Reprinted from the San Diego Union Tribune (March 6, 2013)
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