Cambensy missed mark in Line 5 op-ed
To the Journal editor:
In her opinion piece justifying her vote in favor of keeping Enbridge Line 5, state Rep. Sara Cambensy, D-Marquette, rationalized that using fossil fuels for driving or heating meant we had to support Line 5. Actually, Line 5 does not support her logic.
Rep. Cambensy tells us that as consumers we depend on Line 5. We do not. Line 5 is a Canadian destination transport system that has virtually no benefit for Michiganders and what small benefits it brings can be easily changed, and should be.
Propane first. Among the studies she should read is the London Economics study commissioned by the Mott Foundation, finding that Line 5 disappearance would have no big effect on Michigan consumers or its economy. (http://bit.ly/Line5OilAltReport.)
The tunnel “patch” for Line 5 is a ten-year-plus project, run by Enbridge. It extends the life of a 65-year old pipeline designed for 50-year use by its builder, Bechtel. Cambensy apparently likes high risk infrastructure.
This is not a multi-use tunnel either. Enbridge will design the size and decide the use. It’s an oil and gas tunnel. Dreams of electricity, broadband or even cars and trains are not in their plans.
She claimed to have reviewed studies regarding the tunnel, which is impossible, given its last minute jerry-rigging by the Snyder administration, and the single Enbridge-bought tunnel study released this autumn. The tunnel authority she supports is a cobbled new law borne out of Mackinac Bridge Authority legislation.
The new authority depends on the bridge authority for its existence, and in the event that anything goes wrong, including the disappearance of Enbridge as a corporate entity, it puts the bridge and taxpayers at financial risk.
For an Upper Peninsula legislator to support any threat to the success of the bridge authority is high-risk stuff. But Rep. Cambensy regularly votes against our best interests. We depend on visitor growth but she has voted against environmental safety 60-70 percent of her first term. She can’t consider tourist jobs as essential and vote as she does.
I own a forestry manufacturing business and we work constantly to eliminate risk we don’t need. Cambensy wants us all to risk a creaky pipeline that has no benefit for Michigan.
She has told you why she is not a U.P. environment protector, and it doesn’t stand up.
Sault Evening News