NRSP's Tom Harris power chugs the kool aid on late-night talkshow

Tue, 2007-05-01 17:19Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

NRSP's Tom Harris power chugs the kool aid on late-night talkshow

In a recent call-in portion on an Ottawa late-night call-in show, Tom Harris, executive director of the energy industry front group, the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), offers up some laughable quotes:

Harris: “There was 100 people that appeared in the [government of Canada's] Clean Air Act hearings that just wrapped up and I went through the list and there wasn't a single doubter out of 100 people, that was questioning the science of climate change.”

I think Harris misses the point. The hearing was about a Clean Air Act, not a Clear Air Debate. Inherent the government's decision to take action against climate change, is the conclusion that climate change is a reality - a conclusion that even Exxon Mobil finds inescapable.

Harris continues: “So I'm afraid that probably on Thursday what we're going to see is a highly focussed greenhouse gas C02 reduction plan coming out, which is just ridiculous.”

Did someone mention kool-aid? Because at this point Harris and the host John Counsel sit down for a nice big glass of their own.

Counsell replies:

Yah, yah, it's sad. It really is. But you guys have the truth on your side. You know, and that keeps you going. and there's no way you're going to give up when you know something's true and you know its proven. You don't back off.”

Here's the clip. Enjoy.



Previous Comments

I noticed that Ball disagrees with Harris (and with himself), and actually thinks that removal of CO2 would be a huge benefit to the nation.

quote

http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/CCNet-04-04-06.htm

(14) WHO’S YOUR POLLUTER NOW?

Hi Benny:

Under the Heading, “Who’s your polluter now?” Wendell Krossa properly points out the changes and benefits of increased yields on less land, especially in the US. However, he should acknowledge the work of Dennis Avery who years ago pointed out how an increase in productivity on existing farmland would lead to a reduction of use of other lands, especially forests and grasslands. I have long recommended his book (it was required reading for my students) “Saving the Planet with Plastics and Pesticides.”

In Canada we have less land under cultivation now than in 1930 producing far more food. As Avery has noted we could reduce even more if the amount of research and increase in yields for cereal grains was to equal the increase achieved in the US corn industry. Ironically, most people have no idea what is gong on down on the farm because the tremendous productivity allows them to live in cities remote from the process that supports them. Simply put; there are no farms in the cities, but no cities without farms. Of course, we could also add many other benefits farmers provide such as the net removal of 50% of the CO2 mostly put into the atmosphere by urbanites as the crops grow every year. How about carbon credits for that?

Tim Ball Ph.D

end quote

It’s great to see someone who was so convinced, who is willing to change his mind. (Back and forth.)
[x]

In Texas and North Dakota, where an oil rush triggered by the development of new fracking methods has taken many towns by storm, drillers have run into a major problem.

While their shale wells extract valuable oil, natural gas also rises from the wells alongside that oil. That gas could be sold for use for electrical power plants or to heat homes, but it is harder to transport from the well to customers than oil. Oil can be shipped via truck, rail or pipe, but the only practical way to ship gas is by pipeline, and new pipelines are expensive, often costing more to construct than the...

read more