads the letter, "we oppose any deal-making in return for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Our rationale is simple. Building Keystone XL will expand production in the tar sands, and that reality is not compatible with serious efforts to battle climate change."

In an interview with the Washington Post, president of the League of Conservation Voters Gene Karpinski—whose group is not often associated with the more activist-oriented groups like Greenpeace or Rainforest Action Network—said that his organization's members are among the tens of thousands who have expressed their willingness to engage in civil disobedience if Obama approves the pipeline.

"The intensity out there has not diminished one bit," he said. "If anything, the willingness of people to go to jail over this is expanding."

<snip>

Read more: http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/09/24-8

[bananas]

1. From January: North American First Nations sign treaty promising resistance to tar sands, pipelines

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101654143

[bananas]

4. The text of the treaty:

http://www.protectthesacred.org/international_treaty

Signed on January 25th 2013

International Treaty to Protect the Sacred from Tar Sands Projects

The representatives from sovereign Indigenous Nations, tribes, and governments, participating in the Gathering to Protect the Sacred on January 23 – 25, 2013, on the 150 year anniversary of the Treaty Between the Pawnee and Yankton Sioux, have gathered on the Ihanktonwan homelands, and have resolved by our free, prior, and informed consent to enter into a treaty to be forever respected and protected. We agreed upon the following articles:

Article I

The undersigned Indigenous Peoples have inhabited and governed our respective territories according to our laws and traditions since time immemorial.

Article II

As sovereign nations, we have entered into bi-lateral and multi-lateral agreements with other nations including the Treaty Between the Pawnee and Yankton Sioux, Mother Earth Accord, the Spiritual Leaders Declaration, the Agreement to Unite to use 16 Guiding Principles, and the Black Hills Sioux Nation Treaty Council Declaration, and all the inter-tribal treaties in the Western hemisphere, among others, which promise peace, friendship, and mutual opposition to tar sands projects and energy development that threaten the lands, the waters, the air, our sacred sites, and our ways of life, and acknowledge other Indigenous Peoples such as the Yinka Dene, the People of the Earth’ who have exercised their lawful authority to ban tar sands projects from their territories through Indigenous legal instruments such as the Save the Fraser Declaration and the Coastal First Nations Declaration.

Article III

We act with inherent, lawful, and sovereign authority over our lands, waters, and air, as recognized by Article 32 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which provides:

States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free and informed consent prior to the approval of any project affecting their lands or territories and other resources, particularly in connection with the development, utilization or exploitation of mineral, water or other resources.

Article IV

We mutually agree that tar sands projects present unacceptable risks to the soil, the waters, the air, sacred sites, and our ways of life including:

- The destruction of rivers, lakes, boreal forests, homelands and health of the Cree, Dene, and Métis peoples in the Northern Alberta tar sands region and downstream Dene communities of Northwest Territories

- The threat of pipeline and tanker oil spills into major river systems, aquifers and water bodies such as the Salish Sea, the North Pacific coast, and the Ogallala Aquifer.

- The negative cumulative health and ecological impacts of tar sands projects on Indigenous Communities.

- The irreparable harm to irreplaceable cultural resources, burial grounds, sacred and historic places, natural resources, and environmental resources of the central plains region which is the aboriginal homelands of many Indigenous Nations.

- Greenhouse gas pollution that could lock the planet onto a path of catastrophic climate change.

Article V

We affirm that our laws define our solemn duty and responsibility to our ancestors, to ourselves, and to future generations, to protect the lands and waters of our homelands and we agree to mutually and collectively oppose tar sands projects which would impact our territories, including but not limited to the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline, the Enbridge Northern Gateway, Enbridge lines nine (9) and sixty-seven (67), or the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain pipeline and tanker projects.

Article VI

We agree to mutually and collectively, as sovereign nations, call upon the Canadian and United States governments to respect our decision to reject tar sands projects that impact our sacred sites and homelands; to call upon the Canadian and United States governments to immediately halt and deny approval for pending tar sands projects because they threaten the soil, water, air, sacred sites, and our ways of life; and, confirm that any such approval would violate our ancestral laws, rights and responsibilities.

Article VII

We agree to the mutual, collective, and lawful enforcement of our responsibilities to protect our lands, waters, and air by all means necessary, and if called on to do so, we will exercise our peace and friendship by lawfully defending one another’s lands, waters, air, and sacred sites from the threat of tar sands projects, provided that each signatory Indigenous Nation reserves and does not cede their rights to act independently as the tribal governments see fit to protect their respective tribal interests, further provided that each signatory Indigenous Nation reserves its inherent sovereign right to take whatever governmental action and strategy that its governing body sees fit to best protect and advance tribal interests affected by the pipeline project consistent with the agreements made herein and subject to the laws and available resources of each respective nation.

This Treaty of mutual defense and support is made on the occasion of the 150 year anniversary of the Treaty Between the Pawnee and Yankton Sioux concluded between the Pawnee Nation and the Ihanktonwan Oyate/Yankton Sioux Tribe on January 23rd, 1863, and the parties thereto hereby commemorate the signing of that historic treaty that has endured without violation for 150 years.

This Treaty goes into effect once ratified by the governing bodies of the signatory nations.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned dually authorized representatives, after having deposited their full powers found to be in due and proper form, sign this treaty on behalf of their respective governments, on the date appearing opposite their signatures.


PLEDGE OF SUPPORT to the
INTERNATIONAL TREATY TO PROTECT THE SACRED
FROM TAR SANDS PROJECTS

January 2013

We the undersigned citizens, levels of government, businesses, unions and non-governmental organizations hereby recognize and commit ourselves to upholding the January 2013 International Treaty to Protect the Sacred from Tar Sands Projects:

[bananas]

2. The full letter to Obama, including the twenty-five listed signatories:

September 24, 2013
President Barack Obama
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, DC 20500

President Obama:

We are pleased to hear reports that Canadian officials may be considering new policies to mitigate global warming pollution from the oil and gas sectors. Increased regulation of these sectors is long overdue in both Canada and the U.S. in order to protect our communities and climate.

However, on behalf of our millions of members and supporters nationwide, we oppose any deal-making in return for the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline. Our rationale is simple. Building Keystone XL will expand production in the tar sands, and that reality is not compatible with serious efforts to battle climate change.

While the tar sands industry makes claims of reducing the intensity of their emissions profile, in fact the absolute carbon pollution from the tar sands is rapidly increasing.

The Harper government previously promised to take action to cut pollution across industry, but never followed through with its 2008 plan. Carbon pollution from the tar sands is now projected to be twice as high in 2020 as envisioned under that plan.

Simple arithmetic shows that the only way to reduce emissions from the tar sands is to cap expansion where it is now and reduce production over the coming years.

That means rejecting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, a project that would enable the expansion of tar sands production. The tar sands pipeline and the carbon emissions it would generate are not in the national interest.

After yet another year of record temperatures, terrible drought, dangerous wildfires and worsening storms, the solution must be to reduce consumption of fossil fuels, not to double down on our dependence on the highest carbon fuels.

Signed,
Anna Galland, Executive Director, MoveOn.org Civic Action
Carroll Muffett, President & CEO, Center for International Environmental Law
Catherine Thomasson, MD, Executive Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility
Cindy Shogan, Executive Director, Alaska Wilderness League
Dan Apfel, Executive Director, Responsible Endowments Coalition
Daniel Souweine, Director, CEL Climate Lab
Drew Hudson, Executive Director, Environmental Action
Erich Pica, Executive Director, Friends of the Earth US
Frances Beinecke, President, Natural Resources Defense Council
Gene Karpinski, President, League of Conservation Voters
Jane Kleeb, Executive Director, Bold Nebraska
Joe Uehlein, Executive Director, Labor Network for Sustainability
John Sellers, Executive Director, The Other 98%
Kieran Suckling, Executive Director, Center for Biological Diversity
Rev. Lennox Yearwood, Executive Director, Hip Hop Caucus
Lindsey Allen, Executive Director, Rainforest Action Network
Maura Cowley, Executive Director, Energy Action Coalition
May Boeve, Executive Director, 350.org
Michael Hall Kieschnick, CEO CREDO
Phaedra Ellis-Lamkins, Executive Director, Green For All
Phil Radford, Executive Director, Greenpeace
Robert Weissman, President, Public Citizen
Sarah Shanley Hope, Executive Director, Alliance for Climate Education
Stephen Kretzmann, Executive Director, Oil Change International
Tom B.K. Goldtooth, Executive Director, Indigenous Environmental Network

[bananas]

3. And the separate letter from Sierra Club president Michael Brune to President Obama:

September 24, 2013

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500


Dear Mr. President,

I applaud your commitment to fighting climate change. Your administration’s new carbon pollution limits for power plants are a giant step in the right direction and demonstrate that America is ready to move forward on climate. In a year of record-breaking wildfires, floods, and other symptoms of a disrupted climate, your leadership on climate change is exactly what our country needs.

I am concerned that this progress may be undermined by a backdoor bilateral agreement on the proposed Keystone XL tar sands pipeline that would commit us to transporting the dirtiest of fossil fuels for decades to come. Several weeks ago, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper reportedly sent you a letter declaring his willingness to take any climate actions necessary to get a presidential approval of Keystone XL, the $7-billion pipeline that would pump Alberta tar sands to Gulf Coast refineries. While this may seem like a generous offer, Canada simply cannot mitigate the carbon pollution from the pipeline; those emissions would simply be too big. Keystone XL would be directly responsible for the equivalent annual emissions of 51 coal-fired power plants or 37.7 million cars. As a point of comparison, Canada has about 26 million cars on the road.

Along with the pipeline’s direct emissions, the pipeline would be responsible for decades of future emissions from tar sands. The Pembina Institute estimates that Keystone XL would increase tar sands development by 36 percent. The State Department estimates that tar sands oil could be 22 percent more carbon intensive than conventional crude used in the United States. And when the lost carbon sequestration potential of Canada’s 1.2 billion acre boreal forest is also taken into consideration, the climate implications of the pipeline become staggering. The best way to “mitigate” tar sands development is to keep tar sands in the ground.

Promises by Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government to reduce the emissions from Canada’s tar sands should be judged against its failure to live up to its climate commitments to date. The government of Canada has consistently missed its own targets to regulate its oil and gas sector and reduce national emissions, and has a history of weakening environmental regulations at the request of the pipeline industry. The Canadian government eliminated the budget for its National Roundtable on Energy and the Environment after it advocated a carbon tax. In addition, the government of Canada is silencing its scientists, as highlighted in last weekend’s New York Times when the paper noted, “There was trouble of this kind here in the George W. Bush years… But nothing came close to what is being done in Canada.” Even if mitigating carbon pollution from the tar sands pipeline were possible, the Harper administration has shown no signs that it would be willing to do it.

The fact is, tar sands are Canada’s fastest-growing source of carbon pollution. In 2011, the Canadian government’s own peer-reviewed reports forecasted that emissions from tar sands would be triple 2005 levels by 2030. The Canadian government’s promises to offset tar sands carbon pollution are nothing more than a rubber check written against an empty account. That check would bounce, just like all of the Harper government’s other climate promises. The one thing climate scientists and energy experts say we can be sure of, is that the Keystone XL pipeline would deliver a massive new source of carbon pollution.

Mr. President, a national interest determination decision on the Keystone XL pipeline must not be premised on the government of Canada’s mitigation promises. We urge you to reject the pipeline and continue to help build a clean energy future.

Sincerely,

Michael Brune
Executive Director
Sierra Club

[tularetom]

5. I don't get it

This proposed pipeline has everything that teaparty/libertarians hate. A "big government" effort to ram something down the throats of the public, using eminent domain to seize private property, and apparently supported by Obama for chirssakes.

So why are we not seeing the names of a few of their organizations on that letter?

[bananas]

6. Good question. Maybe they'll wake up on this issue and do the right thing. nt

[rhett o rick]

11. Because they are HYPOCRITES. nm

[christx30]

32. Because there are jobs

To be had in building and maintaining the pipeline.

[Arkana]

35. Because oil.

[TheDeputy]

7. Let's line the pockets...

Of Middle Eastern dictators instead! Brilliant idea!

[warrant46]

9. And then they can send my son back over there

To keep the same princes in control of their sheep

[Nihil]

10. I suppose any form of conservation, restraint and reduction in greed is out of the question?

If you think that you will get any cost benefit (or job benefit) from the tar sand industry
you are pathetically naive.

Nice dig at the Saudi dictators that your buddies have been propping up for decades though!

[dgibby]

14. You do realize that none of this oil

is going to stay in the US, right?

[L0oniX]

16. +1 ...it might even be going to China.

[rdharma]

27. Please tell me.... whose pockets will be lined by the KXL pipeline......

....... if it goes through?

I'm not willing to accept the likely environmental "externalities" so some "big oil fat cats" can make a few billion more dollars by supplying the export market with more oil.

[dotymed]

8. Sorry for being off-topic, this is great BTW.

I hope we can get at least this many Americans to commit to civil disobedience over other, very important issues.

Issues like govt. de-funding, cuts to the SNAP program, Progressive taxation of the wealthy, etc..

We desperately need activists who will face barriers that are destroying America.


A nationally known and trusted leader (like Bernie Sanders, Franken, Grayson, Warren, a few others) who are willing to LEAD a Progressive movement to counter the corporatists, is direly needed.

[rhett o rick]

12. Interesting is that the conservative so-called Democrats are keeping mum on this issue.

Has anyone seen them post an opinion on this issue?

[L0oniX]

17. If this goes thru because of Obama it will drive more greens and others away from the Dem party.

[rhett o rick]

18. And more slimy Republicans will start calling themselves Democrats. nm

[L0oniX]

21. Ok ...but we don't want the Irish!

[geek tragedy]

23. Your imaginary conservadems have nothing to say because

you're imagining their existence here.

Other than the one Republican in this thread, pretty much everyone agrees that Keystone is a bad idea, just like everyone agreed that Larry Summers didn't belong at the Fed and that getting involved in Syria's civil war was a bad idea.

[Cryptoad]

13. "My way, or the Highway!"

ummmmmm,,,,, now where have I heard that before????

[bvar22]

15. FDR said it a lot,

...especially to the Bankers and 1%.
So did Harry Truman and LBJ.

"Johnson was the catalyst, the cajoler in chief. History records him as the nation's greatest legislative politician. In a great piece on the Daily Beast website, LBJ aide Tom Johnson, writes about how his old boss would have gotten a health care reform bill through the current congress. It's worth reading to understand the full impact of the "Johnson treatment" and how effective LBJ could be in winning votes for his legislation."

http://thejohnsonpost.blogspot.com/2009/08/johnson-treatment.html

When it comes to the Keystone Pipeline,
NAFTA on Steroids (TPP & TTIP),
or more elective WARS in the MIddle East,
I pray we hear more
"We shall not be moved."


You will know them by their works.

[Cryptoad]

19. I guess you have no cite for that statement either,,,,,nt

All those Great Democrats knew how to govern,,, they knew how to compromise
too bad you can not rewrite history,,,,,, but,,,hell

Just make it up as you go along?



"Better to be criticized by a wise person
than to be praised by a fool."

[bvar22]

29. I'm not surprised you are unfamiliar with any of the quotes where FDR...

..defied the Bankers and 1%.
If you spend some time studying FDR and the New Deal, you will find plenty of My Way of the Highway quotes,
all by yourself without my help.
Think how EMPOWERING that will feel for you!

As for Harry Truman,
this is a wonderful My way or the Highway citation,
and one of my favorites:

[font size=3]
"I've seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn't believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don't want a phony Democrat. If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign."
---President Harry Truman

QED:2010[/font]


[font size=3]Leadership! "The Buck Stops HERE!" NO Excuses![/font]

Great man and a good President, Harry Truman.
He kept the faith with the New Deal,
and LBJ advanced the ball with the Great Society.
Neither had any fondness for Republican-Lite DINOs.

If you hang around DU long enough, you might wind up actually learning something about the Democratic Party and traditional Democratic Party Values.
No charge for the History lesson.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]


You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS.[/font]

[Cryptoad]

34. I'll take that as a 'NO"

Let me know if you find any?

[rhett o rick]

20. I assume you favor the pipeline along with the conservatives. Cant tell by your clever wisecracks.

[Cryptoad]

24. Did I say i was in favor of the pipeline, ?

NO,,,,,

I wonder why you feel the need to "put words in my mouth" ?????

I objected to the "my Way or the Highway" attitude on the OP

The Tea Party has already shown us how effective that approach to governing is....

I guess calling for a shutdown of government until demands are met is coming next.

gezzz

btw,,, i am not in favor of the pipeline, but I object to foolish!

[rhett o rick]

25. You didnt actually say but choose to deride the OP. As far as your criticism of the "My Way or

the Highway" comment, I think that was the attitude of our Founders. When your freedoms are being stepped on it's time to show some backbone.

[Cryptoad]

28. You would think if that were the attitude of our founders

they would have expressed it in their writings about governing..... but There is none,,,,,, unless you are calling for a revolution against our government.... is that what you want?

[rhett o rick]

30. I am certainly not in favor of a violent revolution. I am in favor of revolution

similar to that of the Civil Rights movement. I am sick and tired of the 1% via our government slowly choking the middle class to death.

Question is where do you stand?

[The2ndWheel]

22. Tersely-worded letters

Dignified, peaceful civil disobedience.

So when will the ribbon cutting ceremony for the pipeline take place?

[rhett o rick]

26. I think it might be more effective to do it before he approves. Also, we need to know how Ms.

Clinton stands on this issue.

[blkmusclmachine]

31. Is it time to finally dump this fraudulent, corrupt Democratic Party for a brand new one???

[gopiscrap]

33. Excellent