OnEarth Magazine: Subscribe | Current Issue
Your OnEarth: Login / Register
Groundbreaking journalism needs your support
SUBSCRIBE TODAY and enjoy a special introductory offer: A full year for just $15!

Dreamboat

Royal Caribbean's new "green" mega-liner still burns the world's dirtiest fuel. Can the cruise industry clean up its act? Table of Contents | Digital Edition
Guardian Environmental Network

Opinions and observations from environmental experts, activists, and luminaries

I was involved in the construction of this mill in 1994. There wa absolutely NO scientic reason to burn all this nautural gas and create the resulting NOx and CO2 emissions. The comapany ageed to this techology because the USEPA was forcing it as retribution for a defeated lawsut in the US. At that time natural gas was cheap and LP wanted to build the mill --- so they ageed to RTO's. About the same time they were building a mill in Ireland, but the Irish government said burning all that gas for no environmental benifit was crazy - so no RTO's were installed in Ireland. It is finally time to fix a 15 year old politically driven environmetal mistake!!!!!

As far as I understand, the rate payers of the communities around the LP plant in Minnitonas, MB (Swan River, etc.)had to pay the brunt of getting the plant supplied with natural gas in the first place. It was not supplied by Manitoba Hydro at the time. The estimate of how many residents would actually choose to use natural gas once the lines were installed were highly inflated. The company got a huge break and the cost was passed on to the local communities....

Also, the suggestion that the process leading to the temporary decommissioning of the RTOs was not as open as the company suggests it was. Many folks that were involved in the original struggle to ensure the installation of adequate pollution abatement equipment did not know that LP was even applying for a decommissioning. LP was definitely flying under the wire as local environmental champions still living and working in the community were caught completely unaware.

Finally, LP has not been the best(!) corporate citizen in the US, so it is right that people are skeptical about their assurances. It is also terrible that Canada and its provinces do not hold US-based companies to at least the standards of their "home" nations--in this case the US. If we in Canada do not demand more, just think of the precedent this sets for LP's operations in developing nations!!!

Also, I am not a fan of corporate bail outs. However, when reducing costs by eliminating pollution abatement equipment becomes a bone of contention, I think the provincial and federal governments should look aggressively at what can be done so that local jobs aren't lost and the health of the workers and communities is not put at risk. It should not be health or jobs--especially when the company and its shareholders have been making lots of money over the years by cutting and/or processing local timber--much of it being a publicly-owned resource!