The recent letter to the editor by Capt. Bill Van Voorhis (“Jobs are in the pipeline, too”) followed the finalization of the Keystone XL EIS (environmental impact study) and took the position that if the Canadian tar sands are going to be extracted regardless of any opposition, then we might as well enjoy the benefits of exporting it locally from Casco Bay and allow for the reversal of the Portland-Montreal pipeline.

We who are engaged in active opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline and to the reversal of the Portland-Montreal pipeline are opposed to these projects for many reasons, but we all envision that the end-game of these efforts is to impede the export venues of this landlocked substance, and in so doing limit and stop its extraction in the first place. We disagree, therefore, that extraction and export of Canadian tar sands is inevitable at the scale that the petroleum industry anticipates and that is reflected in the Keystone EIS. The success of our efforts to prevent reversal of the Portland-Montreal pipeline here in South Portland is important because it empowers local resistance efforts worldwide and shows that successful resistance makes it possible to achieve these ends.

But why oppose tar sands extraction in the first place? Local reasons are that:

1. Export of crude oil from Casco Bay is a new business that increases risk of spill during tanker loading operations and that emits additional toxic VOCs (volatile organic compounds). These emission sources are at some of the most valuable and scenic shorefront property in Maine – property that is currently undervalued as a heavy industrial use among possible uses.

2. Theoretical arguments can be made as to whether the probability of spill is or is not significantly increased if the flow is reversed, and whether the material conducted through the pipeline is light crude versus tar sands dilbit (diluted bitumen). However, risk of a spill is a combination of probability and consequences. What is known empirically, however, is that dilbit spills are far more difficult to control and to clean up than light crude. The tendency for dilbit to separate into volatile and sinking components within the temperature range of New England waters makes cleanup protocols that were developed for light crude ineffective for dilbit. The massive dilbit spill in the Kalamazoo River in Michigan exemplifies this problem. That spill occurred in June 2010 and is still not remediated. If such a spill were to occur at any of the points where Portland-Montreal Pipeline crosses the Crooked River, the water supply of much of southwestern Maine would be toxified, quite possibly irreparably. And even an incidental spill into Casco Bay during tanker loading operations could have profound effects on the health of lobster fisheries, the long-term costs of which are unknown.

Global reasons to oppose tar sands extraction include:

3. Extraction by mining is devastating to Canada’s boreal forests, which are themselves important carbon sinks for atmospheric CO2. Non-industry funded studies show that restoration efforts have been minimally effective or ineffective, and that the scars left are permanent.

4. Extraction by steam leaves more of the forest intact but contaminates natural waters at an unprecedented scale. Weakly regulated toxic water impoundment “ponds” are so huge they are visible from space. These operations concentrate toxins such as mercury and selenium and release them into the food web. The Canadian government under Harper’s leadership has been complicit in allowing such activities.

5. Industrialization of these areas has forced First Nations to abandon the sustainable subsistence lifestyles they have practiced for thousands of years and to become consumers of imported processed foods, which are unhealthy and expensive, and to become dependent on their corporate “neighbors” in direct violation of treaty rights that were reconfirmed as Constitutionally inviolate as recently as 1986. These treaty violations represent a present Constitutional crisis in Canada, and industry is exploiting the fact that the wheels of justice move slowly. North America’s history of treaty violations with native Americans is long and shameful, and is the current unabashed practice of the Harper government.

6. Toxification of the food web at the source of extraction and downstream is having profound health effects on indigenous inhabitants. Cholangiocarcinoma, for example, has increased in the extraction region in direct correlation with massive increase in naphthenic acid produced from extraction operations. The calculated strategy of exposing disempowered segments of the population to known environmental toxins is called “environmental racism,” and this practice is unabashed under Harper’s watch.

7. Some 72 percent of extracted petroleum worldwide is burned (mostly in the transportation sector), releasing CO2 into the atmosphere. Pre-industrial atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are the benchmark 280 part per million (ppm). All available climate models agree that levels above 350 ppm are destabilizing to global climate and that the risk of tipping-point effects are increasingly likely. Present levels are 400 ppm. The 40-year prospectus for extraction of Canada’s tar sands, if it is marketed and used to be burned at current levels, will increase atmospheric CO2 to 500 ppm in 50 years. Such rapid increases in CO2 have happened in Earth history only in association with mass extinction events. Ecologies – let alone economies – cannot adapt to such rapid changes. We should all be horrified at these numbers (no longer disputed) and prepare to kick our addiction to fossil fuels.

So Capt. Van Voorhis’ point that we should all partake in the fruits of Canada’s tar sands economy should be taken in the context of the lives and generations that will inevitably suffer the effects of our selective short-term gain.

Eben Rose, of South Portland, is a volunteer for Protect South Portland and 350Maine.