[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]
17768
From: Akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: 'Horrible & Unconscionable Betrayal': Biden supports Tar Sand pipline
|
'Horrible and Unconscionable Betrayal': Biden DOJ Backs Trump Line 3 Approval "You are siding with a handful of corrupt corporate elites over honoring treaty rights, climate, water, and the future of life on Earth." JESSICA CORBETT June 24, 2021 Indigenous and environmental activists fighting against the Line 3 tar sands pipeline were outraged Thursday after the Biden administration filed a legal brief backing the federal government's 2020 approval of the project under former President Donald Trump. "This, quite simply, is pure cowardice." —Generation Green New Deal Critics of the project—which Canadian energy giant Enbridge has undertaken to replace an aging oil pipeline—blasted the U.S. Department of Justice's late Wednesday filing (pdf) as a betrayal of President Joe Biden's pledges to address the climate emergency and respect tribal rights. "A White House that is serious about protecting communities needs to start by listening to communities when they say they don't want an oil pipeline threatening their water and land," said Janet Redman, Greenpeace USA climate campaign director. "Backing Enbridge's Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline is a massive failure for a president that campaigned on tackling the climate crisis. And it's a betrayal of what he promised the American people." Benjamin Goloff, a campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity, accused Biden of "siding with a handful of corrupt corporate elites over honoring treaty rights, climate, water, and the future of life on Earth." "This is a racist pipeline project forced down the throats of our people, an ecological time bomb and a giveaway to a Canadian multinational oil interest," said Winona LaDuke, executive director of the Indigenous environmental group Honor the Earth, in a statement Thursday. "If the president is genuine in his pledge to take climate justice and tribal rights seriously, his administration must stop defending the Trump administration's decision and undertake a genuine analysis of Line 3's environmental and human impacts," she asserted. The route of Enbridge's new, larger pipeline crosses Anishinaabe treaty lands. Native American and climate groups have challenged it with actions on the ground—which have sometimes halted construction—and lawsuits at the state and federal level. The Biden DOJ's brief is for a case filed in the federal district court in Washington, D.C. by Earthjustice on behalf of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, the Red Lake Band of Chippewa, Honor the Earth, and the Sierra Club. Those groups challenged the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' November 2020 decision to grant a key water permit and permission for specific work related to Line 3. They argue that the corps violated several federal laws— the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Clean Water Act (CWA), the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA), and Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The DOJ brief claims that the federal government met its legal obligations for the review and approval process through various actions, which included analyzing alternatives and preparing environmental assessments that considered "the impacts from the corps' authorizations, including to wetlands, the climate, low-income and minority populations, tribal rights to hunt, fish, and gather, and all of the issues to which plaintiffs draw special attention." The brief notes that the corps considered a comprehensive Environmental Impact Statement prepared by Minnesota state authorities, and incorporated "important protections for wetlands, wild rice, and cultural resources as enforceable conditions of the permit and permission." Since even before taking office in January, Biden has faced pressure to reverse the polluter-friendly policies of his predecessor—including by directing the corps to reconsider its approval of Line 3, fully accounting for its impacts on the global climate and tribal resources. "We are extremely disappointed that the Biden administration continues the Trump administration's policy of ignoring tribal, environmental justice, and climate concerns in favor of fossil fuel industry profits." —Moneen Nasmith, Earthjustice "We are extremely disappointed that the Biden administration continues the Trump administration's policy of ignoring tribal, environmental justice, and climate concerns in favor of fossil fuel industry profits," Earthjustice attorney Moneen Nasmith said Thursday. Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune called the DOJ's filing "a massive, tar sands pipeline-sized missed opportunity to break with the Trump administration's pro-polluter agenda and stand on the side of Indigenous rights and climate justice." "Allowing Line 3 to move forward is, at best, inconsistent with the bold promises on climate and environmental justice President Biden campaigned and was elected on," he continued. "As Enbridge barrels ahead with construction, time is running out for Biden to stop them from doing permanent damage to critical water resources, trampling on tribal sovereignty, and polluting our climate." "The president must listen to frontline communities, defend the right of all people to clean water and a healthy climate, and act immediately to shut down this dirty tar sands pipeline," Brune added. In a statement about the development Thursday, leaders at the Minnesota arm of 350.org, which is among the groups organizing against Line 3, emphasized expert warnings about the need to rapidly phase out fossil fuels to prevent climate catastrophe on a global scale. MN350 communications director Brett Benson said that "at a time when the world is getting hotter and the scientific community is sounding the alarm on the climate crisis, it is time for President Biden to step up and lead by ending this Trump-era expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure. Protecting our planet will take bold action, and bold action requires bold leadership. All eyes are on President Biden to do the right thing." Warning about the dangers of inaction on the climate crisis, Andy Pearson, a Midwest tar sands organizer at 350, called the corps' approval "indefensible" and said that "Biden needs to take every opportunity to undo Trump's damage, and that means taking away Line 3's inadequate water permits." "Line 3 would have the climate impact of 50 coal plants and violate treaties with the Anishinaabe," the campaigner noted. "Biden can stop Line 3 immediately by revoking Trump's water permits, and we call on him to act now to honor the treaties and protect our climate." The Hill reported Thursday that "a White House spokesperson declined to comment, but it has said in the past that it will try to keep its judicial branch independent." Despite the disappointment in court, Line 3's critics vow that this fight is far from over. "We intend to keep opposing this pipeline," LaDuke told the New York Times. "We will file more legal challenges. Expect more resistance."" |
Responses:
[17769]
17769
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: What is the Line 3 project?
|
Share Updated: Aug. 31 This story is updated periodically, but may not have the very latest information. For the newest updates on the Line 3 pipeline project click here. Where things stand The section of pipeline in Minnesota is about 90 percent complete Pipeline opponents continue to protest the project Minnesota courts dealt several setbacks to pipeline opponents in August Latest reporting Pollution controlLine 3 drilling fluid spilled into wetlands White EarthArgues DNR water permit violate wild rice rights Restraining orderAgainst a sheriff in dispute with protesters Full coverageThe Line 3 debate What is the Line 3 project? Enbridge, based in Calgary, Alberta, is building an oil pipeline running southeast from Canada's tar sands region to Lake Superior's western tip near the Minnesota-Wisconsin border. The pipeline replaces Enbridge's current Line 3, but with a larger line along a different route. Enbridge says the existing Line 3 pipeline, built in the 1960s, needs to be replaced because it's corroded and cracked and requires extensive ongoing maintenance. As a result, it can't carry as much oil as it once could. It also means the line can't carry heavier grades of crude that come out of the oil sands region. The company is building along a new route that avoids the reservation of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe, which opposed locating the new line across its land. Find a map of the current route here. A map of the permitted route for the Line 3 pipeline A map of the permitted route for the Line 3 oil pipeline replacement project.Jiwon Choi | MPR News What's the argument for replacing Line 3? Enbridge has long said that the rationale for building a new Line 3 is driven by safety and maintenance concerns. The company says it’s much safer to build a new pipeline, using modern construction methods, than operating an aging, corroding pipe with a history of significant leaks. Line 3 supporters also point out that society's demand for oil is still huge, and that pipelines are a safer option for transporting crude than trains or trucks. 20157 things you need to know about oil-by-rail safety Originally, Line 3 could carry 760,000 barrels of oil a day. But as the line has aged, it can only handle about half that amount. A new Line 3 would boost capacity back to its original level. What are the arguments against it? Demonstrators on horseback and in canoes gather at a river. Demonstrators gather in canoes and on horses in the Shell River before going onto an Enbridge Line 3 easement that will be used to drill under the river in Menahga, Minn., July 15.Tim Evans for MPR News Environmental groups, activists and some northern Minnesota Ojibwe bands argue that building Line 3 opens up a new part of the state to the possibility of an oil spill, which could threaten lakes, rivers and wild rice waters. The new pipeline corridor crosses several waterways, including the Mississippi River twice. The nation's biggest inland oil spill happened in 1991 on the current Line 3 near Grand Rapids, Minn. The line has leaked crude other times, too. They also say building the project would exacerbate global climate change. They argue that by allowing the construction and operation of the new Line 3, we are locking in the transport and use of more carbon-intensive oil for decades to come. They say blocking Line 3 would keep that oil in the ground, reducing carbon emissions. An environmental review conducted for the project found the societal costs of climate change that might result from Line 3 could reach $287 billion over the next 30 years. But in approving the project, the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission found that not building Line 3 would not significantly reduce demand for Canadian oil. Rather, the PUC said more crude would likely be shipped “via more dangerous means such as rail.” RelatedWhy no one agrees on Line 3's climate change impact Lastly, opponents also say the project threatens Native American rights to hunt, fish and gather wild rice on land outside reservation borders where tribal members have retained those rights, as outlined in several treaties with the U.S. government. Construction platforms across a river. Construction padding for the Line 3 pipeline approaches the Mississippi River where the pipeline will cross underneath the river southwest of Bemidji on June 8.Evan Frost | MPR News file What’s the expected economic impact? Enbridge promised that the project would create about 4,200 construction jobs in Minnesota over the two-year construction period. It is expected to fill about half of those locally. The company also has said the Line 3 project would inject millions of dollars into local economies through the payment of property taxes, the purchase of local materials and workers staying in hotels and eating at restaurants. The actual economic impact isn’t yet determined. Line 3 opponents point out that the pipeline is expected to create only about 20 permanent jobs. How far along is construction? Work is finished in Canada, North Dakota and Wisconsin and, as of August, is approaching 90 percent completion in Minnesota, where 337 miles of new pipe is being laid. A new section veers south around reservation land of the Leech Lake tribe, which objected to the project. The detour adds about 50 miles to the length. What’s happening in the courts? The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Aug. 31 affirmed a decision by state pollution regulators to issue a water quality certification for the pipeline. Under the federal Clean Water Act, the MPCA was required to certify whether the project met state and federal clean water standards. The MPCA concluded in November 2020 that it did. That certification cleared the way for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to issue the remaining federal permit for the pipeline replacement less than two weeks later. It was the latest setback for opponents who are trying to stop the project as it nears completion. The Minnesota Supreme Court on Aug. 24 declined to hear an appeal by opponents of Enbridge Energy's Line 3 oil pipeline, letting stand a key decision by independent regulators to allow construction on the project to proceed. The Court of Appeals declared that the state's Public Utilities Commission correctly granted the project a certificate of need and route permit. The court also backed the commission's approval of the environmental review for the project. The Supreme Court's decision dismayed the opponents, who cited the impacts of climate change being felt around the world and the drought in Minnesota. What’s happening with protests? At the beginning of June, hundreds of Line 3 protesters, who call themselves water protectors, gathered at pump stations and river crossings. Numbers have gone down somewhat since then, but resistance efforts are expected to continue throughout the summer. Opponents are focusing on blocking the rebuilding project along its route. Some strategies have included blocking roads and locking themselves to construction equipment. Several celebrities — including Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Fonda and Danny Glover — have joined the cause by urging President Joe Biden to cancel the project. People sit on top of a machine. Activists sit on construction equipment while others are arrested and escorted out of an Enbridge Line 3 pump station near Park Rapids on June 7.Evan Frost | MPR News file They’ve also staged protests outside the state Capitol and the governor's residence in St. Paul. What other concerns do people have about the project? Opponents of Line 3, including indigenous groups, raised concerns about a potential rise in sex trafficking in the region as the state was debating whether to approve the project. In June, local and state officials arrested six men during a sting operation to combat human trafficking in Beltrami County. Two of the men arrested were working for a subcontractor on Line 3. Two pipeline workers were arrested in a different sex trafficking sting in Itasca County earlier this year. Enbridge says the workers were fired, and all workers are required to complete human trafficking awareness training. What do you want to know about the Line 3 pipeline project? |
Responses:
None
[ Envirowatchers ] [ Main Menu ]