Michigan clinicians oppose Line 5 tunnel, cite health and environmental risks

As published in the Midland Daily News on July 30, 2025.

By Lisa Del Buono

Line 5 marker in the Mackinac Straits

Leaders from MyMichigan Health submitted a letter to the Daily News (July 22, "Health Care relies on energy.

We disagree. The need for the pipeline’s petroleum products has been significantly overstated.

Our organization, the Michigan Clinicians for Climate Action, supports efforts to hold utilities accountable to provide affordable and reliable energy. As a network made up of more than 450 Michigan healthcare professionals, we know firsthand how important it is to keep the power on, for the sake of medical equipment and crucial medications, and for patients who rely on air conditioning and heat through the seasons.

That’s exactly why we oppose the continued operation of Line 5 in any capacity.

The pipeline transports 500,000 barrels of petroleum products daily through the Mackinac Straits to Canada, and the tunnel, alone, is estimated to contribute to an additional 27 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions.

We know that burning fossil fuels poses immediate health risks in the form of air pollutants like particulate matter, ozone and nitrogen oxide. One recent study estimates that flaring and venting in oil and gas production contributes to an estimated $7.4 billion in U.S. health risks annually.

Emissions from oil and gas are also heating up our planet, leading to more extreme weather events that cause more power outages and grid reliability issues.

We agree with MyMichigan Health when they identify energy reliability as a health problem. However, the letter’s authors undermine their own point by supporting the same industry that is increasing volatility and insecurity among our most vulnerable populations.

Line 5 also directly affects one of Michigan’s most ecologically sensitive areas. In proposing the tunnel, Enbridge has essentially admitted the dual lines suspended in the Straits pose a threat to the Great Lakes.

University of Michigan researchers have documented how an oil spill in the Straits could pollute 700 miles of Great Lakes shoreline, resulting in tainted drinking water sources, crippled fisheries and severe losses to the state’s recreation and tourism economy.

While the tunnel is promised to eliminate the oil spill risk, Enbridge’s proposed plan would still keep the 72-year-old lines operating during the six-year construction period, prolonging the threat of an oil spill.

In the draft environmental impact statement of the tunnel project, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers states its analysis “will assume (Enbridge) would comply with all laws, regulations, and conditions of issued permits.”

When it comes to the Great Lakes and the health of Michigan residents, we cannot make assumptions about Enbridge’s ability to protect the Straits. We find it difficult to simply “trust” a company that was behind the Kalamazoo River spill in 2010 – one of the largest inland oil spills in history.

MyMichigan Health administrators and state officials reviewing Line 5 tunnel permit applications need to be wary of falling for Enbridge’s PR talking points.

According to Enbridge’s own legal team, shutting down Line 5 would only raise gas prices by one half-cent per gallon. We already have viable solutions to address our state’s increasing electricity needs, including community solar and battery storage initiatives, which can reduce energy costs and make our grid more independent from large corporations like Enbridge.

We hope the public will make their voices heard during the comment period and tell the Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy to deny the tunnel permits. Line 5 is a poor investment for both our environment and our health.