Seems like a no-brainer to us.
Earlier today, a group of environment and law groups revealed that as the full costs of expanding the Trans Mountain pipeline rise, public support for the project plummets.
Here at the Green Economy Network, we don’t get to decide whether the project goes forward or not. But with a hefty public price tag of $12.6 billion, we think it is worth considering what that money could buy if it was invested differently.
Using proven economic analysis, our crack team has shown that if the money were divided three ways, with $4 billion being invested in each of three streams:
• green energy development;
• energy retrofits for buildings;
• and public transit,
the economy would create almost 150 000 jobs. That’s 30 times what expansion proponents are saying the project would create at its peak which, by the way, would only last one month!
What’s more, by investing the money in green economy priorities, Canada would reduce GHG emissions by 13 to 37 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2 eq). That’s almost the mirror image of the 14-17 Mt CO2 eq increase that the project would create, and that is just the upstream impacts.
(person job years)
(Mt CO2 eq)
Down by 13-37
˂ 5 500 at peak
Up by 14-17 Mt CO2 eq
Which is the better investment? Seems like a no-brainer to us.