the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Industrial Destruction Advocates

Posted by Jeff Id on February 14, 2012

Another 501C working for you. As insane as it can be, they are openly advocating working with mid-east countries for oil instead of our friends to the North.  It isn’t like the oil won’t be burned.  It will be burned by China, while US dollars go to the middle east.

Our brilliant climate leaders – doing the right thing – again.



Feb 13, 2012

Dear Senators Reid and McConnell, and Representatives Boehner and Pelosi,

We are researchers at work on the science of climate change and allied fields. Last summer, we called on President Obama to block the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada’s tar sands. We were gratified to see that he did so, and since some in Congress are seeking to revive this plan, we wanted to restate the case against it.

The tar sands are a huge pool of carbon, one that it does not make sense to exploit. It takes a lot of energy and water to extract and refine this resource into useable fuel, and the mining is environmentally destructive. Adding this on top of conventional fossil fuels will leave our children and grandchildren a climate system with consequences that are out of their control. It makes no sense to build a pipeline that would dramatically increase exploitation of this resource.

When other huge oil fields or coal mines were opened in the past, we knew much less about the damage that the carbon they contained would do to the earth’s climate and its oceans. Now that we do know, it’s imperative that we move quickly to alternate forms of energy—and that we leave the tar sands in the ground.

We can say categorically that this pipeline is not in the nation’s, or the planet’s best interest.


James Hansen, Research Scientist, The International Research Institute for Climate and Society, The Earth Institute, Columbia University
John Abraham, Associate Professor, School of Engineering, University of St. Thomas
Jason Box, Associate Professor, Department of Geography Atmospheric Sciences Program, Researcher at Byrd Polar Research CenterThe Ohio State University
Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie Institution
Peter Gleick, President and Co-founder Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security
Richard A. Houghton, Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center
Ralph Keeling, Director, Scripps CO2 Program Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs Climate Institute
Michael E. Mann, Professor of Meteorology Director, Earth System Science Center, The Pennsylvania State University
James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, Harvard University
Michael Oppenheimer, Albert G. Milbank Professor of Geosciences and International Affairs, Woodrow Wilson School and Department of Geosciences, Princeton University
Raymond T. Pierrehumbert, Louis Block Professor in the Geophysical Sciences, The University of Chicago
Steve Running, Professor of Ecology, Director of Numerical Terradynamics Simulation Group, Department of Ecosystem and Conservation Sciences College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana
Richard Somerville, Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Research Professor, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
George M. Woodwell, Founder, Director Emeritus, and Senior Scientist, Woods Hole Research Center

21 Responses to “Industrial Destruction Advocates”

  1. Mike Goad said

    I agree … dolts, damnable dolts!

  2. Selfishness is the root of violence and destruction of social organizations, just as cancerous cells eventually destroy the whole organism.

    That is the danger to our whole society today.

    President Eisenhower warned of this danger to society if a federal “scientific-technological elite” took control of policy. I observed this cancerous growth on government science over my career, culminating in Climategate. See first and last videos of my career [1].

    Jacques Costeau said, “All life-cycles are one,” and our studies [2] suggest that all life-cycles coexist as one system with cycles of water and air on earth because:

    a.) Excited neutrons in the solar core are being converted into atoms and releasing energy on the other side of the opaque photosphere, and

    b.) Atoms from the solar core formed the earth and photons from the photosphere primarily power the cycles of life, oceans and air.

    1. Video summary of career (1961-2011)

    2. “The Sun – The nuclear furnace that made our elements and sustains our lives.”

  3. Jeff Condon said

    The problem is that these men have no consideration of the consequences of their recommendations outside of saving us from their extremist version of global warming consequences. They have not considered the damage that their own decisions will cause. Comfortable that their government checks will continue to flow until the end of their time, they not only don’t worry about the strife that dangerous energy policy causes, they don’t even consider it.

  4. steve fitzpatrick said


    I am not sure about who wrote what based on the blockquote and the remainder of the text. Can you clarify exactly what that group wrote to Congressional leaders?

    The thrust though is clear: “Stop burning fossil fuels now… or, or, or, we will hold our breath and stamp our feet until we turn blue and pass out. And it will be all your fault.”

    They are massaging their (very green) feelings, but accomplishing very little, and all on the public dime. As usual, political problems have political solutions: de-fund most of what they do…. starting right now.

  5. Jeff Condon said

    I fixed the quote.

    It is truly silly to imagine that resisting a pipeline will help anything.

  6. Kan said

    An interesting question is why not just build refineries in N. Dakota (forget about Montana)? I know that building them today is not cheap, but hey N. Dakota is.

  7. Jeff Condon said

    My properly conservative cousin told me that Berkshire Hathaway stands to gain the contract for oil transport if the pipeline doesn’t go. I haven’t looked into it but these are the sorts of things that incent very rich men to lie about their true tax rate.

  8. TimG said


    There is a more refining capacity than is required in north america today. Building new capacity is a dubious investment.
    In fact, refiners on the west coast are in trouble because they compete with refiners in India and China for the raw inputs.

    More importantly – you still need pipelines to get the product to market. If enviros block the pipelines
    for the input you would have to be insane to believe you would ever get the pipelines for output built.

  9. Athlete said

    It isn’t like the oil won’t be burned. It will be burned by China, while US dollars go to the middle east.

    …And apparently Canadian Prime Minister Harper isn’t wasting any time. Just last week was his second trip to china in two years.

    Harper, who last month called diversifying Canada’s energy exports a “national priority,” is seeking to reduce the country’s reliance on the U.S., after President Barack Obama rejected TransCanada Corp.’s US$7-billion Keystone XL pipeline to ship Canadian oil to the Gulf Coast.

  10. klem said

    “we called on President Obama to block the proposed Keystone XL pipeline from Canada’s tar sands. We were gratified to see that he did so..”

    Hmm, but the Keystone pipeline already crosses into the USA and has been delivering oil to Illinois since 2010.

    According to Wikipedia “The 3,456 kilometres (2,147 mi) long pipeline runs from Hardisty, Alberta to the United States refineries in Wood River, Illinois and Patoka, Illinois.[32] The Canadian section involves approximately 864 kilometres (537 mi) of pipeline converted from the Canadian Mainline natural gas pipeline and 373 kilometres (232 mi) of new pipeline, pump stations and terminal facilities at Hardisty, Alberta. The United States section is 2,219 kilometres (1,379 mi) long.[33] It runs through Buchanan, Clinton and Caldwell counties in Missouri, and Nemaha, Brown and Doniphan counties in Kansas.[9] Phase 1 went online in June 2010.”

  11. Craig Loehle said

    Their strategy is “just say no”–and it works so well for drugs and teen sex…
    So they object to every power plant, every pipeline, everything, in the belief that this will force humanity to cut back on power use. What happens can be seen in California, where a few years ago the shortage of power became so acute and the brownouts so onerous that they installed emergency gas generators. But the smugness of california (no coal plants) is so fake because they import electricity from the 4-corners huge plants in Arizona, and hydro power from Oregon/Washington. Great for them but not a viable national strategy.

  12. DBD said

    Would appear none have them have visited the oil sands either. The sands made news recently:

  13. Kenneth Fritsch said

    When we have $5 a gallon gasoline prices the politics may well change – not that the pipeline will necessarily change that any time soon. In fact if you listen closely to what allies of Obama are saying the implication is that Obama is holding his left wing at bay until after the elections.

  14. David S said

    I like the “we can categorically say”. Of course they can, although this carries no weight and none of them has any special qualification to say whether a pipeline running from Alberta to the US is in the planet’s best interest. It is so clearly in the nation’s best interest to buy cheaper and cleaner fuel from friendly democratic Canada than crude oil from despots in the Middle East that I have no idea how they dare say otherwise.

  15. Chuck L said

    Looking at the names of the signatories of the letter, words fail me except to say that I am truly nauseated. As far as California, I can’t imagine businesses wanting to stay there with their state’s continuing desire to commit economic suicide.

  16. Matthew W said

    # 10
    My father in rural Kane County, Illinois has the Enbridge pipeline buried in his back yard.

    Been there for a few years and it’s doing just fine !!!

  17. Matthew W said

    I have to correct myself.
    I think that it’s a natural gas line that’s buried there.
    Will have to ask and find out !!

  18. Frank said

    “Adding this on top of conventional fossil fuels will leave our children and grandchildren a climate system with consequences that are out of their control.”
    What? Really? Did they really write this themselves? When have we ever had control of the climate system, or the “consequences” of the climate system?

  19. AJStrata said

    Hey Jeff, Hope all is well. Thought you might like some light ‘out of the box’ reading on a theory I have regarding the source of El Nino. Low stress, no politics, just some data, analysis and conjecture.

    Feb 14 2012
    Argo Data Confirms El Niño/El Niña Caused By Underwater Volcanoes

  20. Tom in St. Johns said

    #7. Berkshire owns railroads that would be the most likely way to transport the oil

  21. Matthew W said

    # 20
    What doesn’t Berkshire/Hathtaway own?
    I would guess that even if the pipeline were built, there would be some way Buffet would gain from it.
    But this does show a difference between liberals and conservatives……………….
    If this situation were flipped, the liberals would have their panties in a bunch making wild and irrational connections. (HALIBURTON/KOCH BROS ???)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: