jump to navigation

Clinton’s Big Decision on Tar Sands July 24, 2009

Posted by Morgan in clinton, oilsands.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Secretary Clinton’s pen could prevent a new pipeline that would suck filthy tar-sands into the US. This morning, the Avaaz Action Factory in DC showed the State Department just how terrible the oil sands are, and how much of a climate hero Clinton can be.

During the DC morning rush hour activists with the Avaaz Action Factory headed to the State Department equipped with a kiddie pool of tar sands mixture, and a big banner stating: “Clinton be a Leader. Say No to Tar Sands, Stop Global Warming.” About 1000 State Department employees walked by a battle between Super Climate Clinton and the Tar Sands Monster on their way to work.
Action Factory members constructed a Boreal forest on the sidewalk in front of the State Department. There, the heartless corporate executives plotted to exploit US and Canadian dependence on oil by promoting tar sands extraction. The Tar Sands Monster, encouraged by the executives, awoke and dragged the oil-addicted US and Canada down into the dirty tar sand pit, pulling the rest of the world with them!

The world’s only hope was Super Climate Clinton who faced a big decision: Should she rescue the countries trapped by the Tar Sands Monster? Or should she give in to the sleazy oil executives and approve an oil pipeline that would extend the U.S.’s dependence on dirty fossil fuels for decades to come?

Executives from Shell Oil and the Royal Bank of Canada, the largest financier of oil sands extraction, distracted and mislead Super Climate Clinton, knowing that if she examined the situation she wouldn’t approve. But Clinton heard the loud calls for help from the United States, Canada, and Mother Earth. Once Clinton actually looked and saw the filthy destruction in the Boreal forests, she rescued the trapped countries, beat the dirty Tar Sands monster back and chased away the corporate executives.

Secretary Clinton has the power to stop a major expansion of dirty oil production, but she needs to act quickly. The Obama campaign has promised a transformative switch to a clean energy economy, but his administration’s actions on mountain top removal coal mining and oil sands expansion have yet to live up to his word.

Furthermore, Secretary Clinton just returned from a highly publicized trip to India where the media reported that she ‘clashed’ with the developing nation over an agreement on reducing emissions. Denying this pipeline is a big opportunity for Clinton to come back from this blow and make crucial call to prevent expansion of oil sands extraction.

Clinton hopefully got our message, but she’ll definitely get it if you join us in taking action:

What you can do:
Call the US State Department at (202) 647-4000 and ask for Secretary Clinton’s representative and ask her to turn down the Clipper Pipeline and say no to dirty energy expansion.

Then post to your facebook wall or tweet: I just called Clinton asking her to stop prevent a dirty #oilsands pipeline into the US. (link)

Today’s action is part of a much larger effort involving the Rainforest Action Network, the Sierra Club and many more groups fighting to stop tar sands extraction.

From DirtyOilSands.org:

  • Oil Sands projects are the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution in Canada.
  • Production of oil from tar sands bitumen produces between 3 and 5 times the greenhouse gas pollution of conventional oil production.

There has been a push to get off ‘foreign oil’ and stop sending money to the middle east. Whether you consider Canadian oil to be foreign or not (obviously it is), these discussions miss the point: Oil causes climate change, and we need to stop developing new sources of oil, new infrastructure for oil and instead focus on climate change solutions.

That’s why this pipeline is critical. A major piece of infrastructure will make it that much harder to phase out the use of dirty fossil fuels, which is one of the reasons the backers of this project are pushing so hard to get this through without even a public debate.

Clipper Pipeline

Enbridge wants to build a 1,000-mile pipeline to transport crude oil from the Alberta Oil Sands to Superior, Wisconsin. The 36-inch Alberta Clipper Pipeline would carry up to 450,000 barrels of crude oil a day from Hardisty, Alberta (Canada) to refineries in the United States — primarily in the Midwest.

Graphic: Minnesota Public Radio/Enbridge.

In the United States, the Alberta Clipper Pipeline would extend 326 miles from the U.S.-Canadian border near Neche, North Dakota across northern Minnesota to an Enbridge terminal in Superior, Wisconsin.

For more information on action to stop oil sands, check out DirtyOilSands.org and the Indigenous Environmental Network http://www.ienearth.org/
For more information about the Avaaz Action Factory, check out www.actionfactories.org

By Morgan Goodwin and Heather Kangas, Action Factory DC. Photos by Christine Irvine


1. Becca Rast - July 25, 2009
2. ok - July 25, 2009

pipeline or transport which is better for the environment? I doubt oil consumption is going anywhere, ship it across the sea or pipe it from Canada which is better for the environment? 100 dollar barrel or 50 dollar barrel? you choose, clean energy has been around for how long now? do you really think the government cares about anything but money?

3. Mog-Maar - July 26, 2009

ok: its better to phase out oil production, and allowing this pipeline is the opposite of doing that. Unfortunately we have no other option, unless we want to take huge irresponsible risks in allowing climate change to happen.

4. Passacaglia - July 31, 2009

Better be careful what you wish for. The Texans are going to extract oil from their shale deposits so oil will be squeezed out anywhere it can be. Dirty oil can be made clean just as was soft coal made clean by washing it in huge vats, in the 50s and 60s (that became almost as big an industry as was mining and shipping coal!). Refineries are the instrument of clean oil. And until the world is off the oil-based economic structure, it might as well be "clean" oil.

5. bc0747 - July 31, 2009

The unfortunate problem with activist groups is that they are all to ready to tear down, put a stop to, hinder, and otherwise cause conflict with the status quo; and all without providing reasonable alternatives to their (dire) issues. Lets see some solid alternative suggestions put forward 'THAT ARE ATTAINABLE', affordable for the masses,and sustainable into the future. I urge Secretary Clinton to be accountable to the largest part of her constituency while being cautiously alert to the prognostications of this group. Lets face it, sometimes it is hard to remember, when you are up to your ass in aligators, that your initial task is to drain the swamp. In this case to provide long term sustainable energy alternatives.

Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: