Fos­sil-fuel think­ing

Winnipeg Free Press - - YOUR SAY -

Who may have won in the end­ing of the En­ergy East pro­posal? Cer­tainly the world did not win since the Tran­sCanada Corp., likely in an­tic­i­pa­tion of the can­celling, has in­vested $10.2 bil­lion in a nat­u­ral gas pipe­line in the United States that will carry fos­sil fuel across that na­tion.

With the En­ergy East can­cel­la­tion, Canada may now ap­proach its com­mit­ment to re­duc­ing cli­mate change that it made in Paris, while the U.S. may di­min­ish its en­vi­ron­men­tal con­cern. Protest­ing the En­ergy East pipe­line achieved part of the goal of de­creas­ing cli­mate change in Canada but will leave am­bigu­ous such other con­cerns as fuel needs in the Mar­itime prov­inces and the East­West bal­ance in in­comes. Pro­test­ers must now fo­cus di­rectly on con­strain­ing Cana­dian companies from fa­cil­i­tat­ing oil and nat­u­ral gas use in the world.

Such a fo­cus ought to be on sav­ing the world from the in­creas­ing sever­ity of hur­ri­canes, the ris­ing of sea lev­els and fu­ture ha­rass­ment that cli­mate change has, mainly on the poor. Stop­ping pipe­lines is per­haps eas­ier than nar­row­ing the in­come gap be­tween rich and poor.



Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.