In­creas­ing fos­sil fuel us­age short­sighted

The Recorder & Times (Brockville) - - OPINION -

Re: “En­ergy East pipe­line dies as Lac Me­gan­itc for­got­ten,” Oct. 6.

Mark Bonokoski’s piece de­pends on the premise that Line 9 would have re­placed rail ship­ments of fos­sil fu­els with a safer means of trans­porta­tion. Not at all: Line 9 was in­tended to in­crease the trans­porta­tion of Canada’s fos­sil fu­els to for­eign mar­kets. In­creased fos­sil fuel pro­duc­tion would in­crease the amount of heat-trap­ping gases glob­ally and thus global warm­ing, ex­treme weather events, and the desta­bi­liza­tion of the world’s cli­mate sys­tem.

The fos­sil fuel in­dus­try wants to in­crease its pro­duc­tion be­fore the world shifts to re­new­ables; if those re­sources do not be­come cash soon, they will be left be­hind. Bonokoski calls en­vi­ron­men­tal­ist “my­opic,” but in­creas­ing the use of fos­sil fu­els is short­sighted in the ex­treme: More green­house gases in the at­mos­phere means more warm­ing, more wildl­fires, big­ger floods here, longer droughts there, big­ger storms at sea, and the seas be­com­ing more acidic and sup­port­ing less life.

We live in an age of rapid cli­mate change, which we may sur­vive if we act dra­mat­i­cally and promptly. Oth­er­wise, the en­vi­ron­ment may re­cover after a few mil­lion years with a vastly re­duced biomass on planet Earth. Ge­orge Clark Kingston

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.