http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/39318-we-should-not-be-subsidizing-an-industry-that-is-hurting-our-communities-david-turnbull-on-pipeline-politics
[audio link in on-line article]
We Should Not Be Subsidizing a Fossil Fuel Industry That Is Hurting Our
Communities
Saturday, February 04, 2017 By Janine Jackson, FAIR | Interview
Janine Jackson: "With one swipe of the presidential pen, the Dakota
Access and Keystone pipelines were back on the agenda," so reported CNN.
But back on the agenda is not the same thing as being a done deal. Our
next guest says those pipelines will not be completed. David Turnbull is
campaigns director at Oil Change International. He joins us now by phone
from Oakland. Welcome to CounterSpin, David Turnbull.
David Turnbull: Thanks for having me.
First of all, a lot of news reports say it's unclear exactly what the
executive orders, on DAPL and on Keystone, what they mandate. Do you
have any more clarity on what actually changed or changes with that
swipe of the presidential pen?
You know, it's still a little unclear. I mean, it's not totally clear
[if] what the president has signed is incredibly legally astute, which
is not a huge surprise. But what he has signed, with respect to the
Dakota Access Pipeline and Keystone XL, are two separate memorandums.
For Dakota Access, it instructs the Army Corps of Engineers to go ahead
and issue the remaining permits that are required to finish construction
of the Dakota Access Pipeline.
Of course, we know that there are major issues with that pipeline, from
environmental to social resistance issues to consultation with Native
tribes. And so our view is that while that instruction is in place,
there's still some steps that need to be taken by the Army Corps of
Engineers to actually consider the pipeline with the robust review
process that's necessary.
On Keystone, there is no application from the Keystone builder,
TranscCanada, that is on the books right now. What Donald Trump has done
is said, We hope that TransCanada will reapply for the Keystone XL
permit, and when they do, I'm instructing the State Department to run a
swift review process within 60 days to essentially ram that pipeline
through.
We also know that for Keystone XL, there is massive opposition to that
pipeline, just as with Dakota Access, that was built over years of
movement-building and campaigning. And furthermore, there is no actual
approved route through the state of Nebraska, which is a requirement for
it being built as well. So these executive orders or memorandums that
the president has signed are important, in that they are reviving
pipelines that had been defeated, but it's not a done deal by any means.
Before we talk about resistance, I'd like to get your reaction to–it's a
quote from a New York Times article, but I have seen it elsewhere. It
says, "The pipelines were more about symbol than substance, but
generated enormous passion on both sides of the debate." What do you
make of that take, that Keystone and Dakota Access are really not
substantive issues, that it's really more about people's feelings?
I think you can ask any one of the many thousands of water protectors,
Standing Rock Sioux tribe members in the Dakotas, about whether it's
just a symbol to them. It absolutely isn't. It's impacting their
culture, their land, their water. It's a pipeline that would incentivize
massive increases in oil production in the Bakken oil fields in the
Dakotas, which run entirely counter to our efforts to combat climate
change. So while people may brush it off as a symbolic pipeline or a
symbolic protest, to the folks that are on the ground, risking their
lives in some cases, resisting and working to protect the water, that's
simply just not the case.
On Keystone XL, it would incentivize increased production of the
dirtiest oil on the planet. We have done numerous analyses that show
that that increased production of the tar sands in Canada would totally
hamper and essentially make our efforts to address climate change nearly
impossible. So, again, you can ask the people that are along the route
in Nebraska whether this is a symbolic fight for them, or you can ask
scientists whether increasing production of the tar sands is aligned
with our efforts to address climate change, and both of those groupings
will tell you that it's not merely symbolic.
The vision we have is that we have an industry, a fossil fuel industry,
that does this thing that is recognized as harmful, but they do it
because it's profitable. And then on the other side, in this vision, we
have government, which tries to check that harmful behavior, but maybe
not very effectually. Oil Change International has just recently called
attention to how that really isn't the vision of how things work. Could
you tell us a little about the subsidies involved here?
Sure. The US government gives tens of billions of dollars a year to the
fossil fuel industry by way of subsidies, tax breaks, handouts from the
American people to an industry that has been in existence for over a
hundred years and is doing the work to destroy our planet. These are
subsidies that are totally inappropriate both from an economic
standpoint but also from a moral standpoint. We should not be
subsidizing an industry that is hurting our communities, that is
impairing our climate and that is raking in record profits, massive
profits. We have been pushing for an end to fossil fuel subsidies, not
just in the United States but around the globe, for years now,
especially since, in 2009, the G20 nations decided to commit to
eliminating these subsidies, and yet they continue to this day.
I think it just interferes so strongly with the picture of government
as, you know, trying to check the exploitative behavior of these
companies, but just maybe not doing it quite so well. In fact, there's
something entirely different than that going on, it seems like.
Well, now we've got Scott Pruitt at EPA, we've got Rex Tillerson at
State. I don't have a question connected with that, except to bring you
back to your confidence that these pipelines are not going to go
through, which I think many people would say, well, golly, all the odds
are assembled on the other side of that equation. So why are you so
confident in the resistance to this?
When Keystone XL was first thrust into the national conversation, every
single pundit, every single expert in the industry, all of the odds were
saying that Keystone XL was going to sail through and be approved, and
that our resistance and protests were going to be just a sidenote to a
pretty quick process. We know that was not the case. We got Keystone XL
rejected because there was a massive movement that was pestering and
protesting the administration at every single turn.
The Dakota Access Pipeline was also fully on its way to being built, and
amazing Standing Rock Sioux tribe members and other water protectors
stood up and said no, despite major odds. And we could not see what the
resolution was going to be when that Standing Rock camp was first
established, but they had all sorts of intention and inspiration and
drive to protect their land and water, and at the end of the day, in the
Obama administration, it was stopped. And so we have beaten large odds
before, and I have every confidence that those movements are going to
beat these large odds again.
We've been speaking with David Turnbull of Oil Change International. You
can find their work online at PriceOfOil.org. David Turnbull, thank you
so much for joining us this week on CounterSpin.
Thanks for having me.