Regarding the editorial “Keystone pipeline: Reason trumps hysteria" (March 5): U-T, why the name-calling and selective reasoning? The State Department – in a twist of logic – says Keystone would create minimal environmental damage because Alberta tar sands’ exploitation is inevitable (but questions our need for it due to the U.S. boon in oil). Canadians are fighting this, too. Climatologists warn tar sands exploitation is a giant step backward.
CO2 must decrease. The U-T has acknowledged global warming is real but now ignores the science. Ideological schizophrenia? Why disdain for those with contrary view, supported by 99 percent of peer-reviewed climatologists? To commit infrastructure and our future to dirty tar fuels is short-term and blind (one-third the size of California will be destroyed). The technology exists to build a clean energy future, which produces more jobs than oil and gas. A revenue-neutral carbon pollution fee, returned to all households, accelerates the conversion. – John H. Reaves, San Diego
Re: “Keystone pipeline report: Reason trumps hysteria” (Editorial, utsandiego.com, March 4): Scientists tell us that by burning large quantities of fossil fuels, we have changed the climate, causing an increase in dangerous wildfires, droughts, floods and superstorms. They also tell us approximately how much more of these carbon-based fuels we can burn without causing irreparable damage to our planet. We are fast approaching that limit. The supply of fossil fuels currently identified worldwide would produce five times more CO2 than our atmosphere can sustain. If we are to maintain our civilization, we must act with urgency not just to stop the Keystone Pipeline, but to drastically reduce our consumption of other dirty fuels such as coal. – Joe Wainio, San Diego
“Keystone pipeline: Reason trumps hysteria” (Editorial, March 5) is as irresponsible as the State Department report.
The claims by environmentalists are backed by observations and science. Spills from pipelines transporting bitumen occur more frequently than those carrying regular oil, and cleanup is far more expensive. Ecological recovery after a spill is never complete. Tar sands contain more carbon than all oil burned in history. The effect on climate change of exploiting it would be catastrophic even without considering that extraction and refining it has a much larger carbon footprint than refining regular oil.
Nature’s editorial is without an author and is at odds with a letter to President Obama by 18 top scientists urging him to reject KXL.
The creation of pipelines within Canada to transport bitumen west or east is being met by strong opposition. Oil industry analysts and executives acknowledge that tar-sands oil could be stranded without KXL. – Wyman E. Hack, El Cajon
Truly amazing that the U-T finds the Keystone Pipeline a positive for this country. The oil refinery companies in Texas have already made plain that they are going to be exporting this oil. It will not increase gasoline in this country or lower prices. We will still be purchasing our oil from mid-east enemies. Meanwhile the farmers from the Midwest will loose farmlands. What planet are you living on? – Joseph W. Kraatz, Oceanside