Over 100 scientists and economists call for rejection of Keystone XL


mentalfloss
#1
Over 100 scientists and economists call for rejection of Keystone XL

Over 100 scientists and economists urged President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry to reject the Keystone XL tar sands in a letter today. The contested 1,897-km pipeline would have the capacity to transport up to 830,000 barrels of tar sands bitumen from Alberta to refineries in Texas.

The letter criticizes the "carbon-intensive" process of extracting bitumen, and says building the Keystone XL pipeline would "significantly contribute" to the problem of climate change:

"As you both have made clear, climate change is a very serious problem. We must address climate change by decarbonizing our energy supply. A critical first step is to stop making climate change worse by tapping into disproportionately carbon-intensive energy sources like tar sands bitumen. The Keystone XL pipeline will drive expansion of the energy-intensive strip-mining and drilling of tar sands from under Canada’s Boreal forest, increasing global carbon emissions. Keystone XL is a step in the wrong direction.

...We agree that climate impact is important and evidence shows that Keystone XL will significantly contribute to climate change. Fuels produced from tar sands result in more greenhouse gas emissions over their lifecycle than fuels produced from conventional oil, including heavy crudes processed in some Gulf Coast refineries.



The list of scientists and economists who signed the letter include:

Dr. Philip W. Anderson, winner of the 1977 Nobel Prize in Physics alongside Sir Nevill Francis Mott and John Hasbrouck van Vleck.

Dr. Kenneth J. Arrow, who won the 1972 Nobel Prize in Economics alongside John Hicks for contributions to economic equilibrium theory and welfare theory.

Fellows of the American Academy for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) including Dr. James McCarthy, Dr. Richard Norgaard, and Dr. Michael Oppenheimer, and Fellows of the Royal Society of Canada (FRSC) including Dr. Mark Jaccard, Dr. Lawrence Dill, and Dr. Mark Winston.

Canadian scientists and economists including Dr. David Suzuki, Dr. David Keith, 2006 winner of Canadian Geographic’s “Environmentalist of the Year”, who teaches at Harvard.

The full text of the letter can be accessed here.

Over 100 scientists and economists call for rejection of Keystone XL pipeline | Vancouver Observer
 
mentalfloss
#2
Hmm.

Something's up today.

From Keystone to Northern Gateway, pipeline execs admit ‘stumbles’ in addressing environmental concerns | Financial Post
 
Dixie Cup
+1
#3  Top Rated Post
Some big boys don't want the pipeline to go through. Wonder why? Me thinks that "something's up" too. Who stands to lose if it goes through? Au reverse, who stands to gain if it doesn't? Hmmmm?????


JMO
 
captain morgan
+1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie CupView Post

Some big boys don't want the pipeline to go through. Wonder why? Me thinks that "something's up" too. Who stands to lose if it goes through? Au reverse, who stands to gain if it doesn't? Hmmmm?????


JMO

KXL doesn't really matter anymore.

It served a valuable purpose in fast-tracking the Canadian lines to the East and West and it (KXL) really is now the lesser of the options relative to that crude fetches a much lower price from the US refiners
 
Locutus
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by Dixie CupView Post

Some big boys don't want the pipeline to go through. Wonder why? Me thinks that "something's up" too. Who stands to lose if it goes through? Au reverse, who stands to gain if it doesn't? Hmmmm?????


JMO

because they have a vested interest in an alternate route, a competitive pipeline.
 
mentalfloss
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

because they have a vested interest in an alternate route, a competitive pipeline.

At some point TransCanada will be moving away from oil into renewables.

I think they come out with these statements to keep the heat off and ease the transition. It's a good business motive.
 
Locutus
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

At some point TransCanada will be moving away from oil into renewables.

I think they come out with these statements to keep the heat off and ease the transition. It's a good business motive.

yeah um...'good business' if you're carrying the water for your own team and eco-planet rape if it's the other guys.
 
captain morgan
+1
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

At some point TransCanada will be moving away from oil into renewables.

I think they come out with these statements to keep the heat off and ease the transition. It's a good business motive.


What do you do in the next 50 years until something in the renewable realm actually becomes feasible?

... Didn't think that far ahead, didja
 
mentalfloss
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by LocutusView Post

yeah um...'good business' if you're carrying the water for your own team and eco-planet rape if it's the other guys.

Hey, Exxon shareholders are already demanding greater environmental stewardship and that is translating into a shift in company policy.

These companies know that if they want to remain successful, they have to broaden their portfolio.

Responding to Investor Pressure, ExxonMobil Agrees to Disclose Fracking Risks | DeSmogBlog
 
Tecumsehsbones
+1
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Hey, Exxon shareholders are already demanding greater environmental stewardship and that is translating into a shift in company policy.

These companies know that if they want to remain successful, they have to broaden their portfolio.

Responding to Investor Pressure, ExxonMobil Agrees to Disclose Fracking Risks | DeSmogBlog

All the major energy companies are investing and researching into alternatives, including "green" energy. It's sound business and patently obvious. Only terrified right-wingers, who have decided anything but fossil and nuke is a Great Big EEE-vil Librul Kenyan Muslim Socialist Conspiracy to Destroy Murka, have a problem with that.
 
captain morgan
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalflossView Post

Hey, Exxon shareholders are already demanding greater environmental stewardship and that is translating into a shift in company policy.

These companies know that if they want to remain successful, they have to broaden their portfolio.

Responding to Investor Pressure, ExxonMobil Agrees to Disclose Fracking Risks | DeSmogBlog


Look into who owns Bruce Power (wind farms) in your province... When you figure out that info, look into the terms of the deal and the 'guarantees' that are in place underwritten by your province.

You won't be pleased
 
mentalfloss
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Look into who owns Bruce Power (wind farms) in your province... When you figure out that info, look into the terms of the deal and the 'guarantees' that are in place underwritten by your province.

You won't be pleased

What is the point you are trying to make?
 
captain morgan
#13
Do your own checks on this... This way, there won't be any pissing and moaning on your part about references and legitimacy, etc.
 
taxslave
+1
#14
Best thing Obummer could do for Canada would be to cancal KXL. We are already far too dependent on a Fickle US market.
 
mentalfloss
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Do your own checks on this... This way, there won't be any pissing and moaning on your part about references and legitimacy, etc.

You know, not everything has to be sourced if we are having an honest discussion.

But I guess that's too difficult a proposition for you guys.
 
captain morgan
#16
Yeah, I've been observing your honest-style in willfully ignoring issues when they are not in the best interest of your argument.

Your call, look into or not, makes no difference to me
 
mentalfloss
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morganView Post

Yeah, I've been observing your honest-style in willfully ignoring issues when they are not in the best interest of your argument.

Your call, look into or not, makes no difference to me

I don't have time to do exhaustive research on every little detail, so if there is some greater point you want to make on who owns wind farms, then by all means bring it forward.
 

Similar Threads

3
U.S. economists praise our medicare
by I think not | Mar 30th, 2006
8
Rejection
by Jersay | Jan 19th, 2006
no new posts