Must-See Van Jones Video: ‘The Obama Tar Sands Pipeline’

Tar Sands in handsHere’s a great idea from Van Jones. If the President decides the Keystone XL pipeline is a good thing, let’s rename it “The Obama Tar Sands Pipeline.”

Help this video go viral:

19 Responses to Must-See Van Jones Video: ‘The Obama Tar Sands Pipeline’

  1. Henry says:

    Certainly a powerful message but, wow, talk about burning your bridges!
    Obama will not like this one.

  2. Raul M. says:

    Shouldn’t that bridge be one that is safe for people to use? Strange to say that the danger is from POTUS.

  3. catman306 says:

    A rose is a rose by any other name, and so a Obama’s Tar Sands Pipeline is Obama’s Tar Sands Pipeline by ANY other name.

    Mr. Jones is certainly on to something.

  4. Raul M. says:

    Thanks Van Jones for speaking out for the interests of America.

  5. Sasparilla says:

    Great message and I salute Van Jones for speaking the truth here, great to see him putting down the whole jobs myth about the pipeline on TV.

  6. Robert Nagle says:

    Two questions: 1)Is there any date where a decision is expected? 2)How likely is it for Obama to kick the can over to the next administration?

  7. Joe Romm says:

    1) late summer at the earliest, early next year (!) at the latest. 2) Not bloody likely, but never say never with this feckless bunch. Actually, it would make no sense politically to defer this to the next administration.

  8. Lore says:

    Sounds like plenty of time to get the plaque cast with Obama’s name on it prior to the final inauguration.

  9. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    Who do you reckon is the more trustworthy of the two, the one whose deeds match his words?

  10. Mulga Mumblebrain says:

    As close to the next Congressional election as possible, to ensure maximum outrage amongst the remaining ‘Hope Addicts’, and the election of enough Reptilicans to ensure two final years of happy impotence. Or even, in all probability, further ‘triangulation’ towards a Reptilican program, in the name of ‘reaching out’.

  11. catman306 says:

    And a real leader doesn’t have to be goaded into doing the right thing.

  12. Brooks Bridges says:

    Given how urgently we need BIG actions taken on climate change and how devoid of merit XLP is by ANY measure, even leaving out climate change, I’m disgusted with O.

  13. robert says:

    The President has said he wants to take action on climate, and he has further challenged the citizenry to make him do it. Careful what you ask for…

  14. Jeff Huggins says:

    Complementary Ideas

    As I”ve explained at length elsewhere, we (the climate movement,, the environmental organizations, progressives and Democrats concerned about climate change, etc.) should begin now to persistently press Hillary Clinton with this concrete and timely question: “How would you rule, if you were president today, regarding Keystone XL? Would you approve it or deny approval? Be concrete and specific. Thanks.”

    In essence, this is just one way (but very concrete and timely) to begin letting would-be Democratic nominees for 2016 to know in no uncertain terms that we are serious this time around, and that we won’t support anyone who doesn’t have a serious, credible, clear, and compelling stance regarding climate change and how we should address it.

    Van’s idea (to name the pipeline after Obama if he approves it) and this idea (to make it clear that any would-be nominees will have to be forthright, clear, and compelling about climate change if they want the nomination), and others like these, should be adopted asap. The climate movement — if it is to be taken seriously by our political leaders and wanna-be leaders — must demonstrate its rigorous independence from the assumption/idea that we’ll bend over and vote for any Democratic nominee that the party sees fit to offer. No more.

    In my view, one of the chief roles of an organization like CAP should be to help the public understand the views of would-be progressive leaders and to ask that the candidates make their views clear. We should all want to know what Hillary would do, if she were president today, regarding Keystone XL as one concrete data-point that will help us understand whether she will be a suitable and sufficient Democratic nominee, or not.



  15. Wow! Good for Van Jones.

    One thing Van didn’t point out in that piece is that the pipeline has the potential to destroy more jobs than it creates. Wreck rivers? Wreck aquifers? People’s livelihoods are derived from access to that water. Additionally, of course, climate change is going to destroy a lot of jobs — agricultural and otherwise. It already has — how’s tourism on the Jersey Shore this summer?

  16. Superman1 says:

    We’re at the point where we need to see how serious she is about taking real action, not focusing on peripherals. The most important question for future President H. Clinton is: what is your plan to reduce CO2 emissions in the transition period to a level where the temperature ceiling (and climate cliff) can be avoided, and what is your plan to show leadership and exert pressure on other nations to do likewise, or even better?

  17. Jeff Huggins says:

    The Real Question

    Superman1, thanks for your persistence regarding this topic and your point. That said, I don’t think the matter is an either/or matter. In other words, I agree with the vital questions that you think should be posed to Hillary, and I also think she should be asked the concrete question about KXL that I’ve suggested (I don’t think that’s a ‘peripheral’ question, and I think it has the beauty of being very concrete and timely, calling for a direct yes/no answer).

    It seems to me that the immediate, real question for you and me is this: Can we get anyone else to agree — i.e., Joe, Ryan, CAP,, etc. — to make a full-court press in posing these questions to Hillary, starting now? Rather than you and I disagreeing about what the specific questions should be (we can include all three), it seems to me that we should be adding our voices together, hopefully with others, to try to prompt the folks with real platforms — again, Joe and CAP,, etc. — to make a serious effort to pose such questions to Hillary starting now. Alas, based on the initial responses from Joe to my suggestion here, regarding posing the KXL question to Hillary, I’m getting the impression that convincing folks to ask ANY meaningful, hard-hitting questions (with any edge at all) of Hillary at this point in time may be an uphill battle; although I don’t know why it should be; and I think it would be great progress just to prompt that discussion, to find out what the hang-up is?

    Thanks and be well,


  18. mulp says:

    We the People said “approve the pipeline”.

    No Democratic Congress was elected in 2010 or 2012 that was charged with limiting carbon emissions, but instead rebelled against climate action.

    And don’t even talk about the problem being the filibuster, because we would be talking about why Obama didn’t restore the EPA after Congress eliminated the EPA in 2003 when Republicans took solid control of Congress with 51 Senate votes.

  19. mulp says:

    Here’s my question for Joe Romm and Van Jones:

    If Obama kills the pipeline while he is president, will you deliver a Democratic Congress that has 70 Democratic Senators and 300 Democratic Representatives?

    Of course, if you could do that, why didn’t you do it in 2010 when the House passed a weak cap and trade bill and the Senate failed to get the 60 votes to pass it given 100% Republican commitment to planetary suicide?

    As long as the demand for oil is high engough to drive the price over $60, the tar sands oil will be mined, Keystone XL pipeline or not. After all, you guys hardly bothered to protest the slow cleanup of the Canadian tax sands oil spill in an oil pipeline, which was the reason BC refused a permit based on a failure to have plans in place to stop, and clean up spills.

    Just to be clear. We the People give all the power to Congress, not the President. Congress has punted some of the power to the President so they don’t need to take the heat. But Congress still has the power We the People give it.

    We the People are saying by the Congress We the People elect: we don’t care about the environment or the future of the planet, because getting out the vote for Congress is too hard, so let the planet burn. And in 2014, We the People will deliver the message very clearly again: let the planet burn.