Hello, I am a PHEV owner/operator, engineer and green-tech supporter. Please consider the following scenario:


Terminating Line 5 and prohibiting the construction of a replacement will cause the supply chain to move more fuel into the mid-west using tractor-trailers and railroads, which burn fuel. This is not a win for the Michigan Climate Action Network, because consumers will burn the same amount of fuel, while more fuel is going to be used to transport it to points-of-sales. Not only will it net burning more fuel, but this further reduces supply.


The aggressive protest against carbon-based liquid-fuel infrastructure is not the way towards a better future. Consumers struggle to afford new technology as it is, so taking action to further increase fuel prices for consumers through banning construction of fuel infrastructure will be counter-productive.


The railroad company will always have enough money to buy diesel for their trains, and truck drivers will always buy diesel for their trucks. It’s a business expense. Struggling consumers and home-owners who rely on home heating oil (which petroleum companies consider nearly interchangeable and often sell as diesel for off-road use, i.e., rail-road use) will have to compete businesses for oil, people could freeze in their homes if they can’t afford to keep up.


Besides, if they don’t build it in your state, they’ll just build it somewhere else. Michigan Climate Action Network is basically lobbying to increase fuel prices for everybody. Please understand this perspective.


Consumers will move to green technology as they can afford it, and as it becomes more practical.