State Green Parties unite against the pipelines

Green Party press release via Green Party Watch:

From Green Party US:

p no kxl green partyWASHINGTON, D.C. — The Green Party of the United States is calling for the defeat of proposed tar-sands pipelines when the U.S. Senate votes on the Keystone XL pipeline on Tuesday and opposes alternative plans, including “Energy East,” that would route Canadian oil into the U.S. by pipeline or tanker.

Green Party leaders are encouraging the public to call on Senators to vote nay. If the Senate approves the pipeline, Greens urge President Obama to exercise his veto power.

The Green Parties of Maine, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, and New Jersey have banded together against a proposed fossil-fuel pipeline through the region, calling themselves the Green Alliance to Stop the Pipelines, or GASP (https://www.facebook.com/StopThePipelines).

GASP opposes a plan by the six New England governors to spend $6 billion on the Kinder Morgan gas transmission pipeline, which would bring fracked natural gas to export terminals in Maine and Canada.

Greens criticized Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s decision to hold the vote on Tuesday to allow pro-pipeline Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) to participate. Republicans in the Senate are determined to approve the pipeline, regardless of Democrats’ positions. (See “Green Shadow Cabinet: Alert: Resist the Dems’ KXL Sneak Attack!” http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2014/11/14/green-shadow-cabinet-alert-resist-the-dems-kxl-sneak-attack/)

“Green Parties across the nation are battling plans for massive investments in fossil fuel infrastructure that, if approved, would sabotage efforts to avert the looming catastrophe of climate change,” said Jill Stein, 2012 Green presidential nominee and a member of the Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party.

“Despite his opposition to the current bill, President Obama has consistently advanced the planning for both the Keystone pipeline and the expansion of fracking. Now the betrayal of the Senate Democrats is striking a devastating blow to our hopes for a sane energy policy. They’re pushing Mother Earth over the cliff to gain a temporary political advantage while pleasing the corporate lobbyists. There are no excuses that will justify this,” said Dr. Stein.

The pipelines would cross farms, parks, wetlands, forests, conservation lands, protected wildlife areas, as well as tribal lands. The Rosebud Sioux Tribe (Sicangu Lakota Oyate) has called the U.S. House’s authorization of the Keystone XL pipeline an act of war (http://boldnebraska.org/rosebud-sioux-tribe-house-vote-in-favor-of-keystone-xl-pipeline-an-act-of-war/) and is united with other South Dakota tribes in opposition.

“The proposed New England pipeline has little to do with relieving the region’s alleged need for more natural gas. The main purpose of these pipelines is to carry natural gas to the coast, for export to Asian markets, enriching oil companies while imposing deep environmental and public health risks and worsening the climate crisis,” said Matt Funiciello, Green candidate for Congress in New York (District 21) in the 2014 elections. Outgoing Democratic Rep. William Owens, who will be replaced by Republican Elise Stefanik, voted for the Keystone XL pipeline.

Greens said that development of the tar-sands oil fields was one of several energy-industry projects that must be halted. Others include fracking, mountaintop detonation mining, offshore drilling in U.S. coastal waters, and “clean coal.” The Elk River chemical spill on January 9, 2014, which left 300,000 West Virginians without drinkable or usable water, revealed clean coal to be a public-relations myth.

Recent spills are irrefutable proof that pipeline safety cannot be guaranteed. Recent examples include the July 2011 ExxonMobil pipeline rupture that dumped 63,000 gallons of Canadian crude oil into the Yellowstone River and the March 2013 ExxonMobil spill in Mayflower, Arkansas. Railroad transportation also poses a danger. The derailment of tank cars carrying crude oil in July 2013 caused an explosion that killed 47 people in Lac Megantic, Quebec.

See also:

Patrick Must Halt New Pipeline Tax Says Green-Rainbow Party
Massachusetts Green-Rainbow Party, July 30, 2014
http://www.gp.org/newsroom/press-releases/details/4/722

Green Party urges President Obama, Sec. of State Kerry to reject the tar-sands pipeline
Green Party of the United States, February 5, 2014
http://www.gp.org/newsroom/press-releases/details/4/673

Green Party: Approaching climate change ‘point of no return’ requires defeat of tar sands pipeline and the Trans-Pacific Partnership
Green Party of the United States, October 1, 2013
http://www.gp.org/newsroom/press-releases/details/4/644

The pipeline to hell: How the Keystone XL pipeline can affect climate change
By Barbara Trypaluk, Green Papers, 2013 Summer
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?p=3365

2014 Green Party election results
http://www.gp.org/newsroom/press-releases/details/4/749
http://www.greenpartywatch.org/2014/11/04/green-party-2014-election-results
http://gp.org/election-wrapup

MORE INFORMATION

Green Party of the United States http://www.gp.org
202-319-7191

Green candidate database and campaign information: http://www.gp.org/elections.shtml
News Center http://www.gp.org/newscenter.shtml
Speakers Bureau http://www.gp.org/speakers
Ballot Access Page http://www.gp.org/2012/ballot-access.html
Video Page http://www.gp.org/video/index.php
Green Papers http://www.greenpapers.net/
Discussion Forum https://secure.gpus.org/secure/GreenPartyForum
Google+ http://www.gp.org/google
Twitter http://twitter.com/GreenPartyUS
Livestream Channel http://www.livestream.com/greenpartyus
Facebook page http://www.gp.org/facebook

Green Pages: The official publication of record of the Green Party of the United States
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog

Green Shadow Cabinet http://greenshadowcabinet.us

14 thoughts on “State Green Parties unite against the pipelines

  1. Thomas L. Knapp

    It would be nice to see strong anti-Keystone statements from the Libertarian Parties in states that this big-government, eminent-domain-enabled, corporate welfare boondoggle would run through and from the LNC.

  2. Thomas L. Knapp

    I see a lot of “right-libertarians” supporting Keystone on the premise that it’s a “free-market” thing. But there are hundreds of eminent domain cases pending in the states where TransCanada wants to run the pipe through. I’ve seen articles by some of the victims claiming that TransCanada’s opening of the discussion when approaching property owners is basically “we’re here to buy your property; here’s what we’re going to pay you; if you don’t like the price or don’t want to sell, tough, we’ll get the government to force you to sell.”

    I’ve also seen some very weird claims that Keystone supports “American energy independence” to help get the US off “foreign oil.” In point of fact, the oil Keystone will carry will BE “foreign oil” (believe it or not, Canada is not part of the United States) and most if not all of that oil will be shipped through the pipeline for export, not for use in the US.

    Then there’s the matter of the US government arrogating to itself the authority to “approve” the pipeline running through foreign countries (e.g. the Lakota, Oglala and Rosebud Sioux nations, etc.) in violation of both their sovereignty and applicable treaties.

    From a libertarian perspective, the environmental issues don’t even have to come into play. There are all kinds of libertarian and free-market reasons to oppose Keystone. There aren’t any free-market or libertarian reasons to support it.

  3. paulie Post author

    I see a lot of “right-libertarians” supporting Keystone on the premise that it’s a “free-market” thing. But there are hundreds of eminent domain cases pending in the states where TransCanada wants to run the pipe through. I’ve seen articles by some of the victims claiming that TransCanada’s opening of the discussion when approaching property owners is basically “we’re here to buy your property; here’s what we’re going to pay you; if you don’t like the price or don’t want to sell, tough, we’ll get the government to force you to sell.”

    I’m with you on this. But good luck getting LPHQ and state LPs to decide that they should try to explain that in a press release.

    I’ve also seen some very weird claims that Keystone supports “American energy independence” to help get the US off “foreign oil.” In point of fact, the oil Keystone will carry will BE “foreign oil” (believe it or not, Canada is not part of the United States) and most if not all of that oil will be shipped through the pipeline for export, not for use in the US.

    Some foreigners are more equal than others, I guess. Canadians are not associated with all the bad things that a lot of people think of when they think of the middle east, which is where they think most of “our” oil comes from (it’s actually not). And the for export thing? Too complicated for those folks most likely.

    Then there’s the matter of the US government arrogating to itself the authority to “approve” the pipeline running through foreign countries (e.g. the Lakota, Oglala and Rosebud Sioux nations, etc.) in violation of both their sovereignty and applicable treaties.

    That’s another issue which the LP should be all over, but today’s LP probably wouldn’t touch.

    From a libertarian perspective, the environmental issues don’t even have to come into play. There are all kinds of libertarian and free-market reasons to oppose Keystone. There aren’t any free-market or libertarian reasons to support it.

    I agree. However, I still doubt we can get the LP to say any of this officially on the record. You never know though; you are welcome to try if you think it will get anywhere, or even if you just want to be ornery. Personally I gauge the probability of getting the LP on the correct side of this to be low.

  4. langa

    Personally I gauge the probability of getting the LP on the correct side of this to be low.

    Oh, I don’t know. I’m about as far from an environmentalist as you can get, but I would support an LP statement along the lines of:

    “We oppose any and all use of eminent domain, as well as any attempts at government micro-management of any sector of the economy. If the Keystone project can be completed on a purely free market basis, without any use of eminent domain or any other government assistance, we will be happy to support it. Otherwise, we are opposed to it.”

    As Knapp said, it’s really not even an environmental issue, or at least, it doesn’t have to be.

    Incidentally, when I first glanced at this headline, I read it as: “State Green Parties unite against the pineapples.”

  5. Martin Passoli

    “Incidentally, when I first glanced at this headline, I read it as: “State Green Parties unite against the pineapples.”

    LOL

  6. Thomas L. Knapp

    Paulie,

    At the moment, I am reasonably happy with the direction the LP is moving in, especially with respect to the national committee getting aggressive in communicating libertarian stands on e.g. immigration and foreign policy. So I’m not going to bellyache if Keystone is something LPHQ would rather sit out, as long as they don’t take the WRONG position on it.

    Over on the think tank side of the moment, though, Keystone is definitely an issue that’s useful in separating the real libertarian wheat from the “crony capitalist” chaff.

  7. paulie Post author

    Oh, I don’t know. I’m about as far from an environmentalist as you can get, but I would support an LP statement along the lines of:

    “We oppose any and all use of eminent domain, as well as any attempts at government micro-management of any sector of the economy. If the Keystone project can be completed on a purely free market basis, without any use of eminent domain or any other government assistance, we will be happy to support it. Otherwise, we are opposed to it.”

    Ideally I would also like them to have full legal liability for any pollution they cause.

    As Knapp said, it’s really not even an environmental issue, or at least, it doesn’t have to be.

    I agree. But that’s different from saying that I expect the LP to wade in officially on an issue that even a lot of libertarians don’t agree on, when we don’t even have the bandwidth to go on the record about many, many other issues that don’t have nearly as much disagreement from fellow LP members and self-described libertarians.

    Incidentally, when I first glanced at this headline, I read it as: “State Green Parties unite against the pineapples.”

    The headline is straight copy/paste from GPW and GP.org. If you have a suggestion for a better one I’m open to possibly changing it.

    At the moment, I am reasonably happy with the direction the LP is moving in, especially with respect to the national committee getting aggressive in communicating libertarian stands on e.g. immigration and foreign policy. So I’m not going to bellyache if Keystone is something LPHQ would rather sit out, as long as they don’t take the WRONG position on it.

    Over on the think tank side of the moment, though, Keystone is definitely an issue that’s useful in separating the real libertarian wheat from the “crony capitalist” chaff.

    I agree.

  8. langa

    The headline is straight copy/paste from GPW and GP.org. If you have a suggestion for a better one I’m open to possibly changing it.

    Relax. I wasn’t criticizing the headline. If anything, it’s my fault for reading IPR with a slight hangover.

  9. langa

    Ideally I would also like them to have full legal liability for any pollution they cause.

    If you’re referring to non-consensual limited liability, that would be covered by the statement, as it’s a form of government assistance.

  10. paulie Post author

    Relax. I wasn’t criticizing the headline. If anything, it’s my fault for reading IPR with a slight hangover.

    If I relax any more I’ll fall back asleep 🙂

    Not that this would be a bad thing necessarily but I have things to do today and not enough hours to do them in.

  11. paulie Post author

    If you’re referring to non-consensual limited liability, that would be covered by the statement, as it’s a form of government assistance.

    Fair enough, although a lot of people including some libertarians don’t realize this.

  12. David

    We did have LP candidates that came out against the pipeline. The Montana Libertarian for the US House was one. His opposition was based on property rights. In 2011 the Montana Legislature passed HB 198, that allowed foreign companies to condemn private property for their uses. The issue in HB 198 was a Canadian Electrical company wanting to string lines into Montana. A Judge ruled they couldn’t condemn property, so the state passed this “jobs bill” to allow the condemnation.

  13. paulie Post author

    That’s awesome! And hopefully there were others too. But as far as the national office coordinating putting together a campaign against it and sending out a press release similar to this one with statements from different state parties/candidates I honestly don’t see that happening. If you think you can make it happen you are certainly welcome to try, and I hope you succeed, but my inner triage assessment is that it will unfortunately be a non-starter. I’ve been wrong before though.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *