A recent guest column by Frank Knapp Jr. about the Keystone Pipeline, carbon emissions and sea-level rise was filled with misinformation, half-truths and falsehoods.
His job numbers on Keystone are bogus as other estimates indicate that there will be many more construction jobs. Trans Canada, the builder, estimates 13,000 construction jobs and 7,000 manufacturing jobs. The U.S. State Department low-balls it at 5,000 to 6,000 jobs, which is much more than Mr. Knapp's estimate.
He also fails to mention that the State Department's study indicated that there would not be an increase in carbon emissions if the pipeline is built.
As the country has many pipelines for oil and gas already in operation, his statement about harming water bodies along the pipeline path is not true. The pipeline is not a threat to South Carolina small businesses and will not be putting more carbon into the atmosphere, nor threatening our tourism industry.
His statement about a six-foot rise in sea level by the end of the century is backed by virtually no one, and the link between carbon emissions and sea level rise is not close to provable.
Any rise in sea-level rise must include the role of subsurface sediment compaction, which is currently not discussed.
The sea levels have risen and fallen over the 13 billion years of the Earth's existence, and all of the current computer models that these estimates have been based on have been wrong for the past 20 years.
His statement about bipartisan support for transitioning from carbon-produced pollution to a "clean energy economy" is not really true, and if you look at most polling, the public does not think so highly about this issue. Further if asked if they would like to pay a lot more money for the energy, they are against it even more.
I note that Mr. Knapp did not mention that the carbon emissions from the United States have been significantly reduced over the past few years due to fracking and the greater use of natural gas. Planetwide, CO2 levels have risen over the last 16 years, but the average planetary temperatures did not rise.
He finishes by stating if climate change is real, it threatens our economy and our national security.
The problem with this statement is threefold: One, if we do not have access to lower priced energy our economy will be in the dumper; two, if we do not produce most if not all of our own energy, our national security will be jeopardized, as it has been in Europe, which is dependent on Russian oil; three, just ask your readers to explain the meaning of climate change, which he describes as "real."
As far as I know our climate has been changing for the 13 billion years that the Earth has been in existence.
Hall Point Road