
As Obama decides on Keystone, Canada forced to review our history of resource exploitation.
by Mel Watkins
A New York Times editorial on March 10 said “No to the Keystone pipeline.” Opponents of the pipeline, like myself, feel good. We can at least hope that the editorial has increased the odds that Obama will also say no — but whether the odds change enough to matter is impossible to say.
Problem is, feeling good or better is not good enough. There's something wrong with this story. It's as if the decision about the pipeline is no longer our decision. If Obama says no, that's the end. If he says yes, that's the end too. Isn't the definition of shirking responsibility that you have given away the power to make a decision on something that really matters to you?
Mel Watkins is Professor Emeritus of Economics and Political Science, University of Toronto. He is Editor Emeritus of This Magazine and a frequent contributor to Peace magazine. He is a memer of Pugwash Canada and former President of Science for Peace.
Website: http://www.progressive-economics.ca/author/mel-watkins/.



