Dear editor,

Miss Cassondra Lozynsky wrote a lovely piece detailing the failings of any and all environmental sentiment. Allow me to paraphrase: “Jeez guys, how dumb are you? Our sweaters are made from oil, so duh, that’s just the way it is.” While I am floored by Lozynsky’s deep analysis, her emotive musings have left me far from convinced.

Planting greenery and picking up garbage are worthy endeavors, however, I’d hazard a guess that the economically astute Miss Lozynsky would head for greener pastures (pardon the pun) should the pay change at her current position.

All red herrings aside, the author lovingly reminds us that it is stupid to dislike pipelines, as they are inevitable. Similar arguments have been proposed whenever paradigm shifts are in the air. In fact, not so long ago, some laughed at the prospect of the car. What a stupid idea? Where would that ever go?

Miss Lozynsky’s most egregious error was failing to mention climate change. People are not opposed to pipelines because they are pipelines, they are opposed to the greenhouse gases that they will permit, allow, and foster. When large energy projects are undertaken it isn’t for a couple years, it’s for 30- to 50-year time horizons.

What your fellow classmates, and others, are worried about is the pipeline putting more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and the economic necessity of using this expensive pipeline to regain its investment costs. In a world that must transition to something other than oil, creating a pipeline that will need to be used for the next half century is not a wise decision.

The Globe and Mail just published an article examining the United Nations’ statements on climate change. What does it say? Let’s see: “The world must wean itself off of fossil fuels, and soon, to avoid the most severe long-term consequences.” This doesn’t seem to support the building of a pipeline, does it?

I understand that we are currently addicted to oil. But to believe that this can never change is foolish. Preaching a ‘reality’ doctrine prevents us from aiming for what could be attainable, not what is currently attainable. Miss Lozynsky attacks her classmates for not understanding the wider issues surrounding environmentalism, but I wonder: does she understand the wider issues herself?

Sincerely,

Gabriel Roy-wright,
SFU Student