Letter: Ram coal project a reckless risk

The article “La. coast facing grim reality” republished in The Advocate highlights new data that shows that Louisiana is likely to see “the highest rate of relative sea-level rise on the planet.”

Tim Osborn, the expert quoted in the article, mentioned at Tulane’s Environmental Law Summit recently that the estimates range from 4.3 to 9.5 feet by the end of the century. Given Southeast Louisiana’s average elevation of only 3 feet, we have a lot at stake.

As of yet, we have consistently met, if not exceeded, climate scientists’ worst-case projections for sea-level rise. Louisiana must take serious action to not only adapt to rising seas from climate change, but also to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible.

One obvious way to reduce our state’s contribution to our own destruction is for the state to reject the proposed Ram LLC coal export terminal to be built near Myrtle Grove in Plaquemines Parish. This new terminal would allow more carbon-intensive coal to be burned and its greenhouse gases to add to sea-level rise affecting Louisianans.

Even worse, it is sited on the exact spot that the state has determined is best for a river diversion project that could help rebuild coastal wetlands southeast of New Orleans. The state government is implementing its master plan for a sustainable coast to help protect us from rising seas and hurricanes.

The state government has the authority to reject the Ram coal terminal. Louisiana residents will be displaced with these rising seas, but we have the power to minimize the amount of people affected.

To put its own restoration plan at risk and flirt with dirty coal terminals at the expense of Louisianians is not only unwise, it is reckless.

Nick Stracco

Tulane University student

New Orleans

Comments

1) Comment by InPVille - 05/03/2013

@DMJ: Since you want to refer to NAS, Are you familiar with the 2006 NAS report "Surface Temperature Reconstructions For The Last 2,000 Years. Produced during the Hockey Stick Controversy, the report recommended that Climate Scientists needed to be conducted their research on a much more open basis, that the data behind scientific studies should be archived after publication as standards require so other researchers could attempt to replicate results(after all, this is what science is all about - results can be replicated), and that Climate Scientists needed to make far greater recourse to statistical experts to prevent statistical errors leading to flawed conclusions( such as happened in the HS Controversy). Well neither of these things have happened. Instead the wagons were circled by the parties involved. I expect better from someone who expects me to have confidence in their confidence as to their results. As the saying goes "sunlight is the best disinfectant". If you are unwilling to show all of your scientific cards, how can we be assured that serious scrutiny can be withstood?

2) Comment by InPVille - 05/03/2013

Well! You can't refute any of the factoids I have presented in this discussion, so first you resort to an "ad hominem" fallacy and now you resort to the "appeal to authority" fallacy. But I suppose it is easy to understand how simple it is for someone to fall into that trap. Look up the "Obedience to Authority" research by Stanley Milgram from the 1960s. The only thing I have convinced myself of is that it has not been established to a scientific certainty that the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels will result in climate catastrophe. Nor do I believe that it is certain enough to warrant the drastic economic actions that would be required worldwide to reduce CO2 levels to pre-industrial revolution levels. If we did do it, I believe the results would do more harm than the increased CO2 levels. Why do I think this is so? I have some idea as to how many times in the history of science that a consensus of scientists have been proven wrong. The aspects of human nature which led to these errors(such as group think) have not disappeared. It has been all too common that someone willing to question "the consensus" is proven correct. As German Physicist Max Planck said "Science knowledge advances one funeral at a time". Also I know how necessary to civilization energy is and the inadequacy of green energy to replace current sources to that end.

3) Comment by InPVille - 05/03/2013

@DMJ: From your http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/ "New Report Examines Future of Climate Modeling - - A new report finds that climate models will need to evolve substantially to deliver climate projections at the scale and level of detail desired by decision makers." -[**]- So the models aren't sufficiently reliable. - - - - "New Report on Himalayan Glaciers - Himalayan Glaciers: Climate Change, Water Resources, and Water Security concludes that, although scientific evidence shows that most glaciers in South Asia’s Hindu Kush Himalayan region are retreating, the consequences for the region’s water supply are unclear." -[**]- So they don't know whether it is a problem or to what degree if it is. - - - This is real scary stuff.

4) Comment by DMJ - 05/03/2013

Well, you've convinced yourself. That's step 1. Step 2 is to convince the overwhelming majority of the world's climate scientists. Why don't you start with the National Academy of Sciences? http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/. But hey, I'm sure they haven't researched as much as you have though, right?

5) Comment by InPVille - 05/03/2013

@DMJ: "And Pville, since someone apparently flunked Physical Science in the 9th grade, you do realize that plants need more than CO2 to survive, namely, an agreeable climate and that living things can only absorb so much of anything, even that which it needs to survive. Don't believe me? Try drinking 5 gallons of water in a row. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which traps heat. You make too much of it, you trap too much heat. Now put your dunce cap on and sit in the corner." -[**]- I do believe I am the recipient of logically flawed attempts at insults. The typical ad hominem style of argument found in these discussions of climate. When Hannibal crossed the Alps during the Roman Warm Period, the temperature was higher than today. The Arctic tree line has been closer to the pole than it is today since the Ice Caps retreated about 12,000 years ago. Pray demonstrate these warmer periods resulted in disagreeable climate. Do you have any idea how much CO2 levels would have to increase before plants could not utilize it given other available nutrients? Do you have any idea at what level CO2 levels would have to increase beyond that before it becomes physically harmful to plant and animal life? Obviously not. I understand your categorical mindset. Man's activity has increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Anything that man does to change the climate by even the slightest amount is bad. Therefore something must be done to restore the climate to it's prior pristine state. Every bad thing that could possibly pop into your fertile imagination necessarily follows if nothing is done. Sorry, but "it ain't necessarily so". I think you believe in a false god. While CO2 is a greenhouse gas water vapor is responsible for most warming at the surface level. The hypothetical posited enhanced forcing of water vapor warming from CO2 increases hasn't been demonstrated.

6) Comment by ScotB - 05/03/2013

It is not worthwhile to have a battle of wits with an unarmed man. There is nothing more dangerous than just a little bit of knowledge in the hands of the ignorant.

7) Comment by DMJ - 05/03/2013

Also, why would we even build a coal plant? Don't we have abundant, cheap and clean(er) natural gas?

8) Comment by DMJ - 05/03/2013

Billynurse, I got news for you, even China is going to pass climate change legislation before we do.

9) Comment by billynurse - 05/03/2013

Nick , all of the scientific studies that don't support the theory that man is affecting the Earth's overall climate have been suppressed and in some cases downright censored. Climate change is a permanent part of our planet's history....Elitist so-called intellectuals are dismissive of any that dare to dispute the conclusions they have jumped to... This is just like 30 years ago , when they were SURE that we were causing the next ice age.....Al Gore and governments around the globe benefit from this hysteria by grabbing more power and influence...It's as simple as that !....But Hey! , if you , Barack , and the EPA want to destroy our economy (While China and others produce as much "greenhouse gases" as they want) , you control the message !

10) Comment by InPVille - 05/03/2013

@DMJ: Next time you are on your way to Lafayette via the interstate take a moment and stop off at the rest stop just before the Henderson Swamp. Take a look at the display there which shows the changes I described which have occurred during the last 10000 years on the Louisiana Coast and you will see who has a provable point. Trust me buddy. It isn't you.

11) Comment by DMJ - 05/03/2013

Nimby, you're accidentally right. We should consider population control (self-imposed, of course). And Pville, since someone apparently flunked Physical Science in the 9th grade, you do realize that plants need more than CO2 to survive, namely, an agreeable climate and that living things can only absorb so much of anything, even that which it needs to survive. Don't believe me? Try drinking 5 gallons of water in a row. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, which traps heat. You make too much of it, you trap too much heat. Now put your dunce cap on and sit in the corner.

12) Comment by nimby? - 05/03/2013

I think the left watches too much Fox News . perhaps since man is the planets worst enemy we should consider population control ...

13) Comment by DMJ - 05/03/2013

See comment proving my point below. It'd be funny if he were being ironic. I'm pretty sure he's not though...

14) Comment by InPVille - 05/03/2013

@DMJ: Here are a few FACTS for you. Ten thousand years ago most of the land south of Baton Rouge extending east to the Mississippi State line and West to about Lafayette was part of the Gulf of Mexico. The Atchafalaya Basin was a bay of the Gulf. Sea level rise was faster back then because the Earth was coming out of an ice age and the ice covering Canada and other points north was melting. Despite that and despite subsidence along the coast the Mississippi River managed to add about a Parish worth of land every thousand years. Perhaps YOU should care enough to better educate yourself instead of buying into the latest cargo cult science reported by journalists who don't have the necessary background or sufficient interest to take the time to intelligently access what is being handed to them. Have you ever actually tried to read any of the papers on the subject available and not behind pay walls? Or do you just buy into what is reported by ABC, MSNBC, and Albert Gore, Jr., etc.? I am not and I suppose most who have posted here are not against clean energy. We don't accept however, that CO2 is pollution. Try surviving on the Earth without CO2. Below about 170 PPM all the plants on Earth would die and the animals right behind them.

15) Comment by Melisse3 - 05/03/2013

Louisiana's coastal erosion problem is mainly caused by one simple factor: Levees. They are the cause of our vanishing coast-line, not some coal terminal, or even man-made global warming. No, we beat global warming to the punch, so to speak, by blocking off most of the setiment needed to sustain the coastal marshes. Even without CO2 gases, global warming, etc., Louisiana's coastline will erode. You want to stop it? Then build a Levee from Plaquemine Parish to Vermilion Parish. Seriously - short of taking down the current levees, its the only thing that will stop the Gulf of Mexico's advances northward.

16) Comment by DMJ - 05/03/2013

Man, it's embarrassing to read what climate change skeptics think. It's sad as well. Instead of being concerned with rising sea levels, we'll just pretend that it's either not happening or that it's not because of rapidly increasing global temperatures that melt sea ice causing sea levels to rise. You'd think that in Louisiana, of all places, we'd value our environment above all. You'd be wrong. This is what happens when you watch Fox News all the time. You get the "other side" of the argument in which there is no scientific concensus about man-made global warming. Instead of promoting conservation and clean energy, we'll just make fun of "climate change hysterics." You know...since we're adults and all. Yep, we're adults that pretend to care about the future of the country when it comes to debt, but are more than willing to pass on environmental problems to future generations, obvlivious to our own hypocrisy. Like I said...embarrassing and sad.

17) Comment by nimby? - 05/03/2013

shut it all down , turn off the gas pumps , the power stations , let's go back to the horse and buggy days , no problem here . however Mr. Stracco may have a hard time adjusting , especially without cell service ...

18) Comment by [e-mail] - 05/03/2013

Wake up Mr. Stracco!! Global warming and climate change hysterics are over! Their "data" has been debunked and shown to be useless. All the "climate models" that were being hyped to scare money out of people have proven to be totally wrong, yet you trot out that argument as a reason to interfere with real solutions to our energy problems?

19) Comment by 8point6 - 05/03/2013

After reading this letter, I've come to the conclusion that the sky should crash into the ground any day, now.

20) Comment by InPVille - 05/03/2013

@ScotB: Speaking of the Keystone Pipeline, did you see the report of it's environmental impact showed it would have almost no environmental impact? http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/climatism-watching-climate-science/2013/mar/4/keystone-pipeline-state-department-finds-little-en/ -[**]- The coastline isn't as much sinking from the rising seas as it is being worn away by the Gulf of Mexico from the reversal of the Delta Formation process caused by the construction of Mississippi River levees and because in many areas along the coast the land is subsiding. -[**]- The Obama Administration and the EPA have made it almost impossible for coal powered electrical generation to continue and the industry is switching to other energy sources so coal is less of an issue. CO2 isn't that much of a contributor to sea level rise anyway. More and more research is coming out showing that other factors have far more of an effect on climate change than has been claimed in the past couple of decades. -[**]- The current Interglacial Period is more than half over. As the next Ice Age approaches, temperatures will begin to decline and the oceans will again recede. In fact there has been no net increase in global temperatures for more than 16 years according to most studies.

21) Comment by Bighug - 05/03/2013

One way to stop polution from power production is to build more nuclear plants. Strangely, the same people who are against fossil fuels are against nuclear fuels.

22) Comment by ScotB - 04/03/2013

This letter mixes two different factoids to come to an erroneous conclusion. The coal export terminal, whether built or not, will not stop Louisiana land form sinking or the seas from rising. We certainly do need to heed the advice of Tim Osborn, who I respect very much, to build adequate protections for the coast based on more up to date data. But we do not need to stop creating jobs. Coal will be exported, if not here, elsewhere. This is similar to the nonsense about stopping the construction of the keystone pipeline. The oil will be extracted from the tar sands in Canada, whether the pipeline is built or not. The only question that remains is, "Who will benefit?" It might as well be us.