Open Response to Sen. Boozman

A few days ago I sent an email to Senator Boozman expressing my concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline. Here is his reply.

Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to a TransCanada Keystone XL Pipeline. It is good to hear from you.

I certainly understand your concerns about the pipeline and the possible effects on our communities and wildlife. However, I also feel strongly that we need to use the vast oil resources we have in North America to lower gas prices and lessen our dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions. This pipeline would not only add more energy to the supply lines, but the profits from that energy would go towards American businesses and create more jobs. The best way to achieve sustainable oil and gasoline prices for Arkansas families is to increase domestic production. Also, the Canadians are developing their resources, so the questions are whether the United States will benefit or whether the resources will go to competitors, like China. While we do not see eye-to-eye on this issue, you should know that, at this time, a final determination on the pipeline has not been reached. Please be assured that I will keep your concerns in mind as we move forward debating energy issues like this pipeline.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this very important issue. Please be sure to visit our website at www.boozman.senate.gov . I look forward to your continued correspondence.

Sincerely,
John Boozman
U.S. Senator

Senator Boozman,

Thank you for your reply. Since you have welcomed my continued correspondence, I will respond.

You wrote, "I certainly understand your concerns about the pipeline and the possible effects on our communities and wildlife." I'm sorry, Senator, but I don't believe you do, or you would have responded differently. But for the moment let's say you do understand. You go on to write, "I also feel strongly that we need to use the vast oil resources we have in North America to lower gas prices and lessen our dependence on foreign oil from unstable regions. This pipeline would not only add more energy to the supply lines, but the profits from that energy would go towards American businesses and create more jobs. The best way to achieve sustainable oil and gasoline prices for Arkansas families is to increase domestic production." Here are my responses:

• If we pursue using up the vast fossil fuel resources in North America, this action will:
  1. substantially exacerbate climate change in important ways, and
  2. significantly increase risks of other forms of air and water pollution.
  .
• There is no reliable evidence that such a course of action will lower gas prices. None.
• There is no evidence that this course will lessen our dependence on oil from unstable regions.
• The profits from tar sands energy will contribute insignificantly toward American businesses.
• The profits from tar sands energy will not create a meaningful number of new jobs.

Then you make another questionable statement, and one I consider highly worrisome:

• The Canadians are developing their resources, so the questions are
  • whether the United States will benefit or
  • whether the resources will go to competitors, like China.

Wrong. The Canadians are trying to exploit their resources, but they need our complicity to do so. Really, they do. And yes, they will continue to try without us, but don't think for a moment they will be able to destroy the planet nearly to the same degree without our collusion. We, however, will not benefit. Competitors, like China, will benefit either way, but not nearly as much if we just say NO to the Pipeline.

You claim that "the best way to achieve sustainable oil and gasoline prices for Arkansas families is to increase domestic production." You know, of course, that "Canadian" is not "domestic", but for the sake of argument let's say that the tar sands deposits were in Montana and the Dakotas. The best way to achieve sustainable energy and energy prices for Arkansas families is to increase production of renewable energy resources, which (1) are increasingly cost effective, and (2) and are being increasingly attacked by the fossil fuel industry (for obvious reasons).

Senator, in my responses I have challenged your statements, but it is not my intent to be confrontational. We are both citizens of the great state of Arkansas, and we are both citizens of the USA and planet Earth. We truly are in this together, and I sincerely wish to work together. Furthermore, I concede that I have made a number of unsubstantiated assertions. I believe they are defensible, though, and I would love the opportunity to examine the evidence with you, should you wish. Your call.

Finally, you acknowledge that "a final determination on the pipeline has not been reached." Yes, and that is precisely my reason for writing. To be frank, Secretary Clinton's Department of State was not entirely encouraging in this regard. They made mistakes, serious mistakes. And honestly I've not been much more encouraged by Secretary Kerry's State Department. If the Administration ends up making the right decision to deny the KXL Pipeline permit, Congress should endorse this position. If, on the other hand, the Administration folds to pressure and approves the permit, the American people will demand that Congress override this decision. Our country must do the right thing for ourselves, for our children, and for the children of the world. As a former president once said (and I paraphrase) we will be dead before our legacy is written, but is shirking our duty what we want for our legacy? Not me.

Please do not ignore the science.

Sincerely,
Dr. Donnal Walter