Guest contribution by Roger Caiazza,
In an article on the Enbridge Line 3 pipeline, Hill’s Rachel Frazin reported that:
When asked about Line 3, a White House spokesman said in an email that the administration would evaluate infrastructure proposals based on energy needs. whether they will help the country achieve its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and whether they can create well-paid union jobs. The spokesperson didn’t say anything specific about the Line 3 project. “(Emphasis added)
Has anyone heard of an announcement that the United States has a carbon neutral goal by 2050?
The article looked at an Enbridge pipeline upgrade project, Line 3, in Minnesota:
“The $ 4 billion portion of the Line 3 Replacement Program, known as the Line 3 Replacement Project, is to replace existing 34” pipe for 13 miles in North Dakota, 337 miles in Minnesota, and 14 miles through new 36 – inch pipes to replace miles in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin segment was completed in 2018 while the North Dakota segment was completed in December 2020. “
“Construction began in December 2020 on the 337-mile portion of the Minnesota project, the only segment of Line 3 that has yet to be replaced with a new, state-of-the-art pipe.”
Activists who can’t accept the oil will flow with or without this upgrade and who don’t want to believe the alternatives pose a higher risk to the environment are trying to block the segment in Minnesota, even though construction began in December 2020 to have. Blair King explained why the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline was bad for the climate, the environment and Canada, and all of his arguments apply equally to that pipeline.
The Hill article states that Minnesota has active lawsuits against the pipeline despite “both the federal and Minnesota governments have assessed and approved the effects of the pipeline.” This attempt to delay another pipeline is bad enough, but the government’s response to have the infrastructure project evaluated to see if it will help meet the carbon neutral goal by 2050 is far worse. Is it too much to ask for politicians to conduct a feasibility study to determine the affordability, reliability and environmental impacts before committing to a political slogan?
————————————————————————————————————————————————
Roger Caiazza blogs at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York about energy and environmental issues in New York because New York politicians enacted laws to achieve a climate neutral goal by 2050 with a feasibility assessment. This is his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company he has been associated with.
4.5
2
be right
Item rating
Like this:
Loading…
