Frankly, I’m not betting the farm on Obama vetoing the bill, particularly if Republicans in exchange go along with his cherished hike in infrastructure spending, designed precisely to create jobs. As the article says, even his Democratic base is split on the pipeline, at a time when jobs truly are THE issue in this election.

The case for a veto no matter what is, I believe, stronger. Politically, he shows backbone and principle, can blast Republicans for the same anti-job position they want to pin on him, and secures the grassroots support he so desperately needs from his environmental base, the same base he has mutilated into apathy with other antagonistic ecodecisions.

But then again, on the subject of backbone and principle, the president has been quite convincing of late that he doesn’t have any when it comes to climate change. The signs are anything but reassuring.

The U.S. was one of the countries that most blocked progress (even simple steps) at Durban. Obama’s new all-or-nothing energy policy proudly includes record hikes in American oil and gas exploration. And when he “killed” Keystone, I’ve warned earlier that we would be ill advised to celebrate much, so absent from his statement was any mention of climate change. Now, if he was willing to turn on the climate at these crucial moments, what makes us think he’ll stick to the Keystone decision in the face of potential political risk?

The writing is all over the wall, folks. This man has simply abandoned the climate in favor of his reelection. He fails to see the political, historical and economic value (to him!) of standing up to the Republicans on this all-important issue. So don’t let his support of cleantech fool you. On Keystone, we simply do not know which way he’ll go.

Yes, it’s great that the pipeline is dead, and everyone from Bill McKibben and 350.org to every single demonstrator who got this done by leading the charge against the project against all odds, deserves our sincerest and most heartfelt congratulations and gratitude. It really would have been game over for the climate had the pipeline gone through.

But as we get past the celebration and refocus on the hard work ahead to ensure that the game is won in the end, it’s crucial to note what the president’s Keystone statement says about our chances for victory. And it’s not one bit encouraging.

Two things stand out. First, there’s not a single mention of the climate threat as one of the motivations behind the decision, when in fact it should have been the MAIN motivation. He blames it on the administration’s inability to meet the arbitrary Republican deadline.

What??!! Are you kidding me? You mean to say he would have gone along if Republicans had been more lenient and agreed to more time? This alone raises a huge red flag, the same he raised with his stance at Durban, where the U.S. shocked everyone with its inexplicable foot dragging and outright opposition to any significant progress.

Second, Obama once again boasts about his perplexing all-of-the-above energy policy, which includes the support of domestic oil, gas and coal in addition to renewables. Congratulate me, he seems to say, because oil and gas are up in America, alongside increases in solar and wind.

This is simply mind blowing. The planet risks an end-of-the-world scenario in a few decades with today’s runaway climate change and record increases in carbon and methane emissions. The latest science is the scariest yet, saying we’re this close to passing the dreaded 2 degree C temperature rise, and dreaded indeed it is. Avoiding that threshold already requires a herculean task, which leaves zero room for NEW fossil-fuel generation that locks in tipping-point emissions for decades more.

So why is the president of the United States, the same one who once promised with inspiring passion to halt the rise of the oceans, feeling great about today’s increase in oil and gas production? That’s the alarming part of his statement, the fact that this is something he is PROUD of, not something he apologetically laments being cornered into by politics.

No, he’s not sorry at all. Not one iota. He is concerned solely, it seems, with enhancing our security by ending the country’s reliance on foreign oil and replacing it with an all-of-the-above American menu. His often stated concern over climate change, we are then led to think, must be blurred by the 1990s assumption that we have a long time to solve this mother-of-all problems.

Mr. President, we do not have that luxury. You have to stand for the end of fossil fuels TODAY. Stopping Keystone helps, but you can’t stop there. When you signed up for the job, you told us you knew damn well that you would be the final president with any chance at preventing irreversible climate change. If you lose this year, we all know your Republican successor will lose the game in regulation, so we’re still cheering for you, because you may still be able to pull it off, even if it takes double-overtime. But not like this, Mr. President.

Not like this.

But this rejection from the US state department is only a temporary setback for TransCanada, the developer, and not a definite “no” to the pipeline. As a result of a legislative standoff in 2011, where Republicans forced a final decision-deadline on the pipeline plan within 60 days, the state department didn’t have the time to do a full and proper investigation. And thus the Keystone XL pipeline was rejected by the state department.

President Barack Obama acknowledges this and blames the denied permit on the Republicans. According to Obama the rejection by the state department “is not a judgment on the merits of the pipeline, but the arbitrary nature of a deadline”:

“As the State Department made clear last month, the rushed and arbitrary deadline insisted on by Congressional Republicans prevented a full assessment of the pipeline’s impact, especially the health and safety of the American people, as well as our environment.”

“I’m disappointed that Republicans in Congress forced this decision, but it does not change my Administration’s commitment to American-made energy that creates jobs and reduces our dependence on oil. Under my Administration, domestic oil and natural gas production is up, while imports of foreign oil are down. In the months ahead, we will continue to look for new ways to partner with the oil and gas industry to increase our energy security,” Obama said.

TransCanada has announced that they are “disappointed” by the outcome but that they are still “fully committed” to the Keystone XL pipeline project:

“This outcome is one of the scenarios we anticipated. While we are disappointed, TransCanada remains fully committed to the construction of Keystone XL. Plans are already underway on a number of fronts to largely maintain the construction schedule of the project,” said Russ Girling, TransCanada’s president and chief executive officer. “We will re-apply for a Presidential Permit and expect a new application would be processed in an expedited manner to allow for an in-service date of late 2014.”

Several Republicans have criticized Obama for the rejection of the pipeline. Mitt Romney, one of the front-runners in the 2012 Republican primary, have said the decision shows a “lack of seriousness” when it comes to bringing down unemployment in the US. “President Obama is about to destroy tens of thousands of American jobs,” a spokesman for Republican house speaker John Boehner said. And Republicans in Congress have proclaimed that they will try and put forward new legislation to push the Keystone XL pipeline project forward, the Guardian reports.

But it’s interesting to note that the US state department concluded in their report that the Keystone XL pipeline “is unlikely to have a substantial impact on U.S. employment” levels. The report also concludes that the pipeline would make little difference to economic activity, trade, energy security, or foreign policy over the longer term in the US. According to the report only around “5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs” would be created because of the Keystone XL pipeline. And these jobs “would last for the two years that it would take to build the pipeline”.

So we can now be sure on a couple of things. The Keystone XL pipeline has only been temporary stopped. TransCanada will re-apply, and most likely they will get their permit a couple of months after the presidential election. Barack Obama doesn’t acknowledge the dangerous effects the Keystone XL pipeline and tar sands will have on our environment and climate. He would gladly approve the pipeline project today, if that was possible. If constructed, the Keystone XL pipeline will only create a few thousands temporary jobs and it will not help the US reach energy independence or energy security. And if the tar sands are exploited, it would only result in the destruction of our climate.

Kent claimed that the Kyoto protocol “will not work” when China and USA is not participating and that the global climate change agreement doesn’t “represent a way forward for Canada”.

“As we said from the outset, the Kyoto Protocol did not represent the path forward for Canada”, Kent said in a statement to the House of Commons.

“Before this week, the Kyoto Protocol covered less than 30% of global emissions. Now it covers less than 13% — and that number is only shrinking. The Kyoto Protocol does not cover the world’s two largest emitters – the United States and China – and therefore will not work.”

The Kyoto protocol, Kent said, would force Canada to implement “radical and irresponsible action” that would result in “the loss of thousands of jobs.” Kent also expressed criticism against Canada’s obligation under the protocol to transfer about $14 billion to poorer countries to help them to mitigate and respond to the effects of climate change.

And so the conservative government in Canada ignores both the economical differences between the North and the South as well as the historical responsibility Canada has when it comes to climate change.

“The Harper government has imposed a death sentence on many of the world’s most vulnerable populations by pulling out of Kyoto,” said Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Mike Hudema.

But why is Canada really withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol? The Canadian government blames it on USA for not being part of the global climate treaty, saying it stops Canada from competing economically on the world market. But others say that the real reason is Canada’s climate killing tar sands.

“One of the reasons that Canada is not meeting its goals is because it has opted not to hobble oil-sands production — in fact, the government has encouraged it. And although many sectors of its economy have drawn down emissions, the tar-sands industry has more than made up for those drops. So Canada was faced with a choice: money from tar sands or climate change. It’s choosing climate change.”

Back in Europe, another conservative government led by PM David Cameron has secretly been helping Canada to push its dirty and deadly tar sands project on EU markets. Conservative governments and politicians around the world are busy trying to delay the implementation of climate policies and now even abandoning the world’s only global climate treaty. At the same time socialistic governments are trying to device the “radical” changes needed to confront the climate crisis. Such as the red and green coalition in Denmark which has set plans in motion to completely end their reliance on fossil fuels.

So what does Canada’s withdrawal from the Kyoto protocol mean? Considering the fact that Canada has increased their greenhouse gas emissions with nearly 20% since 1990 they never really were a part of the Kyoto protocol anyway. So for the climate crisis it doesn’t do much difference. But future UN negotiations will certainly become even more polarized and the mistrust created will surely delay, or in worse case even sabotage, efforts to secure a global climate deal for 2020 and beyond. But one thing that is painfully clear now is that a legally binding climate deal does not guarantee countries won’t ignore or walk away from their commitments.

“Seven episodes of the multi-million-pound nature documentary series will be aired in Britain. However, the series has been sold to 30 world TV networks as a package of only six episodes. These networks then have the option of buying the seventh “companion” episode — which explores the effect man is having on the natural world — as well as behind the scenes footage. The six-episode series has been sold to 30 broadcasters, ten of which have declined to use the climate change episode, “On Thin Ice”, including the US. In America, the series is being aired by the Discovery channel, which insists that the final episode has been dropped because of a “scheduling issue”.”

This is typical cowardly behavior by the BBC which has an appalling record of lying by omission and commission, most notoriously about the 12 million Muslim war-related deaths (about half of them children) in the 1990-2011 US Alliance War on Muslims (for details and documentation not reported by the holocaust-ignoring BBC see “Muslim Holocaust, Muslim Genocide“), noting that holocaust ignoring is far, far worse than repugnant holocaust denial because at least the latter admits the possibility of public discussion). This Mainstream media lying by omission has dire consequences – thus it has just been announced that 2,500 child-killing US Marines are to be stationed in Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia where US lackey Apartheid Australia is remorselessly continuing a racist process of Aboriginal Ethnocide and Aboriginal Genocide.

What I suppose might well be covered in the “On Thin Ice” seventh episode of David Attenborough’s “Frozen Planet” series could be related to the 4 October 2011 press release from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSDIC) which includes a map showing the approximate halving of Arctic summer sea ice extent in recent decades and states:

“This September, sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean fell to the second-lowest extent in the satellite record, which began in 1979. Satellite data analyzed by NSIDC scientists showed that the sea ice cover narrowly avoided a new record low, while other data sources showed that ice extent matched or even fell below the record-setting low extent in 2007… NSIDC Director Mark Serreze said, “It looks like the spring ice cover is so thin now that large areas melt out in summer, even without persistent extreme weather patterns… The big summer ice loss this year is setting us up for another big melt year in 2012. We may be looking at an Arctic Ocean essentially free of summer ice only a few decades from now”.

The US, a major annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter, has 4.4% of the world’s population, consumes 25% of its resources and is hell-bent on remorseless GHG pollution that is worsening a Climate Genocide that is set to kill 10 billion non-Europeans this century.

The Murdoch Media Empire is pretty bad when it comes to perversion of the truth, especially in relation to irresponsible and anti-social man-made climate change denialism (and hence “Boycott Murdoch Media“) but other media are heavily involved also. Thus in Australia, where Murdoch Media have 70% of the city newspaper readership, I understand that it is the major national TV channel Channel 9 (non-Murdoch) that has purchased “Frozen Planet” – but apparently only the first 6 episodes (e.g. see its promotion here).

This is yet another instance of the operation of what has been called Murdochracy (Big Money buys truth and votes) and Lobbyocracy (Big Money buys politicians and policy) in the Western democracies. In the West the 1% have substituted Murdochracy and Lobbyocracy for Democracy at the expense of the 99% and of rational risk management that is crucial for societal safety.

The WBGU that advises the German Government on climate change in 2009 estimated that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2C temperature rise the world can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. The climate criminal US is set to use up its “fair share” of this terminal global GHG pollution budget in about 2013. However it is estimated that Australia, an even worse per capita Greenhouse gas (GHG) polluter than the US, had already used up its “fair share” by mid-2011 and is now stealing the entitlement of wretchedly poor countries such as drought-devastated Somalia and inundation-threatened Bangladesh (see “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions“).

The climate criminality of the US and its lackey Australia are revealed by the following 2005-2008 data on “annual per capita greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution” in units of “tonnes CO2-equivalent per person per year”: 0.9 (Bangladesh), 0.9 (Pakistan), 2.2 (India), less than 3 (many African and Island countries), 3.2 (the Developing World), 5.5 (China), 6.7 (the World), 11 (Europe), 16 (the Developed World), 27 (the US) and 30 (Australia; or 54 if Australia’s huge Exported CO2 pollution is included) (see “Climate Genocide”).

What can decent, pro-Planet people do in the face of media censorship in the face of a worsening climate emergency? Decent people can (a) inform everyone they can about the threat and the Mainstream media censorship and (b) urge sanctions and boycotts against all people, politicians, countries and corporations complicit in the worsening climate genocide.

They have chosen to label the Tar sands as “ethical oil” on the basis that it is not “conflict oil” as well Canadians, aren’t they all friendly and green and everything? Well actually no! Much of the fossil fuels consumed in America (oil, gas and coal) comes from North of the border, as Canada compete with Venezuela for the title of America’s leading source of energy imports (and thus the primary source of America’s carbon addiction). In addition much of the Uranium that powers America (and Canada’s) nuclear reactors comes from Canadian mines. Northern Canada is also home to many large open cast mines for various minerals. I would also note that energy consumption of the average Canadian is actually higher than that of the average American  (7.4 toe for Canada against 7 for the US). Finally I would note that like any country Canada is made up of different provinces with very different regimes in each state. Alberta province, where the Tar sands are based, happens to be the most right wing state in the Union with the worst environmental record. Indeed they are often described as the “Canadian Texas”.

Should anyone reading this be unfamiliar with the whole tar sands controversy, tar sands are basically a mixture of moisture, soil, sand, clay and heavy oil. They are usually the consequence of oil escaping at some point in the past from its underground source rock and migrated up to the surface. Here it became mixed with the soil and also came under attack from the biosphere. Given a few more hundreds of thousands of years it would all get broken down into an unusable form (this is the same mechanism that has over the last 250 million years destroyed much of the oil that ever formed on this world, only a tiny fraction survived to the present day). Extracting oil from Tar sands, the world largest and most accessible deposits are in the Athabasca region of Northern Canada, is more of an open cast mining operation. This would involve tearing down large quantities of pristine old growth boreal forests, possibly an area the size of the England and Wales may ultimately be destroyed.

The major problem with the Tar sands is thus, the enormous environmental pollution caused by this mining and processing, see here for a summary of the problems it creates and see pictures of the destruction here. Or actually just go to Google Earth and pop in “Fort McMurray”. I don’t need to be any more specific than that, as they are literally creating a mess big enough to see from space! Also this processing consumes large quantities of energy, meaning you’re energy payback from oil sands (EROEI) isn’t nearly as good than you get with conventional oil (indeed it may prove to be an order of magnitude less). This also means you need a substantial source of energy to power you’re oil sands extraction process, and the carbon emissions resulting from this process are increased (some figures say Tars sands produces 20%  to four times the greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional oil, depending on who you ask). It also requires substantial quantities of water, both to aid in oil processing, but also to “flush” away the many chemicals contained within the associated tailings (which can include a toxic mix of known or suspected carcinogens, heavy metals, POP’s, arsenic, etc.)….this “flush” often seeing large amounts of sediment laden with toxins finding its way into mountain rivers and streams. In short if you think the conventional oil production is bad, Tar sands are much worse. An order of magnitude increase in Tar sands production will produce a significant spike in pollution (again in the middle of an boreal wilderness) and carbon dioxide levels (Guardian article on the Canadian governments to hide these facts here). It is no wonder that environmentalist recoil in horror.

So I think we can safely say that from an environmental prospective this “ethical oil” claim is completely unjustified, unless you consider destroying one of the world’s last great wildernesses while clubbing baby seals to death (another Canadian “pastime”) as “ethical”! But what about this claim that Canadian Tar Sands isn’t “conflict” oil? They put a picture of Hugo Chavez on one poster under the term “conflict oil” then imply that Canadian oil is conflict free. Let’s pick that one apart. Who exactly is Venezuela at war with? While they are having a few border disputes with Colombia, as far as I’m aware the country is not engaged in any formal conflict, nor significant informal conflict with any of his neighbours. Ironically of course Canada has troops serving in Afghanistan, whose presence there is ultimately funded in part by revenue raised by the Tar sands. So actually if you want to buy “non-conflict oil” my advice would be to give Hugo a call and the Canadians a miss.

The also accuse Hugo Chavez, in the poster, of promoting “forced labour”. While I’m not necessarily a fan of old Hugo, I think that is a gross misrepresentation of his regime, which has sought to redistribute the country’s oil wealth to the poor. By contrast a bunch of labour union supporters showed up at the Occupy Calgary camp  recently to highlight the problems they face with Alberta’s lax protections of employee rights. I also recall meeting during my travels a year or so ago in Canada, a local farmer who was ultimately in danger of loosing his land to the tar sands through a compulsory purchase order they we’re likely to hit him with. Pushing farmers and locals off their land so multinationals can exploit oil reserves (under the farmer’s feet mind!) doesn’t quite fit in with the “ethical oil” image I think. In short you could easily reverse many of these posters and accuse Canada of being the warmongering nation with a dreadful environmental record who tramples on human rights and pushes people off their land.

Indeed reading through this “ethical oil” propaganda there seems to me to be a dangerous and bigoted undercurrent. They tar (oh! the irony!) all the OPEC countries with the same Saudi brush (awful of course tho the Saudi’s human rights record is), ignoring the diverse nature of the many Middle East nations (and their attiudes to Islam or womens rights). And of course not all OPEC states are in the Middle East nor are they Muslim! And the world’s largest oil producer? Russia!

So what these “Ethical oil” lot seem to be saying is that oil pumped by white anglo-saxons is ethically and morally superior to that pumped by those nasty evil foreigners with their dark skin, strange religions and funny languages. I’ve not come across such fascist crap and misinformed bigotry since I last saw a Mel Gibson film. And again ironically, if this is the intended point our “ethical oil” spinster’s are making, then even this is factually inaccurate. The bulk of the finance behind the Tar sands is coming not from Canada, but from abroad (economist article mentions that here). Chinese, Russian, Indian and American firms are indeed all major investors in the tar sands (see wiki page here for info and links on this). Indeed I would argue that the problem for the Canadians here is they are loosing control of the situation. Ultimately decisions on the Tar sands (how much will be produced and how bad the environmental mess which the Canadians will have to clean up afterwards) will be made in foreign countries by foreign multinationals.

In fact can I play this game too? I could for example come up with a poster labelling Canada brutal treatment of native Americans in past centuries, or indeed the present day (one tribe down river from the Tar sands (Fort Mckay) have had their water source polluted by Tar sands runoff with a growing cancer cell springing up) with Saudi Arabia who are so multicultural they actually prefer to hire workers from India or Pakistan  Or how about their positive attitude towards women, while Canadian women are forced to drive their own cars, the Saudi’s provide their women with chauffeurs and male chaperons instead Yes buy Saudi oil, the “ethical” oil!

Jokes aside, the fact is there is no such thing as “ethical oil”. The stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in Canada is as dirty as the stuff that comes out of a hole in the ground in the Middle East, possibly dirtier in fact.

But we need those jobs here in Canada, the Tar sands supporters will say, if the tar sands aren’t promoted all those jobs will go abroad along with North America’s energy security. And how many jobs could be created if Canada exploited instead its vast renewable energy potential? North America has some of the best and most varied renewable resources on the planet, if only our American cousins would only get over their whole “real men don’t use solar panels” attitude. And if the point of tar sands oil is to improve north American energy security then why are they building pipelines to Texas and West Coast ports from the tar sands? That sort of implies that the bulk of the oil will ulitmately be exported, or at the very least if America wants the oil it will have to pay the market price (which could be high in the future).

But we need the Tar sands to rescue the world from peak oil, is the other argument. Again, as will all tar sands propaganda this one too falls flat. I’ve seen estimates for the maximum tar sands ranging from 1 million bbl/day to 8 million bbl/day with 5m bbl/day often been quoted as a “best guess”. However this is but 6% of the current global demand of around 80million bbl/day and even that 8m bbl/day figure (wildly optimistic thought it is) is but 8% of the projected 2030 demand figure for oil of 100million bbl/day. Were does the other 94-96% of the world’s oil come from?

Furthermore, again we have to consider the issue of EROEI. I’ve seen EROEI estimates for the tar sands ranging from 9 to 0.7 (with a ratio in the range of 3-7 being probably a more credible range of values), substantially worse than any existing oil fields (EROEI ranging from 10 – 100). Remember that because an IC engine is typically just 20-30% efficient (and the primary consumption path of oil is ultimately transport fuels) we need to achieve an EROEI of at least 5-3.3 just to break even energy wise (else our tar sands count as a net energy sink rather than a source).

Inevitably the above means we’ll need to divert huge quantities of natural gas to power the whole operation. Indeed its questionably if there is sufficient quantities of gas (or coal) to spare within the whole of North America – a fear that seems justified given recent talk about bringing in nuclear reactors to meet demand. When I first heard about this plan to use nukes to extract tar sands I assumed it was a hoax perpetrated by Republicans trying to yank Greenpeace’s chain, but unfortunately no its for real. Of course even a number of pro-nuclear campaigners aren’t entirely happy about this one, describing it to me as “perverse” and “an abuse of nuclear technology”. After all, it involves (as they see it) taking high grade zero-carbon nuclear energy and using it to produce a load of low grade carbon intensive energy! Would you not be better just building reactors closer to cities and generating electricity and heat they argue? When the nuclear lobby calls you environmental terrorists you know you’re goose is cooked! And of course I would point out, ridiculous as this idea is, it can only be sustained as long as we can keep feeding Uranium into the nuclear reactors. And who is going to pay the decommissioning costs of those reactors and what happens if one of them pops its cork in the middle of the Canadian Boreal forests?

While nuclear power would reduce the net carbon output from the Tar sands we are still looking at a situation where the tar sands will still produce much more greenhouse gases, both from disturbance to the eco system as well as from the oil itself and the refining and processing of it, compared to existing oilfields. A global policy of climate change mitigation and tar sands (or shale gas) extraction are simply not compatible.

The Tar sands are thus in summary not ethical, not eco friendly, not a solution to peak oil and arguably not even Canadian anymore! The only people who will ultimately gain from tar sands extraction are the shareholders of a small number of foreign multinational oil companies…or certainty greedy PR types happy to sell their souls and they’re nation’s credibility for a few (tar splattered) bucks.

IEA predicts that over the next five years the world will build so many dirty factories, fossil-fuelled power stations and energy inefficient buildings that it will become impossible for us to stop global warming from rushing past safe climate levels. And so they warn that our last chance against dangerous climate change will be lost forever. Fatih Birol, chief economist at the International Energy Agency, said that “the door is closing.”

“I am very worried – if we don’t change direction now on how we use energy, we will end up beyond what scientists tell us is the minimum for safety. The door will be closed forever.”

Everything that produces greenhouse gas emissions, such as dirty coal plants and other fossil-fueled power stations, which are being constructed from now on, will continue to spew out carbon for decades to come. And this will lock the world on a path towards irreversible climate change with disastrous effects. The Guardian reports:

“If the world is to stay below 2C of warming, which scientists regard as the limit of safety, then emissions must be held to no more than 450 parts per million (ppm) of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the level is currently around 390ppm. But the world’s existing infrastructure is already producing 80% of that “carbon budget”, according to the IEA’s analysis, published on Wednesday. This gives an ever-narrowing gap in which to reform the global economy on to a low-carbon footing.

If current trends continue, and we go on building high-carbon energy generation, then by 2015 at least 90% of the available “carbon budget” will be swallowed up by our energy and industrial infrastructure. By 2017, there will be no room for manoeuvre at all – the whole of the carbon budget will be spoken for, according to the IEA’s calculations.”

A couple of days before the IEA “bombshell” the US department of energy released another gloomy report which showed that global carbon dioxide emissions rose with 6% in 2010, greatly exceeding the worst case scenario outlined by the IPCC. Al Jazeera English reports:

“In 2007, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued its last large report on global warming, it used different scenarios for carbon dioxide pollution, and said the rate of warming would be based on the rate of pollution.

Tom Boden (director of the Energy Department’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Centre at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee) said the latest figures put global emissions higher than the worst case projections from the climate panel. Those forecast global temperatures rising between 2.4 and 6.4 degrees Celsius by the end of the century with the best estimate at four degrees Celsius.”

According to the report the world released around 564 million more tonnes of carbon emissions into the air during the last year compared to previous levels in 2009. The increase in emissions mainly comes from China and the USA which alone stood for more than half of the emissions in 2010. But more and more emissions come from developing countries. “We really need to get the developing world because if we don’t, the problem is going to be running away from us,” climate scientist Andrew Weaver from the University of Victoria said. “And the problem is pretty close from running away from us.” But “the more we talk about the need to control emissions, the more they are growing,” John Reilly, co-director of MIT’s Joint Programme on the Science and Policy of Global Change, said.

It’s now clearer than ever. We must start to aggressively change our high-carbon energy systems to more clean and renewable energy sources, scrap our massive fossil fuel subsidies and deploy a myriad of climate policies such as a carbon tax. We only have a few remaining years to make a difference until we must face certain and worldwide climate catastrophe. It looks grim, really grim to be honest. But we can’t give up just yet. Let’s put up a good fight.

Recipe for an oil war

Heritage Oil and Tullow Oil are guessing the 2.5 billion barrel or larger field is the largest onshore field found in sub-saharan Africa in more than two decades. Production of 150,000 barrels of oil per day by 2015 place Uganda among top 50 oil producing nations is planned. The latter company, Irish Tullow Oil, is now accused of having bribed three Ugandan ministers with 100 million USD in July 2010 in return for concessions. The ministers resigned October 2011. Tullow denies allegations, maintain an anti-bribe image and have funded a lake rescue station which they claim have already saved the lives of more than 70 local fishermen. Also in the deal are French Total and Chinese Cnooc. Those corporations are expected to claim 2/3 of the 3-4 billion USD hoped to be made annually.

A leaked US embassy cable (Wikileaks, #08KAMPALA393) reveals Uganda have been asking for help stepping up security in and around the oil rich area. John Morley of Tullow Oil is quoted for saying that as oil activity on Lake Albert increase a security presence would be vital. The cable mention “several clashes on Lake Albert between oil companies and entities from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) demonstrate that oil production has increased local tensions and exacerbated cross-border hostilities”. In 2007 a British drilling platform worker was killed by Congolese soldiers who claimed the barge had strayed into Congolese waters. Although the Ugandan and Congolese governments are talking and are in agreement concerning the precise geography of the border the armed forces on the Congolese side of the border are not always government-related.

An intervention overdue?

Several militias fight in the area and in just recent months thousands have had to fled their homes, hundreds have been kidnapped. Adding to the Congolese militias the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR) rebels as well as the infamous Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA) led by Joseph Kony add to the insecurity. FDLR is a Hutu group whose two top leaders are held in France and Germany on charges of crimes against humanity yet whose troops raped at least 154 civilians from July 30 to August 3, 2010, in the town of Luvungi. LRA is the Ugandan theocratic militia of self-proclaimed prophet Joseph Kony, who claims to be acting on orders from spirits sent by God, and whose ranks have been inflated by an estimated 66,000 children abducted for soldiering. October 2005 the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued arrest warrants on Kony and four other leading members of LRA; the 33 charges include murder, enslavement, sexual enslavement and pillaging.

Recently, the Ugandan presiden spent US$780 million on six Russian jet fighters. A decision that raises eyebrows in a country with a GDP of less than 500USD per capita.

“We don’t live in an enemy-free neighbourhood. So, don’t look at the purchase in terms of cost. The Great Lakes region is one of the most unsafe regions.”
- Ugandan presiden Yoweri Museveni

Since 2008 the US have donated more than 40 million USD on supporting the Local counter-militia efforts. And now 100 Green Berets have been sent as military advisers for the governments of the region. They are receiving a warm welcome.

“For 20 years, the government of Uganda has been pleading with our American and European friends to help in the LRA problem, because these are international terrorists. We wanted our friends to help in providing technical support — such as intelligence — because they have the best.”
- Uganda’s acting foreign minister Henry Okello Oryem

“Any support to tackle the LRA is a good move [...] South Sudan is already working with Uganda’s army in operations against the LRA, and we will be pleased to work with anyone who can help us combat the threat [...] We have large communities whose lives are ruined by these rebels, so the sooner we can end this once and for all will be something we will look forward to.”
- South Sudan army spokesman Philip Aguer

“The Central African Republic today more than needs external assistance like that of United States [...] Many hundreds of our people have been killed, others kidnapped or displaced, their homes ransacked, destroyed, their possessions looted. It is unbearable.”
- CAR Deputy defence minister Jean-Francis Bozize

Thus, the link between the US troops and the oil is still a “conspiracy theory”. Obama and the US is simply making friends while helping the world get rid of monsters. Human Rights Watch has advocated for intervention for years.

Yet at home knee-jerk reactions are dominated by right-wing isolationism/grudges and left-wing anti-war sentiments.

The enemy within

A recent report, “Oil Extraction and the Potential for Domestic Instability in Uganda”, warns about other dangers than cross-border guerrilla warfare: the possible side-effects of a sudden large scale resource industry entering a developing economy. President Museveni, who first seems to have orchestrated the addition of a third presidential term to the constitution then won a low turnout election disputed by international observers, is already speaking of “his” oil.

“If Museveni gains access to substantial oil revenue, the combination of considerable oil funds and strong presidential powers could increase the ability of his government to remain in power indefinitely. [...] Increases in corrupt behavior would essentially require secrecy in government dealings. A reduction in government transparency in oil and tax revenue management would then incentivize Museveni’s government to become increasingly autocratic in its relationship with the public and political opponents, as has so often been the pattern in other oil producing states.”

Also, susceptibility to the Dutch Disease should be considered:

“If the government does not reinvest revenues into public works to soften the blow of economic change, domestic instability may ensue [...] The poor and disaffected youths are the most likely to turn to violence in order to redress socio-political grievances. A young, growing, and increasingly urban population indicates the potential for civil strife in Uganda. The added stress of urban migration associated with oil production may only exacerbate the dynamics behind civil strife. [...] If Museveni’s government makes its decisions public and is held accountable, it is more likely to choose anti-corruption policies that are favorable to the public interest.”

The report estimate the risk of civil war in Uganda as 1.96% if the new found resource wealth is handled wisely, 14.05% if not. Dutch Disease effects could be both mitigated and worsened by the fact that multiple industries are likely to boom: in 2010 firms from Russia, China, India, Australia and South Africa started operating in Uganda after finds of copper, iron ore, cobalt, tin, gold and platinum.

“We must be Africa’s Norway. We must manage our oil resources in the stellar manner in which Botswana has managed its wealth from diamonds.”
- Bank of Uganda Governor, Emmanuel Mutebile

We haven’t heard much from the hopeful Iraqi politicians who once voiced similar intentions with their oil. However, it does seem Obama is at least trying to do better than his predecessor(s). And if a US president can’t even go to war against someone as evil as Joseph Kony he truly can do nothing at all – yet, who knows if the Tea Party will side with Kony and his lunatic army?

Learn more: The Independent (Uganda) / Oil could cause war, Capital News (Kenya) / Uganda welcomes US troops to hunt rebel leaders, Sunday Monitor (Uganda) / Here is what is at stake with Uganda’s oil, The Atlantic / Why Is Obama Sending Troops Against the Lord’s Resistance Army?, allafrica.com / Uganda: Scramble for Minerals Begins.

GMOs are genetically modified organisms, also called GE or genetically engineered foods. This involves scientists making changes to the food on a molecular level which could not happen in nature. These changes may include mixing the DNA from two separate sources, and potentially from different species, and they are ultimately made so that the crops will be more beneficial for humans. For example, flounder DNA was mixed with tomatoes so that they will be better able to withstand the cold. While this allows tomatoes to grow in a larger geographic area and for a longer period, it is unclear what other effects genetic modification may have.

That is one of the reasons GMOs have been getting so much media attention in recent years. The basic argument against GMOs is that their safety has not been adequately tested, although they are consumed by millions of human beings every day. Some of America’s main crops – including corn, soy and cottonseed – are already made of over 90% GE seeds, but to date there is no mandatory process to test the safety of these foods for consumption. The makers of GMOs have been given the same freedom as common manufacturers, but their product has much higher stakes than the average garage door or book case.

While federal testing may be out of the picture, Just Label It wants to make sure that consumers are aware of whether or not their food has been genetically modified. According to a poll by the Consumer’s Union, 95% of consumers believe that genetically engineered food should be labeled, and 93% of Americans want labelling to be mandatory.

The FDA requires food labels to carry “material” information, based on the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Material information constitutes anything that can be tasted, seen, or experienced by the other senses. Genetic modifications don’t have to be represented on labels because they cannot be sensed – but this is exactly the reason that consumers need to be informed if their food has been genetically modified. Without being told, they can never figure it out on their own.

The Just Label It petition calls for the FDA to require labelling so that Americans can make the choice to purchase GE foods or not. It highlights several nations where this labelling is already required, including the European Union nations, Russia, China, Japan, New Zealand and several others, and calls for America to have those same requirements for the benefit of its consumers.

Some members of Congress have reported that the Republican party continues to undermine environmental protection. The Congress members stated that the GOP is trying to allow for more toxic pollution, increased waste, and fast consumption of resources.

The Energy and Commerce Committee in Congress is where a large part of all these decisions occur. The House Republicans argue that having environmental controls will affect the nation’s economy and jobs, even though the evidence of this is absent.

While we are on the threshold of the fiscal year 2012, there are a few developments to be aware of. The U.S. EPA and the Interior Department are both subjects of a bill that will create deep cuts. The bill (H.R. 2584) involves getting rid numerous restrictions on environmental regulation. Measures to protect human and environmental health with the Clean Air Act and others are in danger of being phased out.

The Republican majority-run House has voted 20 times against regulating emissions linked to climate change. It includes 10 votes taken about House Bill 910 that would permanently strip the EPA of its authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. The bill passed the House in April but has since stalled in the Senate, which means that it is in danger of the mercy of the Republican leaders who were involved with other similar measures.

The house has also voted against measure to protect the public from the effects of air and water pollution as well as mountain top removal for at least 28 times. The evidence of public health being affected by these things is overwhelming, but the Tea Party in the House continues to push recklessly for a compromised environment and future; effectively trying to close the garage door on the conversation.

The two Democrats who reported the EPA and Interior Department cuts had other matters discussed that followed the same pattern. 27 votes were taken “to undermine protection for public lands and coastal areas,” including passage in May of a bill (H.R. 1231) to allow leasing on the East and West coasts of the United States.

This allows for the public beaches and other treasured areas on the coasts to be owned by anyone to do as they please. This means that when one entity chooses to pollute over property that they bought, then it can leak into public areas such as beaches and the owners would not be held accountable. The horrors of the BP oil spill in 2010 are still fresh in our minds, and this bill would allow for similar environmental issues that may be even closer to the coastal areas where people live.

The American public has no benefit from the Tea Party. The Tea Party chooses to pick and choose what they want to believe in about how major corporations will affect everyone else even though this has been shown to be detrimental in the long term. If the American public wants to do something for the future of the nation, the citizens of the USA need to be informed better and the GOP needs to be held accountable for their decisions.

It can make all the difference for everyone’s well-being if they understand the real facts behind the pieces of legislation instead of the rhetoric and propaganda constantly pushed by the GOP. Legislators should represent the people and the future of our nation’s environment. The environment and public health depend on the public choosing their legislators wisely.