Letters to the Editor – August 2015

Letters to the Editor

 

LettersToTheEditorDear Sir:

The various articles by Marita Noon and letters to the editors of the subject of the Keystone XL pipeline finally got me to look up more information about this controversial project. It’s interesting to note that this is one project that unite the conservative Republicans and the labor unions if for different reasons. The Republicans favor the pipeline because it profits the fat cats of the oil industry and of TransCanada Corporation, the union because the project will provide jobs for the few years of construction of the pipeline (9,000 directly related to construction such as welders, pipefitters etc; another 6,000 jobs for supplies of valves, pumps, etc; and more undirectly related for a total of 42,000 jobs as estimated by the US State Department). See http://keystone-xl.com/about/jobs-and-economic-benefits/.

The ecologists are against the project because of possible adverse environmental impact, from oil spills to noxious emissions during the refining of the tar sand oil in the Texas refineries and others, see http://www.foe.org/projects/climate-and-energy/tar-sands/keystone-xl-pipeline.

However, a possible environmental benefit for the USA could be that, in view of the current glut of oil on the world market, and the fact that the USA has become nearly self-sufficient in oil production, the addition of 700,000 barrels/day would likely make the extraction of oil by fracking uneconomical and lead to abandonment, if only for a number of years, of this disastrous technique in the USA. Let Canada suffer the brunt of environmental damage in the exploitation of their tar sands!

I’d appreciate comments from fellow liberal Democrats and others. Thanks.

J.-C- Tatinclaux

Ajijic     

tatinclauxj@yahoo.com

Dear Sir:

I’m both amused and dismayed with recent articles published in El Ojo regarding the global warming/climate change debate. It’s sad the debate has gone from honest discussion about climate science to ad hominen arguments about the unanimity, sanity and motivations of both climate orthodoxy faithful and skeptics. These arguments do little to persuade me about the scientific merits of either sides’ claims.

However, I am concerned about the trend among the climate orthodoxy faithful to present the issue as an “either or”: either we accept the entire climate orthodoxy narrative unquestioned, or we risk being called anti-science deniers who have been duped by greedy self-serving interests. To be fair, many skeptics have been guilty of this, too. The problem with “either or” reasoning is that it ignores or diminishes the possibility of quantitative inaccuracy (overstatement or understatement) in any one of the full range of climate related issues, including human contribution, data integrity, historical trends, future predictions, and the cost and effectiveness of proposed counter-measures.

Rich Birkett

rbirkett@freedomactivist.org

Dear Sir:

Re “Dictator Disease,” thank you for publishing this excellent commentary. Please suggest to Barbara Harwood that (if she has not already done so) she must read “Red Notice” by Bill Broder; a true story of crime and corruption by Russian oligarchs  up to April 2014. The second half of the book has a lot to say about Putin.

I hope they make it into a movie.

Yours truly,

George Cochrane.

Ojo Del Lago
Latest posts by Ojo Del Lago (see all)

Leave a Reply