Minnesotans, Others Voice Opposition as PUC Decision on Line 3 Expected this Week
FULL PAGE LETTER IN TODAY’S STAR TRIBUNE GIVES REASONS TO DENY THE RISKY PIPELINE PROJECT THE MN DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE ALREADY REJECTED ON ECONOMIC AND ENVIRONMENTAL GROUNDS -- AND IS SIGNED BY A LEADING CLIMATOLOGIST, CONGRESSIONAL, NATIVE AMERICAN AND FAITH LEADERS, ARTISTS AND OTHERS
Echoing the same reasons the State of Minnesota Department of Commerce (DOC) recommended against approving Enbridge’s Line 3 in northern Minnesota last September, state citizens and others also made their reasons known today in a full page Letter to Fellow Minnesotans about why a new pipeline is bad business for all Minnesotans and the state's bountiful water resources.
Signers of the letter include Minnesota's favorite weatherman and climatologist, the University of Minnesota's Mark Seeley, various state congressional House and Senate members, Native American and Faith leaders, plus support from a host of informed national environmental experts and writers like Bill McKibben, activist organizations including the Sierra Club, and MN350, and nationally renowned First Nations’ writer Louise Erdrich.
The letter comes just days before Minnesota’s Public Utilities Commission (PUC) is expected to vote on the controversial pipeline on June 26 and 27 -- and days after private meetings between Governor Mark Dayton and various parties including Winona LaDuke, the nationally renowned Ojibwe leader, economist, author and a co-founder of Honor the Earth. The letter/ad was paid for by the organization and its supporters.
LaDuke has said publicly that if the pipeline is approved, it will be challenged in court.
Today’s Star Tribune – Monday, June 25, 2018 – Page A5 in the “A” section, or first section of the paper. SEE THE LETTER IN THE ATTACHED DOCUMENT.
Highlights of the letter include:
- Minnesota’s own Department of Commerce (DOC) recommended that the state reject the Line 3 project because Enbridge failed to show that any potential economic or environmental benefits of a new line outweigh the risks.
- The premise of Line 3 is that we need more tar sands oil – the dirtiest and most expensive oil to produce on the planet-- that the industry must expand. That simply does not reflect our actual energy needs as we steadily become more efficient and focused on clean renewable energy.
- This new project would send the carbon pollution equivalentof 50 coal-fired plants into the atmosphere.
- We will be left to deal with the effects of a spill. Enbridge has a terrible spill record, but its project proposal leaves spill liability to Minnesotans.
- At the 11th hour Enbridge offered several new promises in their deal without any supporting details to remove the old Line 3 for some landowners instead of its original plan to leave it in the ground to rot and said it will hire Native Americans to work on the new line. If Enbridge cares, it should put our state’s workers and labor unions to work removing the old Line 3 from private and tribal property and increase its renewables investment.
- There are already six Enbridge pipelines in Minnesota. Six is enough. Our state officials should listen to the DOC and the 68,000 comments submitted by Minnesotans against the project: 94% of written public comments are in opposition to Line 3.
- The state should do what’s right and listen to the detailed analysis of the DOC and the wishes of citizens and tribes. It’s time to protect our water and climate for future generations. Deny Line 3.
Enbridge: “We aren’t selling our souls for a barrel of oil.” - Lynn Mizner, Minnesota landowner.
Martin Keller, Media Savant Communications, 612-729-8585 (office) 612-220-6515 (cell), email@example.com