Amerikanske miljøvernere appellerer til sivil ulydighet mot oljesand

Fem dager etter at nedenstående appell ble publisert fikk jeg den tilsendt per epost, som deltaker i epostlisten til International Association for Environmental Philosophy. Det er ikke ofte slikt sirkuleres der. Blant underskriverne er kjente navn som James Hansen, Naomi Klein og Bill McKibben. Kjenner du noen i USA...? Vis dem til Tar Sands Action.

Published on Thursday, June 23, 2011 by CommonDreams.org

Environmental Leaders Call for Civil Disobedience to Stop the Keystone XL Pipeline
by Naomi Klein, Wendell Berry, Maude Barlow, Bill McKibben and Others

Dear Friends,

This will be a slightly longer letter than common for the internet age—it’s serious stuff.

The short version is we want you to consider doing something hard: coming to Washington in the hottest and stickiest weeks of the summer and engaging in civil disobedience that will likely get you arrested.

The full version goes like this:

As you know, the planet is steadily warming: 2010 was the warmest year on record, and we’ve seen the resulting chaos in almost every corner of the earth.

And as you also know, our democracy is increasingly controlled by special interests interested only in their short-term profit.

These two trends collide this summer in Washington, where the State Department and the White House have to decide whether to grant a certificate of ‘national interest’ to some of the biggest fossil fuel players on earth. These corporations want to build the so-called ‘Keystone XL Pipeline’ from Canada’s tar sands to Texas refineries.

To call this project a horror is serious understatement. The tar sands have wrecked huge parts of Alberta, disrupting ways of life in indigenous communities—First Nations communities in Canada, and tribes along the pipeline route in the U.S. have demanded the destruction cease. The pipeline crosses crucial areas like the Oglalla Aquifer where a spill would be disastrous—and though the pipeline companies insist they are using ‘state of the art’ technologies that should leak only once every 7 years, the precursor pipeline and its pumping stations have leaked a dozen times in the past year. These local impacts alone would be cause enough to block such a plan. But the Keystone Pipeline would also be a fifteen hundred mile fuse to the biggest carbon bomb on the continent, a way to make it easier and faster to trigger the final overheating of our planet, the one place to which we are all indigenous.

How much carbon lies in the recoverable tar sands of Alberta? A recent calculation from some of our foremost scientists puts the figure at about 200 parts per million. Even with the new pipeline they won’t be able to burn that much overnight—but each development like this makes it easier to get more oil out. As the climatologist Jim Hansen (one of the signatories to this letter) explained, if we have any chance of getting back to a stable climate “the principal requirement is that coal emissions must be phased out by 2030 and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground.” In other words, he added, “if the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over.” The Keystone pipeline is an essential part of the game. "Unless we get increased market access, like with Keystone XL, we're going to be stuck," said Ralph Glass, an economist and vice-president at AJM Petroleum Consultants in Calgary, told a Canadian newspaper last week.

Given all that, you’d suspect that there’s no way the Obama administration would ever permit this pipeline. But in the last few months the president has signed pieces of paper opening much of Alaska to oil drilling, and permitting coal-mining on federal land in Wyoming that will produce as much CO2 as 300 power plants operating at full bore.

And Secretary of State Clinton has already said she’s ‘inclined’ to recommend the pipeline go forward. Partly it’s because of the political commotion over high gas prices, though more tar sands oil would do nothing to change that picture. But it’s also because of intense pressure from industry. TransCanada Pipeline, the company behind Keystone, has hired as its chief lobbyist for the project a man named Paul Elliott, who served as deputy national director of Clinton’s presidential campaign. Meanwhile, the US Chamber of Commerce—a bigger funder of political campaigns than the RNC and DNC combined—has demanded that the administration “move quickly to approve the Keystone XL pipeline,” which is not so surprising—they’ve also told the U.S. EPA that if the planet warms that will be okay because humans can ‘adapt their physiology’ to cope. The Koch Brothers, needless to say, are also backing the plan, and may reap huge profits from it.

So we’re pretty sure that without serious pressure the Keystone Pipeline will get its permit from Washington. A wonderful coalition of environmental groups has built a strong campaign across the continent—from Cree and Dene indigenous leaders to Nebraska farmers, they’ve spoken out strongly against the destruction of their land. We need to join them, and to say even if our own homes won’t be crossed by this pipeline, our joint home—the earth—will be wrecked by the carbon that pours down it.

And we need to say something else, too: it’s time to stop letting corporate power make the most important decisions our planet faces.

We don’t have the money to compete with those corporations, but we do have our bodies, and beginning in mid August many of us will use them. We will, each day through Labor Day, march on the White House, risking arrest with our trespass. We will do it in dignified fashion, demonstrating that in this case we are the conservatives, and that our foes—who would change the composition of the atmosphere are dangerous radicals. Come dressed as if for a business meeting—this is, in fact, serious business. And another sartorial tip—if you wore an Obama button during the 2008 campaign, why not wear it again? We very much still want to believe in the promise of that young Senator who told us that with his election the ‘rise of the oceans would begin to slow and the planet start to heal.’ We don’t understand what combination of bureaucratic obstinacy and insider dealing has derailed those efforts, but we remember his request that his supporters continue on after the election to pressure the government for change. We’ll do what we can.

And one more thing: we don’t want college kids to be the only cannon fodder in this fight. They’ve led the way so far on climate change—10,000 came to DC for the Powershift gathering earlier this spring. They’ve marched this month in West Virginia to protest mountaintop removal; Tim DeChristopher faces sentencing this summer in Utah for his creative protest. Now it’s time for people who’ve spent their lives pouring carbon into the atmosphere (and whose careers won’t be as damaged by an arrest record) to step up too. Most of us signing this letter are veterans of this work, and we think it’s past time for elders to behave like elders. One thing we don’t want is a smash up: if you can’t control your passions, this action is not for you.

This won’t be a one-shot day of action. We plan for it to continue for several weeks, to the date in September when by law the administration can either grant or deny the permit for the pipeline. Not all of us can actually get arrested—half the signatories to this letter live in Canada, and might well find our entry into the U.S. barred. But we will be making plans for sympathy demonstrations outside Canadian consulates in the U.S., and U.S. consulates in Canada—the decision-makers need to know they’re being watched.

Winning this battle won’t save the climate. But losing it will mean the chances of runaway climate change go way up—that we’ll endure an endless future of the floods and droughts we’ve seen this year. And we’re fighting for the political future too—for the premise that we should make decisions based on science and reason, not political connection. You have to start somewhere, and this is where we choose to begin.

If you think you might want to be a part of this action, we need you to sign up here. As plans solidify in the next few weeks we’ll be in touch with you to arrange nonviolence training; our colleagues at a variety of environmental and democracy campaigns will be coordinating the actual arrangements.

We know we’re asking a lot. You should think long and hard on it, and pray if you’re the praying type. But to us, it’s as much privilege as burden to get to join this fight in the most serious possible way. We hope you’ll join us.

Maude Barlow
Wendell Berry
Tom Goldtooth
Danny Glover
James Hansen
Wes Jackson
Naomi Klein
Bill McKibben
George Poitras
David Suzuki
Gus Speth

p.s.—Please pass this letter on to anyone else you think might be interested. We realize that what we’re asking isn’t easy, and we’re very grateful that you’re willing even to consider it.

Dagens notis: Oljefondet størst i verden

Oljefondet har blitt det største statlige fondet (sovereign wealth fund) i verden, melder NTB (og viser til Dagens Næringsliv).

Med nesten 3100 milliarder kroner til forvaltning er rivalen i Abu Dhabi i De forente arabiske emirater passert for første gang, slår den anerkjente amerikanske forskningsgruppen Monitor Group fast, ifølge Dagens Næringsliv.

Megatrenden i meningsmålingene: Trepartisystemet befestes

Det skrives spaltemetre om Fremskrittspartiets nedgang, og Høyres fremgang. Men megatrenden i meningsmålingene er en annen, om vi ser på dem med et perspektiv på to-tre valgperioder.

Ta dagens måling i Aftenposten. Høyre går frem 3,1 %, og Frp tilbake 3,0 %. Samtidig går Ap frem 2,1 %, og SV gjør det rekorddårlig med bare 4,2 % oppslutning - på stortingsmålingen er de til og med under sperregrensen. Om vi sammenligner med forrige lokalvalg, i 2007, ligger Høyre 13,2 % over forrige valgresultat, Ap 1,2 % under valgresultatet og FrP 2,6 % under valgresultatet. Samlet har de tre store partiene gått frem med 9,4 %, fra 66,4 % av stemmene (to tredeler!) til 75,8 % av oppslutningen (tre firedeler!). Samtidig har de fire øvrige stortingspartiene gått tilbake fra 26,5 % av stemmene (mer enn en firedel) til 19,8 % av oppslutningen (mindre enn en femdel).

Samtlige av de fire småpartiene ligger 1-2 % lavere enn ved siste lokalvalgresultat. Sånt er hva man kaller en trend. Hvorfor inntreffer denne trenden? Hva er det som skviser sentrum og SV, samtidig som De Tre Store som blokk blir stadig større?

Norge har pleid å være et flerpartisystem, med en rekke partier representert i parlamentet. Slik meningsmålingene utvikler seg idag står ikke mindre enn tre partier i fare for å komme under sperregrensen ved neste Stortingsvalget, og ingen bør bli altfor overrasket om ikke ett men to av disse havner under sperregrensen i 2013. Det vi ser utfolde seg er et partilandskap i strukturell endring.

Statoils svar i Energidebatten: Amoral (sier jeg)

Mine spørsmål i Statoils Energidebatten lød som følger:

Hvor stor andel av den fossile energien mener Statoil vi bør la ligge ubrukt? Dette er avgjørende klimaspm.

Og hvilke TYPER fossil energi bør vi la ligge ubrukt? All ukonvensjonell fossil energi (inkl oljesand) ++.

Igår fulgte svaret fra Statoils kommunikasjonsdirektør Jannik Lindbaek:

@JannikLindbaek, 08. Jun 2011 kl. 20:20

@SporFilosofen Ukonvensjonelle ressurser tar del i energimiksen, men det må oppnås utslippsreduksjoner, også fra oljesand. #energidebatten

Det andre svaret finner jeg ikke på Statoils sider, men slik lød det:

JannikLindbaek Jannik Lindbaek jr

@SporFilosofen Jeg tror fossile ressurser vil bli utvunnet for å dekke energietterspørselen, også i Canada.

Jun 08, 7:34 PM via Echofon

Summa summarum: Statoils utsendte vil ikke svare på normative (etisk ladete) spørsmål, og viser istedet til prognoser og forventet etterspørsel. Statoil inntar dermed en amoralsk posisjon (dvs. man ser bort fra moralske vurderinger). Det er høyst problematisk, så lenge den norske regjering ikke vil "overstyre" Statoils ledelse. Resultatet blir amoral både som næringsstrategi og offisiell norsk oljepolitikk. Statoil og Norge er med på alt som måtte bli en del av den fremtidige "energimiksen".

Lindbaek vil nok forsvare seg med at alt må renskes og gjøres renere (om ikke annet så i produksjonsprosessen). Men utvinner vi all tilgjengelig fossil energi, inkludert ukonvensjonelle kilder, så blir resultatet som James Hansen og andre har vist akkurat den type klimaendringer som en hel verden nå ønsker å unngå.

Et amoralsk Statoil kunne kanskje få passere, hadde vi hatt en regjering som la tydelige føringer for virksomheten. Tilsvarende kunne vi kanskje ha levd med en amoralsk regjering, om bare Statoil hadde tatt ansvar. Men når begge to fraskriver seg ansvaret for å velge hva som skal ut av energimiksen, blir resultatet som galest.

Foredrag på Nasjonal konferanse om rovvilt og beitedyr

[Sakset fra min engelskspråklige blogg Utopian Realism]

I have agreed to give a talk at this year's Den nasjonale konferansen om rovvilt, beitedyr og samfunn [The national conference on predators, grazing livestock and society] (Hamar, Norway, Oct. 31 - Nov. 1). Last year there were 120 attendants.

My talk will be entitled "Offisiell og 'uoffisiell' rovviltforvaltning i Norge sett med et humanøkologisk blikk - Hva er motivene og handlingene?" [Official and "unofficial" predator management in Norway, as seen in a human ecology perspective - What are the motives and actions?].

The talk has been scheduled for 40 minutes. I have been asked to address the topic of illegal wolf hunting, and will also present my general analysis of cultural symbolism in the Norwegian wolf/sheep strife.

Statoils Energidebatten: Hvor mye skal vi la ligge ubrukt?

SporFilosofen Morten Tønnessen

#energidebatten @JannikLindbaek Og hvilke TYPER fossil energi bør vi la ligge ubrukt? All ukonvensjonell fossil energi (inkl oljesand) ++.

3 hours ago

SporFilosofen Morten Tønnessen

#energidebatten @JannikLindbaek Hvor stor andel av den fossile energien mener Statoil vi bør la ligge ubrukt? Dette er avgjørende klimaspm.

3 hours ago
Venter spent på svar på Energidebatten.

Spørsmål til Sp-representant Anne T. Wøien: Hva kan Oppland bidra med?

Jeg har lagt inn følgende kommentar til Anne T. Wøiens blogginnlegg Ny rovdyrpolitikk, som skriver seg fra en kronikk i dagens GD.

Du skriver at vi "gjerne" kan følge opp internasjonale avtaler som innebærer vern av rovdyr "dersom bestandsmålene er rimelige og kan kombineres med målene om levedyktige bygder med aktivt beitedyrproduksjon." Det var storsinnet!

Oppland skal ikke ha verken ulv eller bjørn, heter det. Hvordan skal Oppland bidra til vern av disse rovdyrene? Som du skriver må vi sørge for at byrdefordelingen mellom ulike regioner ikke blir for skjev. Hvordan kan Oppland bidra positivt i en nasjonal sammenheng, også i forhold til å avlaste regioner som har fått bestemt at de skal huse ulv og bjørn?

Mvh Morten Tønnessen, doktorgradsstipendiat med norsk ulveforvaltning som spesiale (http://UtopianRealism.blogspot...)

Radiokommentarer om sårbarheten i vår moderne pengeøkonomi

[Sakset fra min engelskspråklige blogg Utopian Realism]

As announced yesterday, I appeared on NRK P1 Sørlandet, a public regional Norwegian radio channel, this morning, concerning a bank strike which eventually did not materialize. Nevertheless June 6th - yesterday - was a historical day, as Norwegians have never withdrawn as much cash as yesterday on one and the same day. My perspective on a possible bank strike was threefold:

a) how we have come to depend on our monetary economy, and in effect spread this dependence globally through our development/aid policy (because we regard cultures without monetary economy as uncivilized)
b) how people deal with such modern shocks, being creative when in need (though such flexibility is more achievable in many 'less developed' economies, which are, ironically, less vulnerable in this respect)
c) the ways in which a contemporary bank strike would hit society compared to earlier bank strikes (e.g. 1976), illustrating our increased dependence on monetary economy and technology in our modern economy of scale

I was introduced as philosopher with master (hovedfag) in philosophy and a PhD underway in semiotics.

***

SporFilosofen Morten Tønnessen

#bankstreik Er pengeøkonomi tegn på sivilisasjon? I realiteten UTRYDDER vi idag kulturer uten pengeøkonomi

Mange land vi kaller "u-land" er mer fleksible enn Norge i krisetilstand tilsvarende #bankstreik

#bankstreik Norsk utviklingshjelp gjør andre kulturer like avhengige av pengeøkonomi som vi selv er

bankstreik Radiokommentarer om sårbarheten i vår moderne pengeøkonomi

Hør meg på NRK Sørlandet - om bankstreiken

I morgensendingen imorgen, tirsdag, kommer jeg (i egenskap av Spør Filosofen) på lufta på NRK Sørlandet for å kommentere bankstreiken som kan starte i morgen kl. 08.

Mer om den mulige streiken:
- Dette vil Finansforbundet streike for - om nødvendig
Mekling i finans: Meklingsfrisk mandag 6. juni kl. 24.00

Filosofiske perspektiver får du i morgen tidlig. Her kan du høre NRK Sørlandet på nett.