Catholics join hundreds in arrests over oil pipeline

I am in support of this project. Have we ever considered the environmental impacts of people out of work? We become so overly-eager to create jobs we overlook potential pitfalls. It's the blind leading the blind. I do not believe we are trading an evil for an evil. We are minimizing the impacts of relying on threatening regimes for our energy. It is not ideal, no doubt, but consider the potential for disaster in any segment of our infrastructure. At any time millions can be affected. Thousands could die. But it doesn't mean we should give up and quit trying to innovate or stop trying to alleviate the madness that's occurred in other regions over oil mining.

These complaints seem to be recycled words from the Alaska pipeline. Lets keep barrowing from the Chinese to pay the Arabs.

Father Noonan is worried about Climate Change? Please Father...offer me just 1 accurate prediction on climate. Rhetorical question...you've got nothing. With regards to my children, how about if I worry about their safety and not you? My children will decidedly NOT rue the day this pipeline was built. Instead, they will be grateful for using it to have heat in the winter. In the meantime, I'd suggest you pray for actual problems in the world. For example, go to Tienanmen Square and ask why the Bible is banned. That would be a more worthy protest than this pathetic attempt. I can promise you that when you stand before God on Judgment Day, you will receive a lesson in Priority. In front of the Creator...your argument that "Climate Change" (which for all you know, is by virtue of God Himself) is a more pressing issue than the freedom to worship God...well, good luck.

The article fails to report on the 12 spills in the first year of the Keystone pipeline's use....the potential risks are being downplayed in my opinion. Also this action does nothing to ween U.S. citizens addiction to oil and detracts from the awareness that renewable resources like Biomass will have to someday soon replace fossil fuels.

If oil from this source must be obtained (I personally am against it), why is it that a refinery or refineries can't be built (if none exist) in one of the border States or Minnesota, etc. Why does this oil have to be pumped 1,711 miles through a pipeline that could cause an environmental disaster?

These questions of the environment are not black & white in the moral sense. Whether or not a pipeline should be built (with environmental safeguards) is debatable. It is not a reason for people to go to jail! And this applies double for priests. A priest should be doing his job in the Church, not spending time in jail for any reason, be it abuse, embezzling or protesting a pipeline!

I am no fan of Obama but I will not oppose an action of this President unless there is a solid reason to do so on the objective plane. Last time I checked, the Dems were more liberal on environmental issues than Reps. has this changed? So if a liberal Dem President is supporting this pipeline, you must know there are solid economic reasons for doing so together with plenty of safeguards.

First of all, the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), has demonstrated that the sun causes climate change, that it is not man-made (http://my.auburnjournal.com/detail/186758.html). So, let's move on from this myth of man-made climate change.

Second, the question of where the United States gets its oil is one that absolutely needs to be answered. For too long, the US has been dependent on oil from nations who are, at best ambiguous toward us, at worst, outright hostile. It is an absolute necessity for national security and economic purposes that the US develop oil fields here at home, and in nations, like Canada, that are trustworthy allies. Our entire way of life is driven by oil, and though this may not be ideal for which we should strive, we nonetheless have to accept reality as it is. We need this oil.

Third, as has been mentioned before, President Obama himself supports this. If the most liberal President since FDR supports this plan, there must be real reasons for him to do so.

Finally, just an observation. It seems, quite often, to me that many of these environmentalists care more for nature than they do for human beings. The creation of 20,000 new jobs on this pipeline, as well as numerous other jobs in a variety of fields that will indirectly be created indirectly by this pipeline seems to matter very little to these folks. I wonder if some would be happier if humanity simply vanished and the earth were pristine and untouched again...

As in this case, the Catholic left can be as stridently moralistic as the Catholic right. Only the issues different. The Church as a whole is awash in moralism and judgments (contrary to Jesus' "Do not judge.") The Vatican could even be called "Judgments, Incorporated." Would that half the effort were spent on inner spiritual growth.

As an environmental scientist, I understand that the climate situation caused by man is now dire and that we are now seeing the impacts of the aggrivated climate state expressed in the extreme weather events of the past few years. Indeed, for the last decade or more. Contrary assertions are inconsistent with objective, peer reviewed assessments made by thousands and thousands of climate scientists.

Moreover, ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on the economy and on the environment, including accelerated sea level rise, greater threats of extreme weather events, droughts, urban heat waves, wildfires, landslides and the disturbance of biological systems on which we depend such as crop production. And don't forget disease and abrupt population declines. The science community has stated that the severity of these impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming years and its effects cannot be reversed.

I would strongly suggest that Pres. Obama NOT approve the tar sands pipeline project for these reasons. He will then be on the right side in history. And if not, well, there may not be much more of human history.

Since climate change is the greatest threat to life on Earth, and since the Alberta Tar Sands project is the most polluting on Earth, and since millions of people die prematurely every year from breathing emissions from burning oil (28,000 a year in Canada alone), and since the plastics made from oil are choking wildlife, landfills and oceans alike (think of the floating mass of plastic in the north Atlantic that is 20 feet thick and twice the size of Texas), and since vehicle emissions contain as many hazardous cancer-causing substances as cigarette smoke, and since no amount of oil travelling to the USA from Canada will make any difference to the wars for power and control over all oil on the planet, and since oil exploration and oil extraction is devastating the natural world and driving many species to extinction (up to one half of all species on Earth by the end of this century if we fail to slow down climate change), it should be clear to any thinking being that extracting any more oil from the Earth (and particularly Canada's dirty Tar Sands oil), is immoral and unethical because it is highly destructive to our life support system.

It is both criminal and stupid to continue to base our entire economy on a substance that is poisoning us and our life support system. Let's choose clean technologies instead of dirty oil!

The leaders of the top environmental groups in the country, the Republican Governor of Nebraska, and millions of people around the country -- including hundreds of people who have bravely participated in civil disobedience at the White House -- all agree on one thing: President Obama should block a planned pipeline from the tar sands of Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.

The tar sands are the dirtiest source of fuel on the planet. Gasoline made from the tar in the Alberta Tar Sands gives a Toyota Prius the same impact on climate as a Hummer using gasoline made from oil. This pipeline would be an enormous mistake. The answer to our climate, energy and economic challenges does not lie in burning more dirty fossil fuels -- instead, we must continue to press for much more rapid development of renewable energy and energy efficient technologies and cuts in the pollution that causes global warming.

Since Catholics were joining in on the protest, it just goes to show that wisdom is an aquired attribute not necessarily granted at conversion.

I have friends who put food on the table working in Fort Mac.

It is wrong to suggest or imply that God is opposed to this oil pipeline! To do so demonstrates the epitome of arrogance. Politicizing the Church in this way damages the Church. Yes, let's develop alternative sources of energy. But until the alternatives are made affordable and fully operational, we need oil. We need to power the vehicles that distribute food and other critical resources. To deprive people, especially the poor and struggling middle class, of affordable food and clothing, oil to heat their apartments and homes, and affordable transportation to and from work is immoral! Let's keep energy secure, affordable, and available while we continue to develop cleaner alternatives.

This should be, at best, a matter of tertiary concern to a priest. I don't think there's a single point of morality at hand, in nixing the pipeline. We're given the goods of God's earth to use. Not to wring our hands over. Accidents and spills will happen, certainly. That doesn't mean we don't do it. And do it boldly! If the pipeline were to make available a living wage for a single family in need, do it. And do it boldly! Don't protest it. Protest abortion. Protest gay so-called marriage. THESE are not merely political issues (like an oil pipeline) but moral issues the Church is uniquely, if not solely and appropriately, poised to address.