Noth­ing nat­u­ral about frack­ing process

Toronto Star - - NEWS -

Re There must be a way for­ward, Ed­i­to­rial, Jan. 11 I was sorry to see your ed­i­to­rial sup­port­ing the coastal gas link pipe­line. This is­sue far tran­scends who speaks for Indige­nous peo­ples.

The gas to be ex­ported is fracked. This means its pro­duc­tion has caused mas­sive meth­ane pol­lu­tion of the at­mos­phere and overuse and pol­lu­tion of pre­cious wa­ter sup­plies, as well as lo­cal earthquakes and other en­vi­ron­men­tal prob­lems.

Canada ranks 54th out of 60 coun­tries in the Cli­mate Change Per­for­mance In­dex. This is deeply shame­ful. The United States and Saudi Ara­bia are ranked 59 and 60.

Fu­tur­ists have said that ad­vanced tech­ni­cal so­ci­eties will de­stroy them­selves. It would be good, to put it mildly, to prove them wrong.

Jenny Carter, Peter­bor­ough

Your ed­i­to­rial claims that the pipe­line un­der protest isn’t par­tic­u­larly con­tro­ver­sial be­cause it will trans­port nat­u­ral gas, not heavy crude oil, sug­gest­ing that the peo­ple who con­sider it wor­thy of con­tro­versy have no facts on which to base their protests.

But that so-called nat­u­ral gas is fracked, which is con­tro­ver­sial no mat­ter how it is trans­ported. While it may not threaten the en­vi­ron­ment while be­ing trans­ported, it cer­tainly does while be­ing forced out of the ground with harm­ful chem­i­cals and mil­lions of gal­lons of wa­ter.

I sug­gest you con­sult thenar­whal.ca for in­for­ma­tion on fracked gas. I first read about this web­site when ref­er­enced by your es­teemed colum­nist, Tanya Ta­laga.

Of course, the main is­sue is agree­ment from the First Na­tions across whose land the pipe­line will travel, and that means from the peo­ple who be­long to those First Na­tions, not the elected coun­cils that de­pend on the plea­sure of the fed­eral gov­ern­ment for their fund­ing.

El­iz­abeth Guthrie, Toronto

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.