by Dr. Ed Berry, copy of my letter published in Daily Inter Lake, January 24, 2012
Dr. Eric Grimsrud argued, in a Daily Inter Lake letter on January 6 [see below], we must not approve the Keystone pipeline because it would allow us to burn more carbon fuels, which would add to atmospheric CO2 and thereby damage our planet.
Grimsrud claims “American science” on climate change is “settled.” However, the Montana Supreme Court ruled otherwise on June 15, 2011.
This Supreme Court ruling was forced by the Oregon environmental group, “Our Children’s Trust,” which filed a Petition in the Montana Supreme Court claiming just what Grimsrud is claiming. Had Our Children’s Trust won, they could have shut down Montana’s economy.
Climate Physics of Bigfork led a public Intervention to the Petition and showed significant evidence that Our Children’s Trust’s (and Grimsrud’s) claims are scientifically invalid. Both Attorney General Bullock and the Montana Supreme Court agreed with Climate Physics. The Court ruled that climate change claims cannot be used to restrict CO2 emissions until someone proves in a Montana lower court that CO2 emissions cause damage.
Our Children’s Trust has money and attorneys and can hire Grimsrud to help them. Why have the 6 Montana legal groups that supported Our Children’s Trust done nothing? Because they cannot prove human CO2 causes damage. All such claims are hand waving, not science.
While Grimsrud continues to cry wolf, the majority of Montanans agree we must use our coal, oil, and natural gas resources to power and recover Montana’s economy.
If you appreciate the work of Climate Physics to save Montana’s economy, please go to edberry.com. We may have saved everyone in Montana well over $100 in 2012.
Keystone pipeline versus science
by Eric Grimsrud, copy of letter published in Daily Inter Lake, January 6, 2012
The Daily Inter Lake editorial of Dec. 11 entitled “You want jobs? Approve the pipeline” described the Keystone XL pipeline issue as being a contest between “real jobs, infrastructure improvements, expanded trade with Canada and more energy for America” versus “political obstruction of the highest order in order to satisfy the country’s extreme green wing.”
That introductory sentence does not do justice to the science associated with this issue. It is essential to understand that this issue concerns far more than potential oil spills onto the grasslands of Nebraska. Let me explain.
The concentration of CO2 (carbon dioxide) in the atmosphere is now 36 percent greater than it has ever been in the last 700,000 years and continues to rise at a rate of 0.6 percent per year. While this excess level of atmospheric CO2 is increasing every day, it will not come out of the atmosphere for many centuries — it takes a long time to turn biological carbon back into its geological forms.
Therefore, we will be stuck with the delayed and continuously increasing heating effects of our extra CO2 essentially “forever” on a time scale of relevance to human beings.
In order to address this problem, the only factor man has any control over is how much of our fossil fuels we burn in total over the next millennium. Opening up huge new sources of relatively energy-inefficient fossil fuels, such as the Alberta tar sands, makes no sense whatsoever.
In addition, we now know that we must not only stop CO2 emissions ASAP, but must also figure out a way of reducing the existing level of 392 parts per million back down to about 350 parts per million within this century. This extraordinarily difficult task is being made still more difficult every day as we proceed with “business as usual” energy policies.
The only argument against what I have explained here is to deny the validity of American science — as many will continue to do to the detriment of their grandchildren. In improving our economy and creating more jobs, we need plans that are not suicidal.
—Eric Grimsrud, Kalispell