I'm writing an article about pipeline construction in my state, and I've been interested in that very question. Can pipelines can affect local wildlife in the long-term? Other than at large pumping stations, it shouldn't have a huge impact (unless that oil or gas surfaces, of course). But maybe so.
In Vancouver, wildlife managers are faced with the question, "Caribou, wolves or development?"
The article is light on the particulars of exactly how much land will be "opened up" by a pipeline itself, but DeSmogBlog did a decent job showing how oil sands territory in Alberta overlaps caribou habitat. Smaller habitat area correlates with smaller populations, so it would stand to reason that caribou numbers are decreasing. Now, it seems, the provincial government's solution is to kill off predators, which weren't really doing harm in the first place. So it seems, from my U.S. perspective, Alberta is solving species decline with more species decline.
It's a mess. And when you step back, both the pipeline and the predator problems trace to the tar sands, and when you step back even further it leads right back to us, unwilling to consume less fossil fuels.
Let's repent. "Give dirt to me/I now lament." The Pixies are more relevant than ever.
No comments:
Post a Comment