“`html

The destiny of the Line 5 pipeline is at yet another pivotal moment in its extensive history of over 70 years. This pipeline transports more than 500,000 barrels of petroleum products every day through the Great Lakes area from Wisconsin into Canada, following a route that extends along the floor of the Straits of Mackinac.

Throughout its existence, the pipeline has experienced over 30 leaks and discharged over 1 million gallons of oil. A 2016 study conducted by the University of Michigan indicated that upwards of 700 miles of Great Lakes coastline could be contaminated should the pipeline fail in the straits.

Enbridge, the Canadian firm that manages the pipeline, has suggested drilling a tunnel beneath the straits to secure the pipeline and maintain its operation. The Trump administration, after proclaiming an energy emergency, has urged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accelerate its environmental impact assessment of the plan.

The Corps anticipates unveiling its draft Environmental Impact Statement on May 30, which could potentially allow Enbridge to proceed after a public comment period of 30 days, all while facing opposition.

Julia Cole, who serves as professor and chair of the U-M Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, is apprehensive about the implications of Line 5’s ongoing operations for climate change mitigation efforts.

You lead a climate laboratory at U-M where your team focuses on various areas, including oceanic and coral reef science. How has your background influenced your communication and writing?

My interest in Line 5 stems from my role as a climate scientist and my concern about how we manage fossil fuel energy in the upcoming years and decades. In the end, we must cease the combustion of fossil fuels. A reduction of our consumption by half within an alarming five years is necessary to stay beneath the international consensus of 1.5 degrees Celsius warming. Yet, discussions regarding investment in fossil fuel infrastructure with decades-long lifespans are taking place.

Additionally, I approach this issue from the standpoint of someone who is deeply invested in the well-being of the Great Lakes—just as all Michiganders are, right? A significant majority of Michigan residents believe in the need to preserve the Great Lakes for all of us, ensuring their cleanliness and health. They desire to consume fish and enjoy boating without apprehension. However, with a tunnel or a pipeline that’s beyond its expiration date beneath the Great Lakes, we face a monumental risk.

What are the dangers of surpassing the 1.5-degree limit?

Many individuals frequently underestimate how what appears to be a minor increase in temperature profoundly affects their lives. However, when we discuss warming levels of even one to two degrees, we are referring to changes such as the proliferation of infectious diseases. We’re encountering situations in which home insurance becomes unattainable due to wildfires, rising sea levels, and storms that are displacing residents in unprecedented numbers. Climate change is omnipresent, and we are experiencing its effects presently.

In the Great Lakes region, repercussions linked to climate change are evident in agriculture. For instance, when warmer temperatures occur in February and March, cherries mistakenly believe it’s spring and bloom prematurely. Then, as April’s frost sets in (as it tends to in Northern Michigan), the buds freeze, leading to a lack of fruit production. Furthermore, if May brings flooding that inhibits field planting, it requires hundreds of millions of dollars in agricultural emergency relief. Many people fail to recognize this, and it is an issue likely to worsen in the future.

While managing its pipelines, Enbridge is also pouring billions into renewable energy, asserting that “To tackle the energy dilemma, the solution remains ‘all of the above.’” What is your perspective on this?

The “all of the above” approach may have seemed effective 20, 30, 40, or even 50 years ago, but it is no longer feasible. The urgency to transition away from fossil fuels must be prioritized to avert further and swifter global temperature increases than humanity has ever faced. The specific outcomes of this are uncertain, but one thing is clear: it will be detrimental, as evidenced by our current experiences with floods, droughts, rising sea levels, heatwaves, and ecological collapse. My work in coral reef science shows that these ecosystems are being severely impacted.

We are already witnessing the effects of a mere degree-and-a-half of warming, while our aim is to cap warming at that threshold. Continuing investments in fossil fuel infrastructure will make this goal unattainable.

Is there a genuine energy crisis?

At present, large-scale renewable energy development is more economical than fossil fuels for electricity production. The claim of an energy crisis is, frankly, too lenient a descriptor. It is misleading and untrue. This narrative aims to justify ongoing investments in fossil fuels.

We do not face an energy crisis; rather, we grapple with a willpower crisis in terms of our transition to clean energy in this nation. We are already moving toward a future where utility-scale solar and wind become cheaper than fossil fuel energy plants.

People often argue, “But the sun doesn’t always shine, and the wind doesn’t always blow,” but in reality, advances in battery technology are enhancing energy storage capabilities. As we progress, we can produce and store energy at decreasing costs, yielding a win-win situation. It’s astonishing to hear someone assert that we have an energy crisis warranting more fossil fuels, as the true emergency lies within our climate, which demands our urgent attention.

---

Related articles:

• “““html
  

  Line 5 and Indigenous law: ‘It’s remarkably Orwellian.’

• 
  

  Line 5 and its narrative in Michigan: ‘It’s had more twists and turns than a Russian espionage novel.’

• 
  

  Line 5 and its hazards: ‘The fallout from failure would be disastrous.’

“`