SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
david suzuki
Greenpeace Says Latest Keystone Pipeline Spill Shows Why Big Oil Targets Climate Activists
"Oil companies know that protest works," said Greenpeace USA's leader.
Apr 11, 2025
With cleanup efforts still underway in rural North Dakota on Friday after yet another Keystone crude oil pipeline spill, Greenpeace USA interim executive director Sushma Raman said that the incident "shows exactly why we need to protect protest, free speech, and the right to speak up against harm."
Keystone ruptured on Tuesday, spilling an estimated 3,500 barrels of oil into an agricultural field, according to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA). That came just weeks after a North Dakota jury awarded Energy Transfer and its subsidiary more than $660 million in a case targeting Greenpeace for protests against the Dakota Access oil pipeline.
"We know fossil fuels are unhealthy at every stage of their life cycle. There is no fail-safe way to transport oil and gas, and the risks unfairly fall on the people who live near the route, while the company reaps the benefits," Raman said in a Friday statement. "Everyday people, public watchdogs, and advocacy groups have a right to raise their voices and criticize a corporation when their health and livelihoods are on the line."
"Yet this type of ordinary advocacy is exactly what is under attack in the more than $660 million jury verdict against Greenpeace entities in a lawsuit brought by pipeline company Energy Transfer," added Raman, whose group is appealing the March decision. "Oil companies know that protest works—which is why they're trying to make the stakes so high no one will be willing to take the risk."
"There is no fail-safe way to transport oil and gas, and the risks unfairly fall on the people who live near the route, while the company reaps the benefits."
Environmentalist David Suzuki and co-writer Ian Hanington similarly wrote last week that while Greenpeace argues that it assisted with the protests against Dakota Access "at the request of the Standing Rock Sioux, the environmental group is clearly seen as a threat to oil and gas interests and is a high-profile target for increasingly common efforts to silence opposition."
"From Standing Rock to Wet'suwet'en territory in British Columbia and beyond, militarized law enforcement agencies are relying more often on use of force against land and water defenders, and companies are resorting to tactics such as SLAPPs ("strategic lawsuits against public participation" designed to silence opponents through costly, time-consuming legal processes)," they noted. "Those working to protect land, air, water, plants and animals, and our future face an increasingly uphill battle."
The pair stressed that "the lawsuit against Greenpeace is an attack on the right to protest and speak freely. It won't be the last. We should all stand with Standing Rock, and with organizations such as Greenpeace that are working for people and the planet and holding the line against the destructive fossil fuel industry."
One expert detailed some of the industry's destruction in comments toThe Associated Press about the Keystone spill earlier this week:
The spill is not a minor one, said Paul Blackburn, a policy analyst with Bold Alliance, an environmental and landowners group that fought the pipeline's extension, called Keystone XL.
The estimated volume of 3,500 barrels, or 147,000 gallons of crude oil, is equal to 16 tanker trucks of oil, he said. That estimate could increase over time, he added.
Blackburn said the bigger picture is what he called the Keystone pipeline's history of spills at a higher rate than other pipelines. He compared Keystone to the Dakota Access oil pipeline since the latter came online in June 2017. In that period, Keystone's system has spilled nearly 1.2 million gallons (4.5 million liters) of oil, while Dakota Access spilled 1,282 gallons (4,853 liters), Blackburn said.
PHMSA said Thursday that it "has dispatched a total of eight inspectors to investigate the pipeline rupture," and Keystone's operator is "voluntarily committing to full cooperation with our investigation and pledging a series of corrective measures," including "a commitment not to restart the pipeline without prior approval."
The federal agency added Friday that as of 1:00 am local time, "five vacuum trucks have recovered and removed 1,170 barrels of crude oil. Cleanup operations are ongoing. PHMSA will continue to provide updated information as we receive it."
While Republican President Donald Trump aims to revive the Keystone XL project and boost the fossil fuel industry in general, one climate champion on Capitol Hill pointed to the spill as further proof of the need to phase out planet-wrecking oil and gas.
U.S. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), the chamber's lead sponsor of Green New Deal legislation, said on social media this week: "The Keystone oil pipeline has ruptured and spilled—again. We must continue to fight for strong pipeline safety requirements and get rid of dirty fossil fuels once and for all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oil Should Stay in the Ground—And Get Out of Politics
Renewables are the only way forward and every smart investor knows continued use coal, oil, and gas will become increasingly costly and deadly.
Jul 08, 2023
With all the problems in the world, from massive inequality to the climate crisis, you’d think voluntary guidelines to improve corporate environmental and social practices would be a no-brainer. After all, addressing those critical issues can also boost a company’s bottom line.
But companies with business models based on activities that create greater inequalities and cause harm to the air, water, and soil, are threatened by ESG (environmental, social and governance) investor policies. ESG encourages investors to consider criteria such as environmental risk, pay equity and transparency in accounting.
That’s why Big Oil is fighting back. Much of the “anti-woke” rhetoric you hear from right-wing politicians and media is funded by fossil fuel interests.
Given what we know about the industry’s decades-long efforts to stall action on climate change, sowing doubt and confusion regarding the clear scientific evidence, it’s no surprise that the same people are putting enormous amounts of money and resources toward obstructing efforts to introduce greater corporate responsibility.
Because most moneyed people have diverse portfolios, the study found, losses would only make up about one per cent of their net wealth.
A report from U.S.-based Pleiades Strategy found that in 2023, fossil fuel money was behind 165 pieces of legislation introduced in 37 states “to weaponize government funds, contracts, and pensions to prevent companies and investors from considering commonplace risk factors in making responsible, risk-adjusted investment decisions.”
Most of the legislation, aimed at restricting the use of ESG investment criteria, was based on “model bills circulated by right-wing organizations that targeted diverse aspects of state financial regulation…”
Those organizations include four of the country’s most influential think tanks: the American Legislative Exchange Council, the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Foundation for Government Accountability. All are affiliated with the State Policy Network, which receives funding from the fossil fuel billionaire Koch family, the Guardian reports.
The Texas Public Policy Foundation (which gets money from Koch-supported organizations, as well as ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips and Chevron) and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil and gas lobbyist, have also been involved.
Some have worked to get laws passed to severely punish people protesting pipelines.
The Pleiades Strategy report found the groups had limited success, getting only 22 of the proposed 165 anti-ESG laws passed, thanks to opposition from business, labour and environmental advocates, but laws that did pass — even those that were watered down — could affect climate and other policies to protect people and the planet.
Report co-author Connor Gibson warned that lack of success isn’t likely to deter oil interests. “We think this is the latest iteration of climate denial and obstruction and delay,” he told the Guardian.
It’s astounding that people would put their short-term economic interests ahead of human health, well-being, and survival. But that’s what they are with all their influence over politicians, governments and media.
The fossil fuel economy is about more than just money, though. It’s also about consolidating power and wealth in a small number of people and companies, which creates greater inequality. This is far more difficult to do with energy from the sun and the wind compared to energy from coal, oil and gas.
Numerous studies show the clean energy transition would save enormous amounts of money in everything from health care to energy expenses. Continuing to use coal, oil and gas, meanwhile, will become increasingly costly and deadly.
Leaving fossil fuels behind won’t even be that hard on investors, according to a recent study published in Joule. It found that in high-income countries, the richest 10 per cent of the given country’s population would bear two-thirds of the investment losses from scaling back fossil fuel production, with the wealthiest one per cent taking half that hit. Because most moneyed people have diverse portfolios, the study found, losses would only make up about one per cent of their net wealth.
Researchers also found it would be cost-effective for governments to compensate those less well-off for any losses.
We have every reason to switch rapidly from fossil fuels to renewable sources — and to conserve energy and improve efficiency. We’re also increasingly finding that the corporate, political and media justifications for avoiding or delaying the necessary shift are brought to you by the industry itself, often clandestinely.
It’s time to get fossil fuel money out of politics and leave the oil in the ground.
Keep ReadingShow Less
There’s Still Time to Avoid Climate Catastrophe
If we fail to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030, it won’t be for lack of options
May 07, 2023
Cutting greenhouse gas emissions to keep the world from heating to catastrophic levels is entirely possible and would save money. Although emissions continue to rise, there’s still time to reverse course. Ways to slash them by more than half over the next seven years are readily available and cost-effective — and necessary to keep the global average temperature from rising more than 1.5 C.
The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report includes a chart that shows how. Compiled by the world’s top scientists using the most up-to-date research, it illustrates potential emissions reductions and costs of various methods.
At the top are wind and solar power, followed by energy efficiency, stopping deforestation and reducing methane emissions. Nuclear energy, carbon capture and storage and biofuels bring much poorer results for a lot more money.
Wind and solar together can cut eight billion tons of emissions annually — “equivalent to the combined emissions of the US and European Union today” and “at lower cost than just continuing with today’s electricity systems,” the Guardian reports.
Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage each deliver only 10 percent of the results of wind and solar at far higher costs. It’s telling that those less effective, more expensive pathways are the ones touted most often by government, industry and media people who are determined to keep fossil fuels burning or are resistant to power sources that offer greater energy independence.
Making buildings, industry, lighting and appliances more energy efficient could cut 4.5 billion tons of emissions a year by 2030 — and there’s no doubt that simply reducing energy consumption could add to that.
Because forests, wetlands and other green spaces sequester carbon, stopping deforestation could cut four billion tons a year by 2030, almost “double the fossil fuel emissions from the whole of Africa and South America today,” the Guardian reports.
Cutting methane emissions, especially those that leak from fossil fuel operations, could cut three billion tons. This is especially important because methane is a far more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide over the short term. It also shows that fracking for fossil gas and production of so-called “liquefied natural gas” are not viable solutions.
Other ways to lower emissions include switching to sustainable diets, such as eating less meat (1.7 billion tons), shifting toward public transit and active transportation (which has more potential than electric cars) and better agricultural methods.
We’re constantly told that quickly transitioning from coal, oil and gas is not realistic and that renewables aren’t ready to replace them, and that we need expensive, often unproven or dangerous methods like nuclear and carbon capture and storage. But those claims ignore the rapid pace at which renewable energy and storage technologies have been advancing — and dropping in price.
We could get even further than this research suggests by using less energy and fewer products that require energy to produce and transport. Shifting from a consumer-based system is especially important in light of the fact that even renewable energy is not impact-free. Mining for materials, replacing aging infrastructure and making space for installations means our ultimate goal should be to use less.
Likewise with electric cars. Although electric cars are far better than fossil-fuelled, all personal vehicles waste resources, require massive infrastructure and are not efficient at moving people around, regardless of how they’re powered.
But what this chart and mountains of other research show is that even with current technologies, methods and systems, cutting emissions and avoiding catastrophic consequences of climate disruption are entirely possible and affordable.
If we fail to reach the goal of reducing emissions by 50 percent by 2030, it won’t be for lack of options.
The problem isn’t a shortage of solutions, or exorbitant costs, or any benefits of fossil fuels over renewable energy; it’s a lack of political will, and to some extent, public support. This is driven to a large degree by the efforts of industry to protect its interests in raking in huge profits and perpetuating a system that mostly benefits a small and dwindling number of people at the expense of human health, well-being and survival.
Nature is speaking, and science is confirming that we have no time to lose. We can’t afford not to change.
With contributions from Senior Editor and Writer Ian Hanington
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular