Is Keystone worth the fight?

The fight over the Keystone XL pipeline is getting much-deserved attention and I have written about why this fight is about more than just a pipeline, but some, like Andy Revkin, think this is the wrong target. Revkin's logic is frustratingly misguided in my opinion and thankfully David Roberts has an excellent rebuttal to these arguments:

If you want to argue that activists shouldn’t focus on Keystone, you can’t just establish that rallying around and/or blocking Keystone won’t reduce carbon emissions much. So what? Why not try it? Something’s better than nothing, after all. Even if it’s a total waste of time, that may be unproductive, but it’s not counterproductive.

Maybe Keystone isn’t the right line. Maybe the next line won’t be the right one either. But the longer folks like Revkin hover over such fights at an ironic distance, never quite satisfied with this target, or that spokesperson, or this policy, or that strategy, the more they’re going to get blowback from people gripped by a sense that there’s not a lot of time left to fuck around and at the very least we have to stop making it worse. The ranks of such people are growing. At some point, dithering over incrementalism in the imaginary center will come to be seen as a failure of moral clarity and judgment. I wouldn’t want to be the last person dug into that trench.

Read the rest.

Tags: Activism | Global Climate Change | Global Warming Science | Tar Sands