How far in the name of climate: threat of jail doesn't stop Tar Sands protestors

Who would have thought that sitting on a US pavement to protest against environmental atrocities was an offence that could earn you two nights in jail and a court appearance?  

Well, after more than a hundred activists were carted off by police over the weekend after staging peaceful 'sit-ins' outside the White House in Washington, it's now become widespread knowledge. Yet despite all this, more activists keep coming to replace them.

The protest aims to persuade President Obama to block the $7 billion Keystone Pipeline that's would take oil from the dirty Alberta tar sands down to refineries in Texas.

The massive tar sands project represents the worst of our addiction to fossil fuel. The energy, water and chemical-intensive methods needed to turn bitumen into synthetic crude oil are destroying the local environment  - as well as helping to trash our climate. Each barrel of tar-sands crude produces between three and five times more climate changing emissions than conventional oil.

Despite the damage tar sands cause, a Friends of the Earth Europe report shows that the big oil companies and banks continue to pour money into Alberta tar sands and other 'unconventional' oil sources, rather than trying to make the transition to a low-carbon future.

According to NASA scientist and leading climatologist, Jim Hansen, "the principal requirement [for tackling climate change] is that coal emissions must be phased out by 2030 and unconventional fossil fuels, such as tar sands, must be left in the ground... If the tar sands are thrown into the mix it is essentially game over."

If projects like the Keystone Pipeline go ahead we're not even facing up to the planetary emergency, let alone addressing it. Friends of the Earth's report, 'Reckless Gamblers', shows not only do we need to take drastic action to move to a low-carbon future, we must start doing so immediately.

These arrests are about more than just brave activists sitting down in front of the White House. They raise questions that are relevant to this side of the Atlantic too. What is the role of peaceful protest and civil disobedience? In whose interest are the police acting? How can voices of opposition make themselves heard when faced with multinational corporations who present their activities as being in the national interest?

Organisers of the protest admit that without a landslide of public opposition, the pipeline will be declared to be in the interests of the US and given the green light.

Faced with the intense lobbying from the fossil fuel industry, as well as vested corporate interests such as the Koch brothers, described by Rolling Stone magazine as leading funders of the climate disinformation machine, it's not surprising that people opposed to tar sands can struggle to make their voices heard.

The US police knew about the protests beforehand and warned organisers that activists would be arrested, fined and released. Yet when asked why protestors were subsequently kept overnight and now face prosecution, the police replied they wanted to make an example of them to deter others.

Finally, what turns law-abiding citizens into activists prepared to risk arrest through peaceful disobedience like sit-ins?

When a serious problem stares us in the face - in this case global climate change - but law-makers refuse to take the necessary action, people throughout history have frequently turned to peaceful forms of protest.

Ironically, the US police said they needed to clear the pavement outside the White House in time for the 28 August anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous 'March on Washington', and the unveiling of a new memorial.

Personally, I can't think of a more fitting tribute to the methods and determination of Dr King than those brave individuals now behind bars for peacefully protesting over another just cause.

But will President Obama listen?