Keystone XL Rally: The Inconvenient Truth
Signs that read, ‘This beard was grown with solar’, ‘Wind mills not oil spills’ and ‘The last tree on Easter Island was cut by a REPUBLICAN’ lined Washington Monument Park on Sunday February 17th. Getting there early was a sight in itself; at first only a few hundred meandered around, but within minutes of noon thousands flooded the park. It felt like an environmental Bonnaroo. Bill McKibben, a Senator, various celebrities and indigenous persons from all over, danced to the likes of It’s Tricky by Run DMC and Save the World (Tonight) by Swedish House Mafia. With nearly 50,000 people waving signs and police helicopters hovering above, it certainly felt more like a rally than a protest.
Being in a presence the size of 25 Colorado Colleges, all there to combat the Keystone XL Pipeline, felt reassuring. I met people who travelled from coast to coast and others from just about everywhere in between. Another reassuring factor was that there were young people! A giant drum (below) bellowed with the pulses of the youth as they chanted “One beat! One heart”! The vibe was primordial, a sense of release and activism that couldn’t be stopped stirred. I had high hopes for the day, perhaps too high.
Right off the bat there were tears, this clearly was an emotional struggle for many. At the mention of the people’s land being poisoned by hydrologic fracturing (fracking) and the “rape and pillage of the land” by tar sands extraction, as one indigenous woman put it, tears rolled down the eyes of many in the crowd. There was nothing wrong with that in itself, but as I looked at the mothers around me crying, with their kids on the ground, I noticed something. The people seemingly so touched by pollution were also the ones polluting. Not just them, but many people; the consumer culture abounded.
It’s hard to judge on such a superficial level, but I observed one mother in particular crying at the stories of injustice told by the native people of Canada. Yet, I looked down to see her and all her four kids drinking hot chocolate out of Styrofoam cups with plastic lids while eating a plethora of processed foods with enough packaging to fill a trashcan. There was something wrong here. How could the same lady be so touched by the stories of environmental degradation, but be such a polluter herself? Her ideal and her reality were starkly misaligned.
Now let it be said that a majority of the protesters probably would not have been at the protest unless they sacrificed some of their environmental idealism to realistically get there (although buses and trains were a popular method due to their lower carbon footprint). By no means should carbon-guilt, as its called, be an excuse for inaction. The point is that we are always going to use resources, but we’re going to have to learn to use them sustainably. The bottom line is that Styrofoam never degrades naturally.
The hindrance to solving this hypocritical tension between polluter and pollutee was not helped by the distinction that was being made in the rally’s rhetoric. Perhaps the most striking example of this distinction was in the speech of Senator Washington (D-RI) when he proclaimed, “The big oil companies don’t want you to be heard. The polluters don’t want you to be here”. Over and over there was a psychological separation being made between the ‘polluter’ and the ‘crowd’. As if to say, you are not a polluter. I looked back at the mother from before and saw utter belief in her eyes. She had bought it and it seemed everyone else had too. This vilification of the fossil companies is valid in one manner, but a total fraud in another sense.
There were surely different reasons why people were there. Regardless, in my mind the overarching idea behind protesting the Keystone XL pipeline is moving towards creating a sustainable society. It’s good rhetoric to stand up there as a politician and say, “Are we going to look our kids in the eye and say we failed them? No”, as Senator Washington did, but it’s also not sound logic to solely blame the fossil fuel companies for our woes. We are the polluters.
This is what is so hard about the anti-climate change movement. In the civil rights movement it was obvious who was the oppressor and who was the oppressed. In the Birmingham campaign there was the oppressor spraying the hose and the oppressed being sprayed. But in the climate movement it gets tricky. We are the ones spraying pollution out of our tailpipe and it’s the fossil fuel companies supplying the ‘water’, in this case fuel. So who is the oppressor and who is the oppressed? Who is to blame?
On one hand the people are justified in holding up signs that demand wind and solar on a large scale and blame the fossil fuel industry for their profit-motivated dismissal of the green sector. It’s true that fossil fuel companies have deliberately staggered competitive entry into the market. Yet these green(er) technologies won’t completely solve the problem either. There is a fundamental problem: we have no other energy source that can supply our current energy demands. Even if solar and wind were implemented on a scale never seen before, they could not supply our demand. Their sources are variable and we do not have the technology to store the power.
The fundamental tension between the movement is this: at the current rate of consumption per capita in America, it would take four earths to provide the necessary material goods. In simpler terms, we can’t have our cake and eat it too. It’s going to take personal sacrifice to a degree; we need to go on an energy diet. By no means does that infer going off the grid or reviving the hippie commune, but it does mean taking the necessary individual steps to solve the problem by giving up some of our petty conveniences.
If we are to move towards creating a sustainable society—and fast— not only is it going to take technological optimism, it will take personal responsibility. Not only is it going to take a fundamental shift of government energy policy, it’s going to take a shift in our own behavior.
The elephant in the room was plain and clear and because it was never addressed the march felt halfhearted at times. When we showed up to the Whitehouse I heard through the grapevine that Obama was playing golf in Florida with Tiger Woods. The lesson? It’s invaluable that people demand top-down change and a larger economic impetus for change, but people must also change their own actions, it needs to be a cultural shift as well.
There was a inkling of this cultural shift in the air as signs read ‘drones won’t clean up oils spills and capitalism won’t fix the problem’ and one banner toting the logo of the environmental socialist organization promoting ‘system change not light bulb change’, but all of the other solutions seemed to be purely ‘market based’ as Obama called them in his State of the Union last week. It begs the question; can capitalism alone fix the problem of global climate change? Where will the real change come from? These are big questions with complex answers, but perhaps tangible change is best sought in the top meeting the bottom in the middle.
It seems that we still haven’t come to terms with what Al Gore popularized ‘The Inconvenient Truth’. Our hypocrisy already looming seven years in the past, all I know is that dynamic change needs to happen soon. I am not trying to undermine what was the largest anti-climate change rally in U.S. history, only attempting to start a conversation about the tension that need to be worked out. Unfortunately time is not on our side when it comes to cooling the planet.