4 ms·

Pipeline Vandals Are Reinventing Climate Activism

eesmith 8y ago
When Mike Wallace interviewed Martin Luther King, race riots were going on as a minority of African Americans, angry that decades of "reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro" (quoting MLK), advocated violence instead. King strongly advocated for non-violence, and commented that "riot is the language of the unheard". I think I can draw a parallel here, with people who "[f]or years ... [have] done all the things law-abiding climate change activists do: filed petitions, lobbied legislators, hosted speakers, wrote letters, blockaded refineries, and tried to block Shell from moving their drilling rigs into the Arctic." Without effect. The data is clear. We are past the point where there can be any doubt that human generated CO2 emissions are causing ecosystem problems, and it only will get worse unless we drastically reduce our pollutant levels. I expect this 'vandalism of the unheard' will only increase, while the police, and government in general, act as the socialized protection force for large oil companies.
DoreenMichele 8y ago
If this really matters to you, there are things you can do: Walk and bike more. Eat less meat. Drive and fly less. Wherever you live, promote a more walkable city. Get involved and make an effort to track successes, track progress and publicize what's working. Humans are terrible at counting the successes. We tend to focus on everything that's going wrong.
- eesmith 8y ago
  Yes. This Wired piece is tracking the progress and success of a technique for climate activism, based on the necessity defense. And it seems that it has had some success.
GhostVII 8y ago
It seems counterproductive to attack the transportation infrastructure for oil, rather than the users or producers of oil. Would the "pipeline vandals" rather oil be transported by truck or train? I'm pretty sure the numbers show that those transportation methods are more dangerous and damaging than pipelines. I think it is more relevant to try and get the users of oil to stop using it than to get the producers to stop making it. Their will always be some country that is willing to produce oil so long as there is still oil available. Reducing demand is the only way to actually make a significant difference IMO.
- eesmith 8y ago
  They want the oil to not be transported at all. Switching to truck or train would reduce the profitability of using tar sands. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7270 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7270 says (for Bakken oil) "Shipping oil by rail costs an average $10 per barrel to $15 per barrel nationwide, up to three times more expensive than the $5 per barrel it costs to move oil by pipeline". It looks like oil is about $70/barrel, so that adds about 10% to the cost. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012015/what-average-profit-margin-company-oil-gas-drilling-sector.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012015/what-average... says "the average net profit margin for the oil and gas drilling industry is 6.1%." Tar sands oil is already pretty expensive to produce, so I'll guess there already isn't as much profitability. There are enough people in the environmental movement that many approaches can be done at the same time. Plus, as the Wired piece quotes: > This is really the dirtiest oil on earth, in carbon terms,” McKibben says by phone from Vermont. It’s a mixture of bitumen and sand about as gooey as peanut butter. “In many cases you have to burn natural gas to heat the ground to get the stuff to actually flow, even before you burn it in somebody’s car and produce more carbon. If you set out to build a machine to wreck the climate, it would look like the Alberta tar sands.” I think it's easy to compare it to attempts in California to reduce smog. One method is to require strict emissions control. Another is to start a vehicle buy-back program to get "clunkers" off the streets. These can work together.

When Mike Wallace interviewed Martin Luther King, race riots were going on as a minority of African Americans, angry that decades of "reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro" (quoting MLK), advocated violence instead. King strongly advocated for non-violence, and commented that "riot is the language of the unheard". I think I can draw a parallel here, with people who "[f]or years ... [have] done all the things law-abiding climate change activists do: filed petitions, lobbied legislators, hosted speakers, wrote letters, blockaded refineries, and tried to block Shell from moving their drilling rigs into the Arctic." Without effect. The data is clear. We are past the point where there can be any doubt that human generated CO2 emissions are causing ecosystem problems, and it only will get worse unless we drastically reduce our pollutant levels. I expect this 'vandalism of the unheard' will only increase, while the police, and government in general, act as the socialized protection force for large oil companies.

DoreenMichele 8y ago

If this really matters to you, there are things you can do: Walk and bike more. Eat less meat. Drive and fly less. Wherever you live, promote a more walkable city. Get involved and make an effort to track successes, track progress and publicize what's working. Humans are terrible at counting the successes. We tend to focus on everything that's going wrong.

eesmith 8y ago
Yes. This Wired piece is tracking the progress and success of a technique for climate activism, based on the necessity defense. And it seems that it has had some success.

GhostVII 8y ago

It seems counterproductive to attack the transportation infrastructure for oil, rather than the users or producers of oil. Would the "pipeline vandals" rather oil be transported by truck or train? I'm pretty sure the numbers show that those transportation methods are more dangerous and damaging than pipelines. I think it is more relevant to try and get the users of oil to stop using it than to get the producers to stop making it. Their will always be some country that is willing to produce oil so long as there is still oil available. Reducing demand is the only way to actually make a significant difference IMO.

eesmith 8y ago
They want the oil to not be transported at all. Switching to truck or train would reduce the profitability of using tar sands. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7270 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=7270 says (for Bakken oil) "Shipping oil by rail costs an average $10 per barrel to $15 per barrel nationwide, up to three times more expensive than the $5 per barrel it costs to move oil by pipeline". It looks like oil is about $70/barrel, so that adds about 10% to the cost. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012015/what-average-profit-margin-company-oil-gas-drilling-sector.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/012015/what-average... says "the average net profit margin for the oil and gas drilling industry is 6.1%." Tar sands oil is already pretty expensive to produce, so I'll guess there already isn't as much profitability. There are enough people in the environmental movement that many approaches can be done at the same time. Plus, as the Wired piece quotes: > This is really the dirtiest oil on earth, in carbon terms,” McKibben says by phone from Vermont. It’s a mixture of bitumen and sand about as gooey as peanut butter. “In many cases you have to burn natural gas to heat the ground to get the stuff to actually flow, even before you burn it in somebody’s car and produce more carbon. If you set out to build a machine to wreck the climate, it would look like the Alberta tar sands.” I think it's easy to compare it to attempts in California to reduce smog. One method is to require strict emissions control. Another is to start a vehicle buy-back program to get "clunkers" off the streets. These can work together.