I boarded a jet plane this past Friday and traveled 16 hours through the night to Washington, DC. I was back on a plane again on Monday morning flying the reverse 16 hours back home.  

I was in Washington for the Forward on Climate rally, to call on President Obama to say “no” to the KXL pipeline. 

If oil workers could choose, would they choose to work in toxic environments with damaging chemicals, or would they choose to work surrounded by clean air?   If Americans could choose, would they choose to work on the infrastructure for cancer-causing oil power or would they choose to work on the infrastructure for health reviving wind power?   If Canadians could choose, would they choose to dig up their forests, leaving behind barren and filthy wastelands, or would they choose to harvest the sun’s rays and leave behind a legacy for their children?   If people had a choice, what would that choice be?

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

A Sunday report from the Globe and Mail gives a rather undersized account of what prominent environmental organizations are calling the largest climate rally in American history, suggesting Canadian media might be trying to downplay the extent of public opposition to the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline planned to cut across the U.S. to reach refineries and export markets.

In the wake of the massively successful display of North American opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline in Washington DC on Sunday, February 17th, perhaps some Canadians are refusing to receive the message, or admit the significance of Canada's contentious, bituminous role in the whole ordeal.

Organizers for the event estimate 35,000 or more individuals attended Sunday's event, with some accounts citing figures as high as 50,000.

But as Paul Koring and his co-authors present the rally in the Globe and Mail, organizers only claimed 35,000 participants attended the protest, but "turnout seemed significantly smaller."

Some protesters even "voiced disappointment at the numbers" after traveling across the country to be in Washington for the monumental day. An unofficial policeman's estimate, the article states, said the turnout amounted to perhaps 10,000, a meagre total evidenced by the unused portable toilets and protesters who skipped out early to leave nothing but a "straggling column" to march on the White House a mere two hours into the rally.

Sounds rather unimpressive. I suppose Canadians can rest easy, knowing rumours of growing tar sands opposition south of the boarder are exaggerated. Right?

An anticipatory article by Koring in the Globe had already set the tone on Friday with misgivings about organizer ambitions to deliver "tens of thousands" of "people to decry efforts to build a pipeline." And in a follow-up article Koring claimed "the raucous Keystone XL pipeline argument is drowning out serious discussions about bigger, broader and far more important choices."

Sunday's article, co-authored by Koring, Barrie McKenna and Carrie Tait, runs with the headline "U.S. Protest Paints Keystone as Emissions Villain." The overarching message is this: the opposition may have drawn their line in the sand, but it's the wrong line. Protesters who "vilified Keystone" on Sunday, need a reality check: the pipeline itself isn't the issue – climate change is the rallying cry.

Exactly.

What Koring and other commentators have failed to grasp is the intentionally principled nature of the protest. The Keystone XL protest isn't just about the pipeline itself – which Koring meaninglessly states "would produce virtually no emissions" – it's about the fossil fuel empire; it's about the tar sands; it's about manmade climate disruption.

The event itself was called "Forward on Climate." 

And given the pipeline's direct link to Canada's climate quagmire, the Alberta tar sands, it isn't at all surprising that Americans have seized the Keystone question as an opportunity to call out Canadian shortcomings. And it also isn't surprising that some might try to dismiss the importance of that altogether. 

Gary Doer, Canada's ambassador to the U.S., also downplayed the rally, claiming the protesters lack "logic." Speaking on Energy Week TV Doer referred to a number of high-profile arrests in the leadup to Sunday's rally, including that of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and actress Daryl Hannah, saying "twenty people protesting do get more attention in the media than the 65 percent of Americans that prefer to get their oil from Canada rather than Venezuela or the Middle East," an argument seeming to emerge from out of the Canadian 'Ethical Oil' playbook. 

"So am I concerned with the fact that the media will go with the picture as opposed to sometimes logic? That's just part of how issues are covered. But when you look at it, public opinion supports [Keystone]."

Doer might be somewhat behind the times, however. As the recent post-State of the Union poll demonstrated, the majority – 65 percent – of Americans feel climate change is a serious problem and support President Obama's use of authority to curb carbon pollution. Keystone XL presents Obama with the opportunity to do just that, whether or not Canadians are on board, and whether or not Canadians keep apprised of American popular sentiment.

Doer suggests the Obama administration ignore "the 20 people who are out there" and choose instead to "proceed with logic."

But whose logic would that be?

Image Credit: JennaPope.com

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

By Hannah McKinnon, National Program Manager at Environmental Defense.

In last week's State of the Union address, President Obama reiterated his vision for clean energy and urgent action on global warming. With TransCanada’s Keystone XL tar sands pipeline on the frontlines and looking threatened, oil industry supporters are suddenly desperate to look like the environmental and climate risks of the tar sands are under control.   But there’s a massive credibility gap as Canada’s contribution to global warming is spiralling out of control, with the reckless expansion of the tar sands.   We’ve always believed that actions speak louder than words. So while the oil industry and government embark on a pro-tar sands PR campaign, let’s look at how Canada has behaved on climate action and the environmental risks of the tar sands.  

Broken promises

The federal government has repeatedly promised, and then failed, to take strong action on climate change. We’ve become a pariah internationally, thanks to the government’s weakening of our global warming goals and pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol.   Domestically the federal government hasn’t kept promise after promise at home to address Canada’s fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution – the tar sands. Currently, there is not one federal regulation on climate pollution from the tar sands. Even the government’s own reports are clear that it would almost take magic to meet our weak 2020 climate goals.   Blocking clean energy at home and abroad

In Canada, the federal government has failed to renew meaningful investment in clean energy and energy efficiency – the tools that will not only get us out of this mess, but can help us build a strong economy founded on good jobs and safe, clean and renewable energy. Instead of supporting popular clean energy programs, the government hands out over $1.3 billion per year in tax breaks to Big Oil.   Outside our borders, the government has taken its pro-tar sands show on the road, with aggressive lobby efforts in California and Europe, aiming to undermine other countries' efforts to fight global warming and use cleaner fuel. Although both jurisdictions are standing their ground, the Canadian government continues to pressure them to weaken their rules so Canada’s dirty oil gets a free pass and doesn’t pay its fair share for higher than average pollution.     Dismantling science and science-based policy

Respected scientists and scientific bodies across the country are voicing their concerns about recent attempts to dismantle science and science-based policy investigating climate change and other environmental issues. This ranges from cuts to funding for critical, long-standing research programs to not allowing federally funded scientists to speak to media about issues of national concern, like climate change.   In 2012, the federal budget bill was undemocratically used to force through major and devastating blows to environmental laws – dismantling decades worth of policies that protect our natural environment, lakes, rivers and fish. The best explanation for these sweeping changes is that these laws, designed to protect our green spaces, waters and animal life, would have made it that much more difficult to rubber stamp pipeline approvals through Canada’s most sensitive ecosystems.   Fighting a public relations battle rather than battling pollution

The Alberta tar sands are already Canada’s fastest growing source of global warming pollution. And the expansion plans in the works make current projects look like child’s play. There are plans to triple tar sands production in the next seven years. This would cause Canada’s emissions to soar well beyond what our climate can handle.   Instead of reducing pollution, our government has engaged in a public relations war. This has included labelling environmental groups radicals, singling out First Nations as ‘enemies,’ and massive diplomatic campaigns abroad to paint a rosy picture of one of the dirtiest projects on the planet.   Closing the Credibility Gap

Canada’s credibility will continue to be tarnished, as long as the government keeps breaking promises, weakening environment regulations and commitments, and muzzling climate scientists.   To close the credibility gap, oil industry supporters will need to accept that their tar sands plans and climate action cannot co-exist. Period.   According to the International Energy Agency, in order to live up to our commitment to keep global warming below 2 degrees, two thirds of all remaining fossil fuels must stay in the ground. That would include a big chunk of the tar sands.   It’s not too late

The good news is that there are solutions. To start with, the government could implement long-promised robust regulations for oil and gas, requiring those sectors to do their fair share to cut pollution. Instead of subsidizing the oil and gas industry, the government could invest in clean, profitable, reliable energy.      In recent years, Canada’s climate policy has often followed the United States. With renewed interest in climate change south of the border, it’s time to change our actions – not just our PR spin.

Image Credit: Kris Krug, used with permission.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.