Pipeline — arguments against

1) It begets drilling. The EPA’s new rule, known ironically as “green completion,” requires that connection to a pipeline be in place before drilling can occur. Drill sites along this pipe will be the first ones targeted for development, and will spawn a network of gathering lines.

2) It industrializes rural areas. The pipe would start with two compressor stations, but eventually, stations will be needed every 40 miles. Air quality will go from “clean country air” to smog-filled ozone alert days such as Wyoming is experiencing. “Cracker” plants will feed off the pipe and beget plastics factories and subsequent additional toxic waste. As with Minisink, new gas power plants feeding off the line can be expected as well. None of these inevitable impacts are considered by FERC.

3) It devastates habitats. The route would travel through pristine forests and wildlife areas; cross numerous bodies of water; and create erosion risks by clear cutting steep slopes.

4) It enables eminent domain. If builders get FERC approval for the project, land will be taken against the will of landowners.

5) It hastens climate change. Lke all pipelines, this one can be expected to lose 9-12% of its volume in transit. With the planet already past 400ppm, we cannot afford to release any more methane, a greenhouse gas up to 105 times more powerful than CO2.

Comments are closed.

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: