The fundamental question to be resolved is: Can Canada move towards a green economy and meet the GHG reduction targets set by the Paris Agreement, while expanding the fossil fuel economy through public ownership of the Kinder Morgan pipeline? Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took advantage of security and climate concerns to justify the approval of The Kinder Morgan expansion project. When he signed the project in 2016, he said, „If these projects are not built, the bitumen diluted in more rail tank cars will be forced to be transported.“ In other words, the pipeline could fund emission reduction strategies and initiatives that could keep Canada on track with its Paris commitment. The environmental impact of the pipeline extension has already led British Columbia and Alberta to engage in disputes that culminated in a full-blown trade war between the two provinces. Canadians are clearly divided on energy and climate policy. If the pipeline sees a five-year reduction in its use, the net asset value would fall to $400 million. If the government were to return to a cost in the 2040s, the value of the pipeline would fall to $1.1 billion, the PBO found. There are no concrete answers, but one thing is clear: the paradox of the Paris gas pipeline will probably not be reconciled in the near future. The challenges are complex. They range from the impact on human health to socio-economic benefits. These include concerns about market access and job creation. But also the cultural and trust issues related to the impact of the pipeline on Aboriginal lands and local communities and the promises made by the Government of Canada in response to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Even if implemented, the use of pipeline revenues to support greenhouse gas reduction strategies will not solve the country`s persistent ethical dilemmas or the federal government`s joint climate policy messages.
The Canadian government`s decision to buy Kinder Morgan`s Trans Mountain pipeline project shortly after the ratification of the Paris climate change agreement creates an interesting paradox and a national challenge. Read also: The Complicated History of Pipeline Construction in Canada Read more: The Kinder Morgan Pipeline and Pacific Salmon: Goldfish, Black Gold Giroux also said he took some important assumptions to support the current promising financial modeling, including the extent of pipeline use and contracts with thinkers. If the pipeline`s use were to decrease or contracts with shippers were not renewed, these factors „could have a negative impact on the financial value of Trans Mountain`s assets,“ the budget keeper wrote.