Why No Mayor of Missoula on This Letter?
by jhwygirl
25 American mayors around the U.S. signed a letter off to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton outlining their concerns over the controversial Keystone XL pipeline, which would transport Canadian Tar Sands oil.
I’m pretty sure our council has a resolution out regarding the transport of the big rigs for the nasty dirty Tar Sands…and I’m pretty sure it does, in part, refer to the overall impacts of the extraction. Seems Missoula should be continuing to represent its opinion in these matters.
In other news, the state department recently announced that it would be doing a supplemental EIS on the pipeline.
Let’s hope Missoula provides official public input.
One fact they’ll have to look at?
The firms involved have asked the U.S. State Department to approve this project, even as they’ve told Canadian government officials how the pipeline can be used to add at least $4 billion to the U.S. fuel bill.
U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through.
At least $500 million of the added expense would come from the Canadian market manipulation.”>
Let’s hope our Senator Jon Tester is looking out for Montana’s agricultural community on this one – and saying “NO” to this pipeline.
Recent Comments
Miles on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… success rate for In… on Thirty years ago ARCO killed A… Warrior for the Lord on The Dark Side of Colorado Linda Kelley-Miller on The Dark Side of Colorado Dan on A New Shelter for Vets or an E… Former Prosecutor Se… on Former Chief Deputy County Att… JediPeaceFrog on Montana AG Tim Fox and US Rep.…
4&20 blackbirds 
March 28, 2011 at 7:46 am
Now we’re concerned about fuel costs?
Where was that concern with cap and trade?
March 28, 2011 at 9:51 am
You forget that fuel costs should include future costs associated with a warming climate. Cap and trade would reduce those future costs, and need to be factored into the equation.
Or are you a denier? Math challenged? Or do you just choose to view carbon emissions as an externality?
You know, for all of the hoopla from tea baggers and conservatives about passing on debt to our children via the national deficit, they sure don’t care about passing on the debt being incurred through unregulated carbon emissions and its effect on global warming, and the costs associated with that.
Oh, that’s right. I forgot about the denier part of the equation.
Can I be a deficit denier? Deny that it’s existence poses any real threat to future generations?
Thanks.
March 28, 2011 at 11:05 am
So, you’re watching out for the hockey sticks, JC?
March 28, 2011 at 9:52 am
Swede,
What a beautiful non sequitur to begin the week.
March 28, 2011 at 11:04 am
Really?
“U.S. farmers, who spent $12.4 billion on fuel in 2009, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, could see expenses rise to $15 billion or higher in 2012 or 2013 if the pipeline goes through.”
“Let’s hope our Senator Jon Tester is looking out for Montana’s agricultural community on this one”.
March 28, 2011 at 11:20 am
What’s the cost of drought? Floods? Heat waves? Cold snaps? All amplified by extra energy in the atmosphere as a result of global warming.
Factor it in, Big Ingy. ANd you might want to whittle on some of those hockey sticks to make enough pencils to do the math.
March 28, 2011 at 11:42 am
This is the only math I’m interested in.
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1472/public-priorities-president-congress-2010
You and the rest of the green police are running dead last. Economy 83 vs. Global Warming 28.
Another loser in the battle of public opinion.
March 28, 2011 at 11:59 am
Unfortunately, public opinion has no effect on climate change. The planet is warming, no matter what you or anybody else thinks about it, or what a poll shows their opinion to be on priorities.
Or do you dispute the facts, too? Because, you know, you’re such a brilliant atmospheric scientist.
And if the polls asked the question about who should pay for relocating New Orleans and Miami in the next century, what do you think peoples’ opinion would be then?
Thankfully, for me, that’s a planet I won’t have to live in. But unfortunately for my kids and grand kids, it is a planet they will have to live in, and pay a debt that you seem all too willing to incur for them.
March 28, 2011 at 2:37 pm
Yeah JC, if you sail around the world ya could fall off.
http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/
March 28, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Got one back atcha:
Flat Earth Montana
You’ve been such an inspiration, some buddies of mine are going to set this up just for the purpose of celebrating the likes of you and your conservative tea bagger buddies!
March 28, 2011 at 4:50 pm
I find myself in the un-enviable position of agreeing with Ingy. People talk about the effects of Climate change in terms of what will happen by the end of this century. Our country will be effectively bankrupted by the end of this decade. From a logical standpoint alone, my attention is far more focused on the budget/Federal deficit than it is on whether I am living green enough. Before you even go down the road, I am neither a denier or minimalist when it comes to global warming. I was one of the first to be convinced that there is a real issue there due to my oceanography classes and studies.
March 28, 2011 at 4:55 pm
Unfortunately, the country going bankrupt does not absolve one’s descendants of paying the bill when it becomes due.
March 28, 2011 at 10:42 pm
And of course, you are right, but going bankrupt will certainly curtail any efforts to do anything about the situation either.
There does need to be a measured, well considered responce to global warming (certainly not the Tea Party responce that it is “good” for Montana). That said, on the list of priorities right now, it is not at the top of the list at least for me.
March 28, 2011 at 8:10 pm
Maybe I don’t trust the info gathering process.
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/11/busted-15-photos-of-climate-cheating.html
March 28, 2011 at 10:47 am
J-grrl…I usually like your stuff but feel compelled to inform you that you have been taken in by Big Oil and the ethanol lobby. It’s pretty common knowledge that the NRDC is very receptive to accepting cash through a few huge charitable trusts with ties to the oil industry.
The NRDC , who is leading this protest you want Mayor Engen to join, has been primarily funded by the Pew Foundation which was started with funds from Sun Oil (now Sunoco) and continues to be funded by Big Oil money. Ironically NRDC’s financier, Sunoco was THE original exploiter of the Athabascan Tar Sands. They sold their stake in the sands to Suncor in 1995 for 5.9 billion dollars. I don’t know if the two companies are interelated still. I have been to Suncor’s project in Canada and it is huge.
So I’m wondering if you asked why would Sunoco Oil money want to fund the NRDC protest of a pipeline project that runs through Montana? It has nothing to do with the environment but is to eliminate competition to their own pipelines and that of their associates that already bring Tar Sands oil from Canada to the east coast.
Click to access fourth_draft_continental_update_april_2009.pdf
These oil companies are fighting over hundreds of billions of dollars. Some mayors are helping them because they are from the oil patch or the ethanol states and some are no doubt just unaware.
As far as prices go…I have attended numerous seminars with the good Dr author over the past decades. He is saying that CHICAGO speculators will raise prices. Speculators move the markets. Real Midwest oil prices have zero…..zero effect on Montana farmers. Use some common sense J-grrl…we now have two things happening at the same time that will dramatically increase supply in Montana and the region….The Tar Sands and The Bakken. More oil coming on line then ever imagined over the next decade. What happens when the supply increases in a true open market?
You need to ask Tester to make sure the oil market is truly open and free.
J-Grrl,
I’d encourage you to throw away the NRDC stuff, disregard the oil industry propaganda and find some real answers.
March 28, 2011 at 11:17 am
Gee Chuck, did you look at the last page of that IEN pdf you linked to?
Tell me what the costs associated with a 1m-8m rise in sea level from 2050-2010 will be (resulting from burning all that oil and coal)? At a minimum we lose New Orleans, Miami, part of Long Island and a bunch of other coastal areas. At worst, we lose half of FLorida, New Jersey and a bunch of other coastal areas.
And about the money Sunoco and other oil companies funnel to nonprofits. You don’t think they all know how to turn bad money into good? Or that a lot of other competing interests’ money is being thrown at public interest groups?
March 28, 2011 at 6:01 pm
We’re speaking too piecemeal here for global warming to be a real point. The tar sands are not going to tip the balance. There are plenty of fossil fuels in the world – environmentalists cannot block access to all of them. Ultimately, only when we shrink demand for fossil energy will we put a dent in global warming.
That said, tar sands are a whole new level of dirty. It is my opinion that they should be strongly opposed, and measures taken to decrease the price of oil to a level that tar sands will not be economically viable.