Green Party to Participate in Protest Against Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline in D.C. on February 17th

The following is the text from a press release by the Green Party:


For Immediate Release:
Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Obama hints in his 2013 State of the Union address that he might approve the pipeline; Greens promote the ‘Green New Deal’ and say environmental groups must stop allowing Dems to take support for granted; Obama’s “executive action” to curb climate change won’t work if he keeps promoting more oil and gas production

Green Party response to the 2013 State of the Union, with 2012 presidential nominee Jill Stein (Green Party Livestream) / /

Green Party members and friends will gather 11:30 a.m. on Sunday at the carousel in front of the Smithsonian Institution Building (Castle) on the south side of Mall, at 1000 Jefferson Drive; #ForwardOnClimate Rally begins on the Mall (northeast corner of the Washington Monument) at noon:

Green Party Speakers Bureau: Greens available to speak on climate change

WASHINGTON, DC — The Green Party of the United States has formally endorsed a protest outside of the White House planned for Sunday, February 17, against the Keystone XL Pipeline. Greens from all over the U.S. plan to travel to Washington, DC, to participate in the event.

The demonstration has been initially proposed and planned by and the Sierra Club ( The goal is “for thousands to form a massive human pipeline, and to tell the President that we expect leadership on climate change, beginning with a rejection of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.” Arrests for civil disobedience have already been reported at the White House (

The Keystone XL tar-sands pipeline would carry 800,000 barrels a day of the dirtiest oil on earth to U.S. ports for export. Green Party also opposes the proposed Enbridge pipeline, which would carry Canadian tar-sands oil to the coast of Maine.

The resolution was introduced by the Green Party of New York and passed by the Green Party’s National Committee on February 10 ( Both the Canadian and U.S. Green Parties are on record opposing the pipeline:

President Obama hinted in his 2013 State of the Union speech on Tuesday that he may be willing to approve the Keystone XL Pipeline, when he promised safer pipelines: “I’m also proposing a Partnership to Rebuild America that attracts private capital to upgrade what our businesses need most: modern ports to move our goods; modern pipelines to withstand a storm…” (The mention of ports is also relevant, since the pipelines’ destinations, along the coasts of the Gulf of Mexico and Maine, indicate that the oil is meant for export to foreign markets rather than for domestic energy independence.)

“While President Obama addressed climate change in the speech, he advocated market-based solutions, with continuing profits for industry and more growth. The U.S. will not be able to address the climate crisis adequately as long as the White House and Congress keep insisting that corporate profits and unrestricted growth must come first. Any effort to prevent climate disruption will be undercut by President Obama’s ‘all-in’ energy policy, which means more fossil-fuel production and consumption,” said Darryl! LC Moch, co-chair of the Green Party of the United States.

“There are ways to boost the economy while reducing the climate threat — such as the job creation program laid out in the ‘Green New Deal’ ( advanced by 2012 Green presidential nominee Jill Stein and other Green candidates. Until such a program is enacted, and until environmental groups stop allowing Democrats to take their support for granted, no such solution will be possible. Instead of praise for President Obama’s delays in announcing a decision on the pipeline, we need increased public pressure and a promise of political consequences if the pipeline is approved,” said Mr. Moch.

Tar Sands Blockade is a coalition of Texas and Oklahoma landowners and climate justice organizers using peaceful and sustained civil disobedience to stop the construction of TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline ( On October 31, 2012, Dr. Stein was arrested in Texas for trying to deliver food and supplies to Blockade participants.

The proposed multi-billion dollar 1,700 mile Keystone XL pipeline would connect the tar sands oil fields in Alberta, Canada, to refineries in the U.S. The pipeline would pose a threat to the Ogallala Aquifer, water source for many millions in the US.The tar sands deposits are the second biggest pool of extractable carbon on the Earth.

Northern Alberta, the region where tar sands oil is extracted, is home to many indigenous populations. Important parts of their cultural traditions and livelihood are coming under attack because of tar sands operations.

10 thoughts on “Green Party to Participate in Protest Against Proposed Keystone XL Pipeline in D.C. on February 17th


    Don’t we need $20 a gallon gas for our transportation needs ? FORCE everyone to follow the Greens plan and see how WONDERFUL your and yours life will become.

    Make polluters responsible for their pollution, don’t punish ALL persons the majority of whom are INNOCENT !

    STOP force and fraud and provide a TRUE free market with individual RESPONSIBILITY and watch peace and prosperity blossom !

    The power freaks are power freaks no matter how rosy or green their color……

    Liberty lovers want liberty, justice and HAPPINESS for all……..

  2. Steven R Linnabary

    FTL, I don’t think any self respecting libertarian would support the scheme to take people’s property by eminent domain to give to a corporation so they can build their pipeline.


  3. Green Party Positive solutions

    We need to cut the local, state, and federal tax payer subsidies to ZERO for auto, oil, asphalt, and cement.

    We need to build rail, solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, sustainable energy jobs.

    That’s the positive Green Party solution.

    More Trains, Less Traffic – Solar, Wind, Geothermal, and Weatherization can remove the need for deadly polluting oil, and coal.

  4. NewFederalist

    How do you store the energy generated from wind and sun until it is needed? I was under the impression that storage is the really big issue not the generation. I never see that aspect discussed.


    @2 What do you not understand ?

    “STOP force and fraud and provide a TRUE free market with individual RESPONSIBILITY and watch peace and prosperity blossom !”

    Someone with property near the border will certainly be glad to sale to a NEW U.S. refinery project ! Refine it close to the source and cut down on pipeline needs! It can be used in the Northern U.S. without running a pipeline across the country. Dozens if not thousands will be glad to freely sale their property to help keep costs down for everyone..

    WAR on force and fraud….

  6. Oranje Mike

    #3, I support all of those so long as they are funded in private or by donation. I don’t need a government to shake me down for anything.

  7. Thomas L. Knapp


    How do you store the energy generated from coal, oil, hydro and nuclear until it is needed? And why would the problem be any different for solar or wind?

    It might be said that storage is somewhat more important with solar and wind (since hydro and nuc are always generating while wind and solar aren’t, and since with coal and oil the energy can be “stored” AS coal and oil — you just turn on the generators when the power is needed), but in point of fact grid energy storage systems already exist: Batteries. Flywheels. Compressed air (and even liquid air). Storage as hydrogen is apparently in development.

    When it comes to solar and wind, a lot of people get hung up on the idea of using massive arrays, which would indeed require massive storage systems to handle night-time demand and no-wind days, etc.

    It seems to me that solar and wind make a lot more sense at the micro-level — panels on your house’s roof, a turbine on the roof or in the yard, a battery box for storage and an inverter to get your juice from DC to AC. Maybe in the future, some kind of hydrogen cell to more efficiently store energy so that you have a surplus which gets stored over the long summer days and can be used in winter when days are shorter.

    But of course the big utility companies that make their money by shipping electricity over 50 miles of wire from their big, expensive plant to your wall outlet wouldn’t like that very much.

  8. NewFederalist

    “How do you store the energy generated from coal, oil, hydro and nuclear until it is needed? And why would the problem be any different for solar or wind?”

    Generation can be continuous from the first four sources you mentioned. It cannot be from solar or wind. You can make more electricity to keep up with demand from hydro, nuclear etc. If the wind is not blowing or it is nighttime you cannot increase output from wind or solar. I am not opposed to wind, solar or even wave action. I think the real issue is that storage facilities have not advanced enough to make non-polluting sources (other than hydro or wave action which can be continuous) very practical or cost effective. When battery storage catches up with the generation technology we will all benefit. I am no expert and if someone posting here can enlighten me I would appreciate it!

  9. Thomas L. Knapp


    Yes, you can generate continuously from coal, oil, hydro and nuclear — but that doesn’t mean storage isn’t a consideration. Peak demand times may exceed generation capacity, so grid storage is, in fact, used — they keep generating more than is needed when use is low, then release that stored power when it’s called for.

    I’m not saying you’re wrong to call out storage as an issue for solar and wind, or even to call it out as a BIGGER issue for solar and wind than for other energy sources — but we should be clear that it’s an issue for all power sources and that there are solutions already in action and in development.

    My own solution for storage issues is that solar and wind should be implemented at the household/building level.

    That is, as solar becomes cheaper, instead of quacking about building a 300 mile square array in the western desert to generate all the power the US uses now (or at least as of 10 years ago, when it was mentioned on “The West Wing” — hehe), just build out new structures, and retro-fit old ones, with their own solar arrays, wind turbines, batteries, and inverters (or DC instead of AC appliances inside), and hook them into “the grid” as just-in-case backups (and preferably generate even that backup power using the most reliable/renewable, and least polluting, sources available).

    Personally, I’ve got several thousand dollars (based on current pricing) built into my ever-evolving “dream house, when we can afford to build it” budget.

    As much as I hate government fiat solutions, I can foresee a time when area planning and zoning bodies might adopt “all new buildings will be energy self-sufficient under normal conditions” code requirements, and I can think of far worse laws.

  10. Steve M

    One method to store energy is to pump water up hill and into a reservoir that can latter be used to run generators. Similarly there are ideas about creating salt solutions that can be stored underground and heated using solar power. Pumping water through tubes running through tanks of this super heated salt would then go through turbines generating power.

Leave a Reply

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