Home› A Moving Train

Encircling the White House

brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
edited October 2011 in A Moving Train
Here's an opportunity to encourage the Obama administration to act to slow global warming. If you're like me and can't make it to D.C. next month, you can do as I did and sign up and help 350.org- there will be lots of opportunities to help.

http://www.350.org/en/about/blogs/encir ... hite-house

"Dear friends --
When we started our campaign to stop the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, we knew the odds were long.
We knew that oil companies had a stranglehold on the political process, that the other side had more lobbyists and money than we could ever dream of. We knew that most analysts and pundits considered the approval of the pipeline to be a foregone conclusion. In short, we knew that we might well lose this fight -- and we knew that we had to fight it anyway.
The campaign to stop the tar sands pipeline is now coming down to the wire -- President Obama has said that he will make a decision on the pipeline before the year is out. So we're planning something audacious on November 6th, exactly one year before the election. On that autumn day, thousands of people will converge on Washington DC to try something completely new.
Bill McKibben recorded a two-minute video to explain the gameplan:

Here's the gist of Bill's video: in this campaign we've tried civil disobedience, we've tried petitions, and we've tried to voice our opinions at State Department hearings. Those efforts are adding up, and we're starting to break through to President Obama. But to win, we need to try something a bit different and take our actions to a new level.
So, on November 6th, we're gathering a massive crowd of people to completely circle the White House. This action will be completely legal, we're not planning on anyone getting arrested, but it will be just as powerful as the sit-in that happened this August. As we encircle the White House, we'll be carrying signs with quotes from President Obama himself, words like, "We must be the generation that ends the tyranny of oil." It will be a powerful demonstration and a symbol of hope, as well as a strong reminder that the White House belongs to the people, not Big Oil.
Can you join us in DC on November 6 to take a bold stand against the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline?
Count me in -- I can join in DC on November 6th!
I can't make it to DC, but I'll help support it however I can.
Last week I reported on my experiences at #OccupyWallStreet in New York City, which is growing in both size and scope as occupations spring up around the country and now around the world. However these occupations turn out, they have taught us all the power of being bold, trying new things, and putting ourselves on the line to protect our future.
That's what we'll be doing in Washington DC on November 6th -- and we'll need all the help we can get to make it happen.
Onwards,
Phil Aroneanu for the 350.org Team
P.S. Even if you can't make it to DC, maybe you can get a few friends to join the circle? Invite them along with just a couple clicks on Facebook and Twitter."
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

"Try to not spook the horse."
-Neil Young













Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    yes
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
    BinauralJam wrote:
    yes

    Thank you BinauralJam!!

    (Get's kinda lonely around here sometimes, don't it? :lol: )
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • BinauralJamBinauralJam Posts: 14,158
    brianlux wrote:
    BinauralJam wrote:
    yes

    Thank you BinauralJam!!

    (Get's kinda lonely around here sometimes, don't it? :lol: )


    Gotta keep tryin
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,156
    In regards to the pipeline, if it's stopped, will the oil companies abandon the oil? Or will they continue to use less efficient ways to transport the oil that end up burning more fossil fuels as result?
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,432
    Jason P wrote:
    In regards to the pipeline, if it's stopped, will the oil companies abandon the oil? Or will they continue to use less efficient ways to transport the oil that end up burning more fossil fuels as result?

    Not to avoid your question, but the bigger point is that the world is finding it more and more difficult to extract oil and the extraction processes and transportation of that oil is becoming are more and more dangerous to our health and the environment. The continued dependence of fossil fuels is more and more destructive to our health and the environment. This pipeline carries with it many risks. If you've read the information provided by 350.org at the link I've listed you'll know what I mean. It's all there on the web site.

    We may never abandon oil and we shouldn't necessarily have to all together but the rate and ways in which we are consuming it are trashing the planet for future generations. 350.org provideds great ways to get involved and make a positive difference and engage in doing things that are much more useful than just griping about how messed up everything is.
    "Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!"
    -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"

    "Try to not spook the horse."
    -Neil Young













  • dignindignin Posts: 9,338
    Jason P wrote:
    In regards to the pipeline, if it's stopped, will the oil companies abandon the oil? Or will they continue to use less efficient ways to transport the oil that end up burning more fossil fuels as result?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/opini ... mbers.html

    The oil will still be pulled from the ground. (I'm from Alberta, home of the tar sands) It's a bit of a different debate up here. There are alot of proponents of the oilsands here in Alberta and Canada who do not want to send the raw bitumen down south for refining for pure economical reasons. They would like it to be refined here for the jobs instead of sending them south. But still our Federal Gov and Provincial Gov are fully onboard, we will just find a different customer (China). This sucks but money talks up here, as im sure it will down there where it will most surely be approved by Obama. There is no way he would give up those high paying jobs with an election coming so soon and so many Americans out of work. Environment will lose again.
  • Jason PJason P Posts: 19,156
    dignin wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    In regards to the pipeline, if it's stopped, will the oil companies abandon the oil? Or will they continue to use less efficient ways to transport the oil that end up burning more fossil fuels as result?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/opini ... mbers.html

    The oil will still be pulled from the ground. (I'm from Alberta, home of the tar sands) It's a bit of a different debate up here. There are alot of proponents of the oilsands here in Alberta and Canada who do not want to send the raw bitumen down south for refining for pure economical reasons. They would like it to be refined here for the jobs instead of sending them south. But still our Federal Gov and Provincial Gov are fully onboard, we will just find a different customer (China). This sucks but money talks up here, as im sure it will down there where it will most surely be approved by Obama. There is no way he would give up those high paying jobs with an election coming so soon and so many Americans out of work. Environment will lose again.
    Has there been talks of building infrastructure locally to refine the sands? I was thru Edmonton once, and half the city seemed to be a refinery. I'm surprised Canadian officials are letting it go out of the country, but as you said, money talks (and apparently, unrefined oil tar sands walk)
    Be Excellent To Each Other
    Party On, Dudes!
  • dignindignin Posts: 9,338
    Jason P wrote:
    dignin wrote:
    Jason P wrote:
    In regards to the pipeline, if it's stopped, will the oil companies abandon the oil? Or will they continue to use less efficient ways to transport the oil that end up burning more fossil fuels as result?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/22/opini ... mbers.html

    The oil will still be pulled from the ground. (I'm from Alberta, home of the tar sands) It's a bit of a different debate up here. There are alot of proponents of the oilsands here in Alberta and Canada who do not want to send the raw bitumen down south for refining for pure economical reasons. They would like it to be refined here for the jobs instead of sending them south. But still our Federal Gov and Provincial Gov are fully onboard, we will just find a different customer (China). This sucks but money talks up here, as im sure it will down there where it will most surely be approved by Obama. There is no way he would give up those high paying jobs with an election coming so soon and so many Americans out of work. Environment will lose again.
    Has there been talks of building infrastructure locally to refine the sands? I was thru Edmonton once, and half the city seemed to be a refinery. I'm surprised Canadian officials are letting it go out of the country, but as you said, money talks (and apparently, unrefined oil tar sands walk)

    Thats the debate ( not enough if you ask me), why are we sending our oil down south when we could be building more infastructure here and keeping the jobs here? But our government is so deeply in bed with big oil that this is unlikely to happen.
    Environmently this makes no sence and to us this makes no economical sence.
Sign In or Register to comment.