SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Hope and Change: Meet the Ex-Obama Staffers Getting Arrested...

ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY SEPTEMBER 3, 2011

Hope and Change: Meet the Ex-Obama Staffers Getting Arrested in Front of the White House

Each morning for the past two weeks, scores of respectable-looking protestors ushered themselves into single file lines, walked determinedly through Washington’s Lafayette Park, sat down on the sidewalk in front of the White House, arranged themselves in rows as if for a class photo, and waited patiently to be arrested (the violation: blocking pedestrian traffic). As of Friday, the penultimate day of scheduled protests, the total arrest count stood at 1,009—among those booked were former members of Obama's campaign and White House staff. 

The specific object of their ire is the 1,700 mile oil pipeline called Keystone XL, which is scheduled to be built from the vast tar sands of Alberta, Canada all the way to refineries in Texas. But the activists don’t hesitate to say whom they would hold responsible for its construction: President Obama himself.

And there’s merit to the charge. With respect to his efforts to enact health-care reform, financial regulation and strike a debt deal, Obama has caught plenty of unfair flak from the left for not “going far enough.” The nagging problem with this line of criticism is it often ignores political realities—say, for instance, the separation of powers. But the decision to allow the construction of Keystone XL—and to permit its unusually noxious environmental repercussions—is in the president’s hands, as a matter of foreign relations. On August 26, the State Department, to whom the decision is officially delegated, indicated early approval for the project with a favorable "Final Environmental Impact Statement." When the eventual determination is made, sometime after Thanksgiving, it can't plausibly be blamed on partisan politics. In that way, the protesters aren’t just objecting to the pipeline—they’re expressing their belief that the President has misrepresented his own commitment to environmentalism.

Protest leader Bill McKibben (also a TNR contributor) and his small army of activists—who together have mounted what they call the largest show of environmentalist civil disobedience in the nation’s history—have a number of objections to the pipeline. Keystone XL would facilitate the use of a heavy Canadian crude oil called bitumen, which not only contains more carbon than regular oil, but whose extraction and refinement leaves about two times as large a carbon footprint as conventional drilling, and wreaks havoc on the local habitat. A July 2011 study by the Canadian government estimated that bitumen oil production alone would lead to a 30 percent rise in the country's carbon emissions by 2020. The pipeline, which would traverse one of the Great Plains’ central water supplies, also poses an enormous spillage risk—the original Keystone pipeline, built by the same Canadian company in charge of XL, has reportedly leaked 12 times since it opened last summer.

As far as the protesters are concerned, this summer has given plenty of reason to be skeptical of the president’s good faith, his strengthened fuel efficiency standards notwithstanding. In June, Obama reneged on his promise to install solar panels on the White House roof. On Friday, he killed a long-anticipated plan to curb smog emissions. Now the administration may let the prospect of the pipeline’s job-creating potential outweigh its demerits. If Obama green-lights the project, which environmental activists are trying to make the defining issue between now and the 2012 election, he’ll likely antagonize a significant portion of his grassroots support, which is slowly, albeit politely, losing patience with his recent ambivalence over combating climate change.

One might call the protestors’ strategy a kumbaya mutiny. It is an insurrection by way of folk songs: They sing “We Shall Overcome” and “This Land is Your Land” in unison as they await arrest. Many, including McKibben, wear Obama pins, as if trying to guilt-trip the man they once voted for. Shame, of course, only provides so much leverage in high-stakes politics. But the protesters are hoping that their personal ties to Obama—the fact some of them have worked for him and others volunteered their time for his presidential campaign—will persuade him to consider their position, and reconsider his own.

Already five former Obama staffers have been arrested, in addition to hundreds of ex-volunteers. Elijah Zarlin, who wrote many of Obama and David Plouffe’s ubiquitous mass emails during the campaign, flew from San Francisco to send a message via handcuffs. “It’s really difficult to work as hard as we did for something, and as long as we did for someone, and have him be such a disappointment,” he later told me by phone.

Courtney Hight, the Florida Youth Vote Director during the campaign and a former staffer for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said she ultimately left the Obama administration around the time the climate bill failed last summer, largely out of frustration for his lack of environmental initiative. “There needed to be more public awareness [about climate change] and that was just not coming from the White House,” Hight told me before getting arrested, adding that her activism on behalf of the Keystone XL pipeline stemmed from a feeling of “disenfranchisement.” 

In June 2008, after he secured the Democratic nomination for president, Barack Obama returned to his giddy and exhausted campaign staff in Chicago and urged them to work “better, longer, and probably without break between now and November 4.” It was crucial, he told them, to elect a president serious about climate change. After raising those hopes, he’s threatened to dash them entirely. NASA climate scientist James Hansen, who has called the pipeline “game over” for the environment, said before he was arrested Monday, “We had great hopes for Barack Obama - perhaps our dreams were unrealistic.” If Obama goes forward with the pipeline project, he’s risking the possibility that his next presidential campaign will look a lot different—and seem a lot less energized—than the last.

Simon van Zuylen-Wood is a reporter-researcher at The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 4 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

4 comments

Good for the protesters. I am upset about the path taken by this Administration. Now improved air quality has been abandoned. Why?

- Sophia

September 3, 2011 at 1:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I truly don't understand the purpose or need for this pipeline. The Canadians have been producing and selling this dirty petrol to the world for quite a while now. It accounts for the majority of the U.S.'s imported "foreign" oil every year. Most people mistakenly beleive that "furen" oil comes from the Middle East. It doesn't....it comes from our neighbor to the north. I assumed they were refining it themselves all along, so why the need for the pipeline to TX now?

- desertdog

September 3, 2011 at 6:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Alas, we are seeing that Obama is willing to compromise his ideals (ozone decision, XL pipeline) to enjoy another term in office. And it shows, yet again, that when it comes right down to it, nobody of significance is really progressive at all. Or, at least they start progressive and when they get into office and everything is explained to the, they realize "oh crap" and they embrace what they formerly demonized. Gitmo. Iraq. Rendition. Cheap energy. Low taxes. Taxes on millionaires. And on and on. Desertdog, you really don't understand the purpose of this pipeline? The math is quite easy. The pipeline costs $7B to build. It will move 500K barrels per day, with a value of $18B/year today. If your investment lasts 20 years, then the cost of the pipeline is actually quite small relative to the sales of the oil. But all this shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. Any family that would take two separate private jets, just hours apart, to go on holiday can't really claim to be that worried about the environment. Be serious.

- seattleeng

September 4, 2011 at 1:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Seattle...whose talking about a family travelling on two private jets? Of course this would be a waste of resources. Please read the question before you launch into a knee-jerk reaction. I would ask the same thing from my environmentalist/left-leaning friends as well. I suspect that a few of them may be reacting the same way you are just simply because they don't like the source of the crude, not because it actually increases the carbon output. My question has to do with how the Canadians are CURRENTLY refining their oil sand crude. If this pipeline is simply a more efficient way of dealing with oil they're already producing, then I can't see how it changes the carbon equation positively or negatively. As an environmentalist myself, I look at the overall equation, the "net" of carbon output, not the specific project. However, if this pipeline is simply a way to further validate and/or increase oil sand production or a way to make it appear as though this is American oil, then the carbon output is a net increase and I'm opposed to it.

- desertdog

September 6, 2011 at 4:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close