Mr. Avallon (“Endicott’s global warming sermon,” March 1) wrote a very thoughtful, professional and restrained critique of Bill McKibben’s presentation on global warming at Endicott College. The shortcomings that Mr. Avalon pointed out lead one to believe that the pitch was more propaganda than information. (e.g. If this year’s mild winter was anthropogenic global warming, why didn’t Europe benefit also?)
Sanctifying global warming and acting like it’s a cult of believers against the “Deniers” leads to bad choices and the unconvincing rebuttals that appeared in the Citizen and elsewhere.
The first, Mrs. Rosenbaum’s, was not up to Mr. Avallon’s standard. It’s misleading to describe the Keystone-XL pipeline as “going thru the Oglala aquifer” when the aquifer is 400 feet below the surface. Nor does she recognize that the oil market is worldwide with her comment “tar sands oil is not for Americans.” Approximately 50 percent of our Balance of Trade deficit (Current Account) is imported oil. Finally, blaming skepticism on a big oil conspiracy is demeaning to anyone using their technical expertise to raise questions.
The U.S. has excess refining capacity, so in addition to the construction jobs, the pipeline would provide additional long-term American jobs in the Gulf region refining gasoline to make up for the East Coast refineries that are shutting down and exporting to the world market. The latter helps reduce our trade deficit. Besides, getting oil from a friendly neighbor doesn’t carry the political burdens associated with Middle Eastern or Venesulaian oil.
Dr. Staffier’s rebuttal excuses Mr. McKibben from presenting “hard science” because he doesn’t have a technical degree. So what’s the basis for his message? He makes Mr. McKribben sound like a snake oil salesmen only capable of preaching to the choir.
I for one am not impressed by the infallible anonymous authority “They Say.” Nor do I find substituting a “scientific consensus” any better. I’m with Clara Peller, “Where’s the Beef?”
Without a strong scientific basis, it is not prudent to cripple the economy chasing the holy grail of carbon footprint. The Kyoto Protocol ended up with binding, politically correct demands on the developed countries but let China, India, et al off the hook. In the meantime China has become the most significant contributor of CO2 andpollution into the atmosphere (their soot is reaching the West Coast). And there’s no reduction in sight.
Mr. Avallon (“Endicott’s global warming sermon,” March 1) wrote a very thoughtful, professional and restrained critique of Bill McKibben’s presentation on global warming at Endicott College. The shortcomings that Mr. Avalon pointed out lead one to believe that the pitch was more propaganda than information. (e.g. If this year’s mild winter was anthropogenic global warming, why didn’t Europe benefit also?)
Sanctifying global warming and acting like it’s a cult of believers against the “Deniers” leads to bad choices and the unconvincing rebuttals that appeared in the Citizen and elsewhere.
The first, Mrs. Rosenbaum’s, was not up to Mr. Avallon’s standard. It’s misleading to describe the Keystone-XL pipeline as “going thru the Oglala aquifer” when the aquifer is 400 feet below the surface. Nor does she recognize that the oil market is worldwide with her comment “tar sands oil is not for Americans.” Approximately 50 percent of our Balance of Trade deficit (Current Account) is imported oil. Finally, blaming skepticism on a big oil conspiracy is demeaning to anyone using their technical expertise to raise questions.
The U.S. has excess refining capacity, so in addition to the construction jobs, the pipeline would provide additional long-term American jobs in the Gulf region refining gasoline to make up for the East Coast refineries that are shutting down and exporting to the world market. The latter helps reduce our trade deficit. Besides, getting oil from a friendly neighbor doesn’t carry the political burdens associated with Middle Eastern or Venesulaian oil.
Dr. Staffier’s rebuttal excuses Mr. McKibben from presenting “hard science” because he doesn’t have a technical degree. So what’s the basis for his message? He makes Mr. McKribben sound like a snake oil salesmen only capable of preaching to the choir.
I for one am not impressed by the infallible anonymous authority “They Say.” Nor do I find substituting a “scientific consensus” any better. I’m with Clara Peller, “Where’s the Beef?”
Without a strong scientific basis, it is not prudent to cripple the economy chasing the holy grail of carbon footprint. The Kyoto Protocol ended up with binding, politically correct demands on the developed countries but let China, India, et al off the hook. In the meantime China has become the most significant contributor of CO2 andpollution into the atmosphere (their soot is reaching the West Coast). And there’s no reduction in sight.
A 50 percent reduction in your carbon footprint would mean you could drive your car to work every other day and have to walk to and from on the intermediate days. Sound like solution — not. Buying carbon credits from the undeveloped countries is just wealth distribution to kleptocracies.
There have been many naturally occurring climate changes since the last glaciers receded. They have dramatically affected the ebb and flow in the development of civilization.
Check out “Why the West Rules; for Now” by an anthropologist Ian Morris. One tidbit to peak your interest — up until 800AD Rome’s bread basket was Tunisia, but when the climate changed, the range for growing wheat moved 100 miles north. — George Binns, Baker Avenue
No comments:
Post a Comment