Why this author wishes he were wrong. Read and remember and tell your friends all the right reasons for the Keystone XL Pipeline!!

How I Wish I Was Wrong About The Keystone XL Pipeline

By Jay Lehr, Ph.D

Science Director

The Heartland Institute 

Most people do not realize that major oil pipelines extending 2,151 miles from the Canadian Tar Sands have already been completed and are operational from Hardisty, Alberta, east through Saskatchewan and Manitoba and south through eastern North and South Dakota, Nebraska and Kansas and then on to refineries in southern Illinois and central Oklahoma carrying 590,000 barrels of oil each day.

If they did, they would certainly wonder what is the uproar about adding the capacity of an additional 830,000 barrels a day through new pipelines from Hardisty, Alberta, through eastern Montana and southwestern North Dakota where it would pick up United States oil from the now famous Bakken Fields then move further east through South Dakota and Nebraska  to Steele City, Nebraska, where the existing pipeline travels on to Cushing , Oklahoma, and then continue it about 500 more miles to the Gulf Coast of Texas where so many refineries are located.

Canadian oil is cleaner than most we get from Venezuela and the Persian Gulf.  If we do not get the Canadian oil, it will not slow development of the tar sands, which is a supposed goal of the environmental activist, as Canada will simply build a pipeline to Vancouver and sell the oil to Asian countries.

Marita Noon, Executive Director of Energy Makes America Great, Inc., blogging on March 4 quoted the Heritage Foundation as follows: “the project will create some 179,000 jobs on American soil, and continue good trade relations with a close ally."  What is not to like? Well plenty. 

Prominent environmental activist Paul Ehlich is famous for having said 30 years ago that having cheap energy was the equivalent of putting a machine gun in the hands of an idiot child.  That, I am afraid, is exactly what our alphabet soup of environmental activists groups believe, which is certainly why they support wind and solar energy with all their energy and funds because they know it will never be cheap. In fact they know it will never be even economically feasible.  

Now they are panicked over the game-changing ability to develop heretofore uneconomical shale gas with the advent of horizontal drilling and hydro-fracking, the latter technology having been used for 60 years in conventional oil drilling, without any environmental damage whatsoever.

For years now our government has ordered up environmental impact studies on the Keystone XL Pipeline, and when a study concluded that there were not serious problems, they ordered up a new study.  There have been four in all, the latest from the State Department of all agencies, which again concluded that there would be no major environmental impact to limit the pipeline's construction.  Now the State Department is interested in public feedback despite the fact there have been tens of thousands of public comments already.

In mid-March 17 Democrats voted with 45 Republicans in the Senate for a budget amendment supporting the pipeline, which was up from 11 Democrats voting for a similar amendment last year.  That is good news as is a recent Fox News Poll reported on in the Wall Street Journal on March 27 that 70% of registered voters support construction of the pipeline.

Add to that the conflicted unions, which while voting Obama into office are four square in favor of the pipeline for the jobs it will bring.  So how can the pipeline lose? Easily is the answer.

Recently the environmental activists staged a demonstration in Washington to convince the President not to give in.  Few showed up and some were even arrested, but it was not a loss as environment expert Daryl Hannah, best known for her role as a mermaid, stated that the State Department report was “totally wrong, flat out totally wrong”.  Can the President challenge that?  I think not.  His office is a wholly owned subsidiary of the green movement, which has financed billions and billions (as Carl 
Sagan used to say when referring to stars) of failed green projects. 

But there could still be a happy ending for most of us.  It is called “the railroad."  Remember the old, nearly or really bankrupt railroads of the 1970s?  Well, they are back and stronger than ever.  Currently they have saved North Dakota from overflowing with a glut of oil by filling miles and miles of tank cars on Warren Buffet’s Burlington Northern Line with 500,000 barrels of oil each day and carrying it to refineries on the west coast of the United States. By year's end, their capacity will rise to 700,000 barrels a day. They are capable of building new track connecting the Dakotas with our Gulf Coast, unless Obama figures that this would be an environmental hazard as well.  Stay Tuned.

Climate Changes! We all are conservationists! Don't believe BOGUS alarmism!

EARTH DAY'S CREDIBILITY DAMAGED BY DOMINANCE OF CLIMATE ACTIVISTS

Legitimate environmental concerns being shortchanged by focus on bogus global warming scare 

By Tom Harris

Ottawa, Canada, April 22, 2013:  "Earth Day participants must distance themselves from the climate scare or risk the event degenerating into irrelevance,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). Noting the intense climate focus in this year’s Earth Day Network advertising, Harris warned, “As the hypothesis that humanity’s carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions are causing dangerous global warming falls into disrepute, all those associated with the climate alarm will also lose credibility.”  

ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Dr. Tim Ball, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, explained, “All sensible people are environmentalists. We all want clean air, land and water and to protect species at risk to the degree possible considering the many other important demands on society.”  

“But controlling global climate through restricting emissions is unscientific nonsense,” Ball continued. “The greenhouse gas most under attack by climate campaigners, CO₂, is a benefit to the environment, its rise resulting in more crop yield and a densification of forests.”  

ICSC Chief Science Advisor Dr. Bob Carter, of James Cook University in Australia pointed out that, “The global temperature statistic has not risen since 1997 despite an increase in emissions of 8%. This nullifies the main argument presented by climate campaigners.”  

“Climate changes all the time, and it is important that civil hazard organisations are prepared for its extremes,” said Carter. “But as demonstrated by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, of which I am a contributing author, there are thousands of scientists and peer-reviewed science papers that refute the hypothesis that human emissions of CO₂ are causing dangerous warming.”  

ICSC Energy Issues Advisor power consultant Bryan Leyland of New Zealand added, “Yet hundreds of billions of dollars are being spent subsidizing wind, solar and wave power in an effort to reduce CO₂ emissions. None of these new renewable energy technologies can provide electricity when needed during times of peak demand. All of them are at the mercy of the wind, sun, tides and waves. In addition, the capacity factor—the ratio of the average output to the maximum output—varies between 10% and seldom exceeds 40%. So, for instance, 1000 Megawatt (MW) coal or nuclear power stations each generate the same amount of energy as several thousand MW of renewable energy. Regardless, independent research shows that they do little to reduce emissions of CO₂, a gas that promotes plant growth and, as we now know, has no measurable effect on the climate.”  

“Coal, natural gas, hydro and nuclear power can provide a reliable supply of all the electricity we need for the foreseeable future, and at a low cost,” said Leyland. “Expensive and intermittent renewable energy technologies can never play more than a bit part in electricity generation.”  

Ball provides a sample of how climate alarmism has resulted in the misappropriation of funds worldwide: “Canadian Environment Minister Peter Kent said last monththat ‘Canada has invested more than $10 billion since 2006 to reduce greenhouse gases, to improve energy efficiency, to develop green infrastructure.’ But, overall energy efficiency has actually declined as politicians like Kent have forced so-called “green” alternate energy sources on society to appease climate campaigners. Had the $10 billion been spent on reducing pollution and improving and expanding existing energy sources such as coal-fired electricity generation, both the economy and the environment would be in far better shape.”  

This author concludes, “It is crucially important that practical environmentalists dissociate the movement from ideologically-driven climate activists. Otherwise, society will throw Earth Day, and indeed the whole environmental movement, into the dustbin of history.”

________________________________________________________________________________

The ICSC is a non-partisan group of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts who are working to promote better understanding of climate science and related policy worldwide. We aim to help create an environment in which a more rational, open discussion about climate issues emerges, thereby moving the debate away from implementation of costly and ineffectual “climate control” measures. Instead, ICSC encourages effective planning for, and adaptation to, inevitable natural climate variability, and continuing scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change.  

ICSC also focuses on publicizing the repercussions of misguided plans to “solve the climate crisis”. This includes, but is not limited to, “carbon” sequestration as well as the dangerous impacts of attempts to replace conventional energy supplies with wind turbines, solar power, most biofuels and other ineffective and expensive energy sources. 

________________________________________________________________________________

For more information about this announcement or ICSC in general, visit http://www.climatescienceinternational.org, or contact:  

In North America:

Tom Harris, B. Eng., M. Eng. (Mech. - thermofluids)
Executive Director, International Climate Science Coalition

P.O. Box 23013
Ottawa, Ontario K2A 4E2
Canada

Email: tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net

Phone: 613-728-9200

In Australia: 

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter, PhD, Hon. FRSNZ
Chief Science Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Emeritus Fellow, Institute for Public Affairs, Melbourne

Marine Geophysical Laboratory
James Cook University
Townsville, Queensland, 4811
Australia

Email:  bob.carter@jcu.edu.au

Phone (mobile): +61-(0)419-701-139
Phone (evening): +61-(0)7-4775-1268

In New Zealand:

Bryan Leyland, M.Sc., FIEE, FIMechE, FIPENZ, consulting engineer
Energy Issues Advisor, International Climate Science Coalition
Auckland 1022
New Zealand

Email: bryanleyland@mac.com

Phone: +64 9 940 7047; mobile: +64 21 978 996

In Europe:

Professor Ole Humlum, PhD
Science Advisory Board member, International Climate Science Coalition
Professor of Physical Geography, Department of Physical Geography
Institute of Geosciences, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

E-mail: ole.humlum@geo.uio.no

Phone: +47 79 02 33 00 (department); +47 79 02 33 20 (direct).  Fax: +47 79 02 33 01.

Webpage: http://www.unis.no/35_staff/staff_webpages/geology/ole_humlum/olepersonal.htm 

Will he or won't he? What will Obama decide on the Keystone XL pipeline? Are you among the 63 percent or the 23 percent?

Most Americans want Keystone, but does Obama care?

Pew Research Center's new poll encouraged the gas price-conscious with its headline, "Keystone XL Pipeline Draws Broad Support," and a score box showing 63 percent supporting and only 23 percent opposing the pipeline that would transport oil from Canada's Alberta oil sands through the Plains states to refineries in Texas.

However, the report quickly deflated that optimism with a terse note identifying the minority: "except among liberals." We have seen time and again that the liberal 23 percent can be a majority to executive-order-wielding President Obama.

As his administration approaches a decision, lame-duck politics says he could go either way -- even with his own State Department's favorable environmental impact report on the XL's construction permit.

And even with Alberta Premier Alison Redford saying that an Obama rejection would damage U.S.-Canada relations. "Canada relies on the U.S. for 97 percent of its energy exports," Redford said, and "sees the new pipeline as critical to its economic well-being."

What is Obama likely to do? A substantial majority of Republicans (82 percent) favor the pipeline, so revenge is not an unthinkable motive for a possible rejection.

However, 70 percent of independents and 54 percent of Democrats also favor the XL. Fogging the crystal ball is the ideological split among Democrats: 60 percent of the party's conservatives and moderates support building the pipeline, compared to just 42 percent of liberal Democrats. That considerably flattens Obama's heavy-lifting slope toward a potential rejection, but doesn't level it.

Obama's decision may hinge on pleasing his base of global-warming advocates; this whole Keystone XL controversy was carefully conceived and organized as a "globally significant response" to global warming by shutting down Alberta's oil sands.

It was generated by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund using earmarked grants to recruit "a network of leading US and Canadian NGOs" with a "coordinated campaign structure" to act as its public face, according to a leaked PowerPoint presentation.

The Rockefeller funding for the campaign against Canadian energy exports was exposed in October 2010 by Vivian Krause in Toronto's Financial Post. Later that fall, Krause testified before a Canadian House of Commons committee, prompting an audit of the Canadian arm of the Tides Foundation by the Canada Revenue Agency (Canada's equivalent to the IRS). By Krause's calculations, Tides, a co-funder of the Rockefeller campaign, has distributed $19 million to anti-Keystone groups since 2008.

I spoke to Krause by telephone and asked why the Rockefeller presence behind the anti-XL campaign was virtually invisible. She told me that it has been done quietly, but not secretly.

"The strategy is articulated in discussion papers, but who reads them?" she said. "The grants have been disclosed in online databases for years, but nobody bothered to add them up and connect the dots."

Nobody except Vivian Krause, that is. Her Twitter account says, "I follow the money & the science behind enviro campaigns." Her research and writing are impressive.

Her blog profile states, "I work from my dining room table, using Google on my own nickel. Not part of any political party, any industry, or any campaign." Her work deserves more attention in the United States.

Krause's discovery and expose of the Rockefeller millions behind the anti-Keystone XL campaign could become a factor in Obama's pipeline construction decision.

It has already created Canadian suspicion of environmental groups dancing on the strings of U.S. foundation money. It's not the money itself Canadians fear, it's the power over national energy policy that it can buy by proxy.

One can hope that Obama does not wish to be suspected of dancing on the same Rockefeller policy power strings as the Big Green bigwigs who were recently arrested protesting at his front door.

Examiner Columnist Ron Arnold is executive vice president of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise.