RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

McKibben writes: "It seems just a tad early to be thinking about the 2016 election - unless, apparently, you're Hillary Clinton."

McKibben: 'Hillary isn't winning many friends among environmentalists with her support of the Keystone Pipeline.' (photo: Brendan Smialowski/AP)
McKibben: 'Hillary isn't winning many friends among environmentalists with her support of the Keystone Pipeline.' (photo: Brendan Smialowski/AP)


Clinton's Environmental (XL Pipeline) Failure

By Bill McKibben, The Daily Beast

09 December 12

 

Hillary isn't winning many friends among environmentalists with her support of the Keystone Pipeline--and it will be the purest test of whether Obama's second term will be greener than his first.

t seems just a tad early to be thinking about the 2016 election-unless, apparently, you're Hillary Clinton. According to Maureen Dowd in The New York Times, she sent handwritten notes to losing congressional candidates and invited big Irish-American donors on a trip to Dublin this week. "She has enormous strength in the Irish-American community because of the Clintons' massive role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland," explained the publisher of an Irish-American newspaper.

Which, to tell you the truth, wouldn't worry me very much if I was one of Clinton's possible contenders. True, she's sewing up the all-important Danny Boy vote-but it's possible she's about to dump hot water on another sector of the electorate.

That would be the ones who worry about climate change. Young people, they're called. Also people who have their houses flooded or their farms baked. They're more of them all the time, somehow-in fact, pollsters find 68 percent of Americans "very worried" about global warming, up from 46 percent in 2009. That's what happens when the warmest year in American history ends with the widest storm (Sandy) ever measured.

But the rumor is that Clinton's State Department is nonetheless about to recommend approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline, which the top climate scientists in the nation have unanimously called a terrible idea. As far as I know, though, Clinton's subordinates haven't reached out to ask them why. For more than a year now, it's been one of Washington's worst-kept secrets that Clinton wants the pipeline approved. And why not? Its builder, TransCanada, hired her old deputy campaign manager as its chief lobbyist and gave lobbying contracts to several of her big bundlers. Leaked emails show embassy officials rooting on the project; it's classic D.C. insiderism. (And, weirdly, her rumored successor is just as involved-Susan Rice has millions in stock in TransCanada and other Canadian energy companies.)

And in one sense it doesn't make much difference. Everyone in the capital's also known that the Keystone decision, in the end, will come down to President Obama, who will weigh State's findings and then rule whether the pipeline is in the national interest. When that happens, we'll find out if he's a more modern politician than Hillary, or if he's still fighting yesterday's wars too.

The first term of his presidency was, in essence, devoted to dealing with the remaining problems of the 20th century. He crossed one off the list-America finally joined the rest of the industrialized world in offering most all its citizens some kind of health care. And he tackled another, with his endless pursuit of that will-o'-the-wisp "energy independence."

"Under my administration," he boasted last March, "America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years. That's important to know. Over the last three years, I've directed my administration to open up millions of acres for gas and oil exploration across 23 different states. We're opening up more than 75 percent of our potential oil resources offshore. We've quadrupled the number of operating rigs to a record high. We've added enough new oil and gas pipeline to encircle the earth and then some."

And he's right-he's shown no interest in leaving any carbon anywhere in the ground. Hey, he watched the Arctic melt at a record pace and then he let Shell head up to the open water and drill.

So Keystone will test whether the second term will be more of the same. In his case, of course, he never has to worry about voters, or donors, again. But one guesses that 50 years from now the only item on his legacy list anyone will still care about is what he did on global warming. Will he nibble around the edges, or will he actually take on the oil companies? Keystone will tell the tale.

As for Clinton, she doubtless figures four years is a long time, and-even though it's the one environmental issue in decades that's brought big crowds of environmentalists into the streets-that voters will forget her stance on the pipeline. Maybe she's right. But she didn't get anything else accomplished on climate either-the Copenhagen conference was the biggest bust on her watch. And given that the planet just keeps getting warmer and weirder, it's possible greens have a memory almost as long as Irishmen.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+41 # universlman 2012-12-09 17:43
The fossil fuel industry is likely including all of the oil to be piped from Canada’s Athabasca Tar Sands and all of the soft coal in the Powder River Basin to justify their boastful claim of "American Energy Independence by 2020." Obama has again chosen our poison for us without sharing his thinking on this important subject. He seems to be waiting for a more painful climate disaster than the $60 billion Hurricane Sandy where over 100 souls were lost before he moves to limit atmospheric carbon. This is the only way to encourage alternatives.
 
 
-74 # Depressionborn 2012-12-09 18:25
After 16 years without warming, future climate talks must focus on preparation for, and adaption to, climate change, not vainly trying to stop it.

Ottawa, Canada, December 9, 2012: “Governments must re-examine climate change science before considering further, more concrete commitments in the United Nations negotiating process,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “In their November 29th open letter to the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, scientists from across the globe explained that the science relied upon by the U.N. is seriously flawed. Mr. Ban must no longer ignore such highly qualified advice.”

Among the statements supported by the now 134 scientist endorsers to the open letter were:

•“there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period…carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9%...Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.”
•“Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear.”
•“The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.”
 
 
+27 # tedrey 2012-12-09 23:35
So you've got 134 "scientists" endorsing this letter.
One single organization, the American Geophysical Union, includes 20,000 actual "climate scientists".
I think you many more signatures before Ban Ki-Moon will take notice.
 
 
+19 # Jude 2012-12-10 02:18
Tom Harris is just an old climate change denier. He used to work for the Heartland Institute on behalf of tobacco/cigaret te companies. Although I’m sure the regressive Conservative government of Canada will be open to hearing his blather, what you are quoting here, Depressionborn, though datelined in the capital city, does not represent any official position and is not a government-back ed statement.
 
 
+26 # Ralph Averill 2012-12-10 04:25
!34 scientists endorsing the letter?! How about the 134,000+ scientists endorsing the notion that man-made warming is occurring?
No statistically significant warming? The melting glaciers and icecaps didn't get the news. But melting icecaps and glaciers aren't evidence of global warming anyway. Right?
 
 
+19 # bingers 2012-12-10 07:52
Really? When about 15 of the hottest years in history have come in the last 16 years and I was walking down the street in Chicago barefoot in T-shirt and shorts on December 6th and we have dandelions blooming in our yard, you want me to think it's not getting warmer? At least your brain must be clean from all the washing.
 
 
+13 # Regina 2012-12-10 13:53
Also consider the fact that at least in the northern hemisphere, migratory birds are arriving sooner than they used to, and seasonal plants are blooming earlier. Nature is warning us and we had better pay attention.
 
 
-11 # Malcolm 2012-12-10 14:17
Don't you like seeing the birds? Or the flowers?
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2012-12-11 21:06
Quoting Regina:
Also consider the fact that at least in the northern hemisphere, migratory birds are arriving sooner than they used to, and seasonal plants are blooming earlier. Nature is warning us and we had better pay attention.


Plus the fact that the pollen seasons are now almost twice as long as they were even 5 years ago.

Yeah. Doubtful about climate change ?
Look out the f*#cking WINDOW !
 
 
+3 # reiverpacific 2012-12-10 10:50
Quoting Depressionborn:
After 16 years without warming, future climate talks must focus on preparation for, and adaption to, climate change, not vainly trying to stop it.

Ottawa, Canada, December 9, 2012: “Governments must re-examine climate change science before considering further, more concrete commitments in the United Nations negotiating process,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), which is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. “In their November 29th open letter to the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, scientists from across the globe explained that the science relied upon by the U.N. is seriously flawed. Mr. Ban must no longer ignore such highly qualified advice.”

Among the statements supported by the now 134 scientist endorsers to the open letter were:

•“there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years. During this period…carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations rose by nearly 9%...Global warming that has not occurred cannot have caused the extreme weather of the past few years.”
•“Whether, when and how atmospheric warming will resume is unknown. The science is unclear.”
•“The hypothesis that our emissions of CO2 have caused, or will cause, dangerous warming is not supported by the evidence.”

You're depressing me in your conformist insouciance.
Lie down and drown.
 
 
0 # Malcolm 2012-12-10 14:16
Bit extreme, dontcha think?
 
 
-6 # Depressionborn 2012-12-10 17:49
OK, but can I have a blanket. They say it is going to get cold

Ps. You remind me of a quote from Thomas Paine: “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”
 
 
+2 # WestWinds 2012-12-11 17:43
It's mid December in Florida and it's usually very cold here so the oranges will ripen. Lately, you need sun screen and I've got my a/c running.
 
 
+3 # Nominae 2012-12-11 21:09
Quoting Depressionborn:
OK, but can I have a blanket. They say it is going to get cold

Ps. You remind me of a quote from Thomas Paine: “To argue with a person who has renounced the use of reason is like administering medicine to the dead.”


You remind me of a quote from Lincoln.
"It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt".
 
 
+12 # Luis Emilio 2012-12-10 06:12
How about the climate change conference? Doesn't the dismal results of this conference show that the president does not care what will happen to his daughters' and grand-children' s generations?
 
 
0 # Joe Bob 2012-12-10 21:50
Politicians, Don't YA LOVE EM ?
 
 
+1 # mbrenman 2012-12-09 23:21
It's pretty insulting to refer to the Irish-American vote as the "Danny Boy" vote.
 
 
+30 # Nominae 2012-12-10 00:36
Quoting mbrenman:
It's pretty insulting to refer to the Irish-American vote as the "Danny Boy" vote.


Really? Because I'm Irish on both sides of my family, and we are not so petty and thin-skinned as to take such meaningless offense.

If the Irish have no sense of humor who is left ? Just the Jewish Comics?

Lighten up. With the Earth on the brink of Global Catastrophe, I don't think most of the Irish are crying into their ale over a sophomoric little joke like this.
 
 
+2 # goodsensecynic 2012-12-11 04:59
What? Another alcoholic Irish stereotype? Call the thought police! I'm so outraged I think I'll have to sing a song ... ;-)

And, please, make mine a Guinness with a fine old Jameson's whiskey chaser!
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2012-12-11 17:44
Especially when the song was written by a Scot.
 
 
+19 # wrodwell 2012-12-10 00:24
I wonder if Hillary Clinton has stock in the XL Pipeline? I wouldn't be surprised if she does because her much-talked about successor Susan Rice does. Must be a Secretary of State kinda thing. Would not such a stock holding seem to contradict President Obama's stated philosophy of lessening our dependence on carbon-based energy? And does Ms. Rice's investment in the XL Pipeline indicate that she knows something we don't about what the President has in mind?
 
 
+2 # WestWinds 2012-12-11 17:46
And yet too many on the Left are lining up to put Hillary war-hawk into the White House in 2016!
 
 
+23 # Rich Austin 2012-12-10 00:25
We must wean ourselves of fossil fuel. Move, seconded and carried, unanimously.

Let’s not, however, put the cart before the horse.

What about the workers now in the coal/oil production chain? What shall become of them? In Northwest Washington opponents of “coal trains” regurgitate whatever hyperbole suits them when agitating whoever will listen to them. (Not once have I heard them voice concern for miners or their families.)

Unemployment damages our social environment!

Before throwing miners and oil riggers under the bus, let’s make sure they have green jobs with comparable wages and benefits the Monday following the Friday they walk out of the mines for the last time.

We must concern ourselves with the physical environment and the social environment, and we must do both in tandem.

I know a couple of self-righteous Boeing workers who oppose “dirty coal trains”. When I remind them that those were not lumps of coal that rained down on innocent Iraqi civilians, but were instead Cruise missiles, they get all defensive. That is the mindset of nimby “I got mine” zealots. They see no contradiction in working for a company that produces weapons of mass destruction. It’s the coal people who are expendable, don’t ya’ know?

Most workers will not be won over to the “green cause” unless the greens first embrace the everyday needs of working class America. It is our job to point out that fact of life.
 
 
+2 # WestWinds 2012-12-11 17:50
Tar Sands will only provide employment for a set few and that will only last for five years at best. The damage that Tar Sands is going to do with that sludge is staggering; not only will it belch billions of tons of soot into the atmosphere, if there is ever a break, the Oglala Aquifer (the largest subterranean clean drinking water that supplies the mid-west) is toast. But hey, the Bush crime family has a ranch in Paraguay that has a huge clean water supply and they can then go into the clean water business, so Tar Sands is only good for doing business and making the rich richer.
 
 
+2 # Nominae 2012-12-11 21:23
@ Rich Austin

When the automobile was introduced to the American market it sucked to be the village blacksmith, farrier, or buggy maker. These folks adapt.

The longer we keep the fossil fuel business alive, the less life we will have on the planet.

We cannot wait until it's a totally cushy and comfortable change-over for all involved, or there will BE no population to be concerned with.

Some form of energy will become dominant. Just as the village blacksmiths went to work in the automobile factories, on into other businesses serving the incoming automobile, so will the workers in the Extraction Industries adapt.

If we don't adapt, we don't evolve.
If our environment is changing and we don't adapt *and* evolve, we die.

Tough law with no known exceptions for roughnecks.
 
 
+8 # PeterAttwood 2012-12-10 01:45
It's a useful exercise to look into just who the International Climate Science Coalition, Tom Harris, Vincent Gray, and the Heartland Institute are. Then the portentous statements of these shills come into perspective. You get to understand why there has been no statistically significant global warming the past 16 years in their eyes even though it keeps getting hotter everywhere all the time and the ice is melting up north as never before.

It's quite evident that the Irish-American and Danny Boy votes are not synonymous. The Irish-American vote is huge, and if Clinton buttoned it up it would be a big deal. It's evident that the Danny Boy vote described here is that subset of the Irish-American vote that thinks Clinton's husband's role in Northern Ireland 15 years ago is a really big deal today. McKibben might be right in disdaining the importance of this voter segment. I suspect that a lot of Irish-Americans that have lately experienced Sandy have had Belfast and Derry driven from their minds.
 
 
0 # goodsensecynic 2012-12-11 05:02
Wasn't Ronald Reagan an Irish American? And didn't he sing "Danny Boy" with that Irish Canadian Brian Mulroney when they started the process that led toward the NAFTA - an early step toward formalized diplomatic globalization?
 
 
+1 # WestWinds 2012-12-11 17:54
I don't believe it was Clinton that brought about any changes in the north of Ireland. When George W. Bush took office he went over there and threatened the IRA with the extinction of all true Irish in the north if they didn't lay down their arms. So, it wasn't Clinton; this is just a myth they want to float to reclaim the Clinton's name so Hillary can run in 2016. Besides, Clinton isn't Bill Clinton's real name; he was adopted by his second father. Bill Clinton is really English, just as Hillary Rodham is.
 
 
+25 # tm7devils 2012-12-10 01:45
"...forget her stance on the plpeline..."... no I won't - and I won't let anyone else forget it either.
That pipeline is the worst thing thought of in the last 50 years...well... except for fracking.
Why is our government hell bent on ruining this country? I mean for a reason other than greed.
 
 
+1 # goodsensecynic 2012-12-11 05:03
Other than greed?

What else is there for these people other than greed?
 
 
-11 # cordleycoit 2012-12-10 05:42
The Clinton have always been carney's grifting though political life Billy the Goat raping and then dispaaging women. And Hill busy picking up the spare change. Look at ther attempted looting of NPR along with Marion Berry. Listen to the dark rumors of planes landing in Arkansas filled with Cocaine. And there are problems with the dead. Zombies like Vince Forster... Watch how she turns friends into accomplices...
 
 
+9 # dick 2012-12-10 06:20
Hillary should quit while she appears to be ahead.
 
 
+19 # bingers 2012-12-10 07:45
If Canada wants to ship oil to China, let them build a refinery where they are getting the extremely corrosive shale and tar sand oil and ship it through Vancouver. We don't need to be destroying our aquifers to help them make a few bucks.
 
 
0 # goodsensecynic 2012-12-10 23:23
The oil heading south will be shipped by the USA to its customers in Latin America. Any oil headed for China will be sent across the Rockies to a Canadian port (though certainly not Vancouver).

As for "them" (i.e., us) making a buck, remember please that this is a project dear to the alleged heart of Stephen Harper and is rejected by all Canadians with the wit to flip a light switch.

And as for building a refinery in Alberta, that would be a nice idea since the primary industry of extraction is much less lucrative than the secondary industry of refining, but that's the way the US wants it and, after all, since Canada is pretty much a US colony, that's the way it will be.
 
 
+9 # RLF 2012-12-10 07:53
Hillary and Bill...the corporatist puppets who pretend to be for the people...they are for their people...the 1%...rich bastards.
 
 
+1 # MarieLavoe 2012-12-10 08:22
I come away from this article and comments totally confused. Yes, I am for Hilary Clinton to run in 2016 and no I am not for the keystone pipeline. End of story without all the blather.
 
 
+5 # WestWinds 2012-12-11 17:56
You shouldn't be for Hillary. Dig deeper and find out her record on key issues. Why would anyone in their correct mind be for Hillary. If you want a woman in the White House, let's get Elizabeth Warren!
 
 
0 # Nominae 2012-12-11 21:41
Quoting MarieLavoe:
I come away from this article and comments totally confused......


What the "confusing" comments are saying is that you cannot have both. If you get Hillary, you get the pipeline.

However, the question may be moot by 2016. The current President is also fully in favor of the Pipeline. Just watch him go now that the election is over.

The Southern leg of the pipeline is already going in, with a foreign company, TransCanada, using eminent domain to take land away from Texas landowners who reuse to lease.

The plan here by the TPP is to build a transportation corridor from Alberta to the SW Coast of Mexico where the Mexican refineries are located. Texas refineries are a smokescreen to make Americans believe some of this money will stay in the U.S.

This corridor is to bisect the U.S roughly along the course of present day I-35, only with many new lanes, and many, many new rail lines, (to include bullet trains) to be added.

Tar Sand oil ships from Alberta to Mexico and then ships from the SW Coast of Mexico to Asia.

Did anyone really think these people were going to ship out of the Texas Gulf area when the Asian markets are a straight shot out of SW Mexico ?

This is also why the TPP is now actively moving against all laws, regulations and environmental protections in the three Nations involved.
 
 
+15 # Charles3000 2012-12-10 08:28
Rich misses a very big point. People will not determine what "climate change" will do. Climate change will determine what people do. Think about what happens when 10's of millions of refugees must move because major population centers in the world are no longer habitable and when arable crop land is reduced to half of what it is now. And it appears all of these things will happen and they will happen a an accelerated rate, faster that any of the predictions have been. Melting of the polar ice is an accelerating event. The ice melts because of warming and the warming rate increases because water absorbs more sun than the ice. Bottom line, live with it and with the civilization that will result from the chaos that it will cause.
 
 
+11 # Linda 2012-12-10 08:36
Its not just global warming that makes Hillary a poor choice in 2016.
Its this whole thing of voting for the same corporate shills to run our country !
We need fresh faces who are not connected to the corporate world if we are ever to turn back the clock on austerity !
We can't keep voting for the same corporate connected people that got us into this mess and expect different results, that is just insanity !
 
 
+8 # DRPJJ 2012-12-10 09:10
Bingers, I'm with you. Why should we destroy our land? Maybe Canada figures that when their hearthland gets warmer then they'll have a bigger share of the world market while we expire for lack of food and water to drink and to use on our crops. Big business wins again at both ends.
 
 
+11 # thoreauvianflake@yahoo.com 2012-12-10 10:16
I see no hope for humankind the way things have been going.It seems like the more destructive records we break weather-wise,th e more the oil and gas companies want to drill, drill, drill. Surely the extraction of,and use,of oil and gas is contributing to the earth's turning into an oven.The damage we create on a daily basis is pitiful.Our government is not there for us,they are servants of the rich...is why they continue to allow the destruction of every last eco-system on this once wonderful planet earth. And what about these mindless people who leave their engines running for sometimes half an hour in front of stores or wherever? Carbon emissions we call that! They should leave their engines running while they're in their garages with the doors closed,then tell us how they fared the next day.The mindlessness of this society is why we have so many problems....for one!
 
 
+8 # bobby t. 2012-12-10 10:21
We all missed our chance at survival when Al Gore lost/won the election. Now we can all stick our heads up our collective butts and kiss them good bye. The Milo Minderbenders of the World reign supreme because money talks and the greedy walk right into the trap.
I agree on the need to assure workers in the oil and coal industry good alturnatives to make a living. People vote in their own self interest, the rest of the World be damned.
It is completely irrational for the World not to do every single thing it can to save the lives of billions of people, if not all the people. The cockroaches like Carl Rove will probably survive....at least he thinks he can.
When you see all the nations of the World storing seeds in Norway's northern caves, you
know we are all in serious trouble.
For me, it is one day at a time. Fear creates anger, and the anger is not enough for the rioting in the streets to begin, because denial is not just a river in Africa....
 
 
-4 # Depressionborn 2012-12-10 11:48
What can we do? It gets cold here and we are almost out of wood.
 
 
-2 # Malcolm 2012-12-10 14:13
Cut more wood, grampa, like i do. It's even a good way to sequester carbon, in most people's opinion.
 
 
0 # Nominae 2012-12-11 21:49
@ bobby t.

Thanks for the reference to my "main man", Milo Minderbinder. For every vapid capitalist who wants to emulate John Gault or any other greed-meister created by Ayn Rand, we need to introduce them to their TRUE likeness. Milo T. Minderbinder.
 
 
+10 # bobby t. 2012-12-10 10:27
Hillary is the biggest policy wonk in Washington. She impresses us all with her bs or her brilliance. I have heard her expound on a topic for twenty minutes or more. Amazing mind for facts. But she is the ice lady. Where is her passion for the state of the environment? She had chances lately. Did anyone hear of her impassioned pleas to save the planet? yeah,me neither....
Wasn't there some stuff in wikileaks where her cables or emails showed her true colors, or Obama's? (Note: Having three daughters, I voted for her in the primaries. Would love to have a great female president.)
 
 
+4 # thoreauvianflake@yahoo.com 2012-12-10 10:39
Hillary...who sided with Bush to illegally invade harmless iraq. She's a puppet like the rest. Al Gore had his chance when he was vice prez,but what did he do to help save our planet those years in power? I cannot think of one thing.The problem,once again,is the rich swine who finance the campaigns with their corrupt money....that is where our leaders focus.Until we get money out of politics there's no hope for us. Which is pretty much saying there's no hope for us.
 
 
+5 # calibadger 2012-12-10 11:06
The issue isn't about the environment, it's about $$$ for oil exporters. Need proof? Just read Valrero's quarterly presentations or this from Oil Change International: http://priceofoil.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/OCIkeystoneXL_2011R.pdf

It's about moving the stuff from CA through the U.S. to those (tax-free) "enterprise zones" in LA and TX for export to Latin America, Europe etc. If CA can get the pipeline to Kitimat, BC they'll have China and the rest of Asia as markets. That's probably to their advantage and certainly the First Nations people who's land would be traversed are being pushed to make such a deal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enbridge_Northern_Gateway_Pipelines

Perhaps we should determine how we'll live w/o the dirty biz of hydrocarbon production before we cease using it. How many here are willing to give up driving, heating & cooking with gas, using electricity etc?

We'd best be getting those solar/wind/geot hermal sources up to speed for baseline power production before we give up on nat gas & tar sands oil. Seems as though many in opposition don't realize that oil and gas extraction is and always has been a dirty business. As long as it was done in the likes of GWB's backyard not many seemed to care.
 
 
-6 # Malcolm 2012-12-10 14:11
continued

Here's a website that shows how there were many storms as big or bigger than Sandy over the last two centuries. And this is not my data, it's published by New York City, before they decided that Sandy was so bloody powerful.

http://www.nyc.gov/html/oem/html/hazards/storms_hurricanehistory.shtml


Early New York Hurricanes
1821 HURRICANE
Reaching the City on September 3, 1821, the storm was one of the only hurricanes believed to have passed directly over parts of modern New York City. The tide rose 13 feet in one hour and inundated wharves, causing the East River to converge into the Hudson River across lower Manhattan as far north as Canal Street. However, few deaths were attributed to the storm because flooding was concentrated in neighborhoods with far fewer homes than exist today.

1893 HURRICANE
More information at the web site.

McKibben knows all this; he just chooses to ignore it, as it's apparently too "Inconvenient"
 
 
-4 # Malcolm 2012-12-10 14:09
I guess McKibben can be forgiven for his outrageously unscientific claims, since he's obviously not a scientist. But really, shouldn't he do some basic research?:

Link/

Bill McKibben’s ‘Tabloid Climatology’ claims about Sandy are easily debunked
Posted on November 9, 2012 by Anthony Watts
McKibben must have set some sort of record for the number of absolute lies in a single paragraph in this LA Times story:

It’s time for fossil fuel companies to do the right thing – latimes.com

Sandy was off-the-charts terrible, a storm that broke every record in the books: for storm surge, for barometric pressure, for sheer size.

The reality of history blows his “off-the-charts terrible” claim right out of the water:

I would personally add, and I hope y'all will believe this (google it; it's true), Sandy was not only a "Superstorm", it was not even a "major hurricane". The damage was costly primarily for one reason; huge numbers of extremely expensive buildings and infrastructure built too damn low.

continued
 
 
-2 # Malcolm 2012-12-10 14:19
HEY! My two comments are reversed! Must be the warming trend in here this morning.
 
 
+2 # RHytonen 2012-12-11 13:49
No Liberal who reads the (Hillary)Clinto n emails to TransCanada, and then the Green party's platform ( www.jillstein.org/issues )could ever vote for Hillary. We'll never be voting Dem again. It Has To Start SOMEWHERE. A vote for what you DON'T want, IS TRULY a "wasted vote."
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN