Line 5 is our country's most dangerous pipeline, and Enbridge has a deplorable spill record. The incomparable Lake Superior and her sister lakes hold 1/5 of the entire amount of fresh water on the planet. When this pipeline ruptures--a matter of when, not if--what do we do then? My hometown gets all of it's water from Lake Superior, as do most towns up here. A further unnecessary threat is the proposed Copperwood mine which will discharge wastewater into a river that runs directly into Lake Superior. "Pure Michigan" begins to ring hollow....where are our sensible priorities? You can't drink oil--or data. When we can no longer drink the water or breathe the air, nothing else will matter.
I am still not convinced Enbridge even wants to build the tunnel, so there's that. But there are other matters pending now as well, such as the AG's suit and the MPSC appeal before the Michigan Supreme Court. So nothing is inevitable!
I need clarification. Many posts about the Line 5 approval blame Whitmer. However isn't it true that the decision came from the engineers and scientist of EGLE. Does the governor have the authority to veto or override the Departments decision? If not, and despite the fact that she said she objects to line 5, do we want her or a future governor overriding the decision of the state environmental department? If we cannot block Line 5 due to lack of need then putting it inside a tunnel is better than leaving it vulnerable as it lies now.
Thanks for your question. It is true the decision came from EGLE. But it would be naive to think that the Governor does not have any influence with the agencies she oversees. And Whitmer has been completely silent on Line 5 for these past few years, totally abandoning the cause. As for the tunnel, it's not some simple fix: it will take years to complete and cause massive disturbance and destruction to habitat, sacred burial sites, and more-- all to lock-in the transport oil for decades and decades, the last thing an overheated planet needs right now.
I guess I am naive in I do not believe this governor would or should interfere with or have influence over EGLE with respect to environmental and engineering reviews. I am sensitive to the sacred burial site impact , but the disturbances, like the 1.5 acre wetland, and the discharge into the lake of treated wastewater, if properly monitored, seem actually trivial. The treated wastewater flow though it sounds like a lot is less than most municipal discharges throughout the Great Lakes and represents a minute fraction of the daily flow through the straits. I think that rather than using superlatives lake catastrophic and massive, opponents should actually argue the specific science with counter scientific findings.....I have not seen that in any published responses.
but that's just it, isn't it? our processes divide these things up into narrow little pieces and treat each of them as distinct "scientific" questions (I am not anti-science, of course), which allows us to shrug off an acre or two of wetland here, a few trees there, maybe some uprooted ancient burial sites on occasion. Yet here we are, pushing 2 degrees celsius, witnessing mass species extinction, watching the forests burn, etc etc. And any rate, plenty of others in their comments to EGLE addressed the scientific analysis; that's not my beat.
Thank you for writing. Whew.
thank you for reading!
Line 5 is our country's most dangerous pipeline, and Enbridge has a deplorable spill record. The incomparable Lake Superior and her sister lakes hold 1/5 of the entire amount of fresh water on the planet. When this pipeline ruptures--a matter of when, not if--what do we do then? My hometown gets all of it's water from Lake Superior, as do most towns up here. A further unnecessary threat is the proposed Copperwood mine which will discharge wastewater into a river that runs directly into Lake Superior. "Pure Michigan" begins to ring hollow....where are our sensible priorities? You can't drink oil--or data. When we can no longer drink the water or breathe the air, nothing else will matter.
A must read! ~ gw
Thank you, Jeffrey. My spirit is deflated.
mine too-- but we fight on!
Thanks for your determination. Is there any hope that Line 5 will not happen--or is it inevitable?
I am still not convinced Enbridge even wants to build the tunnel, so there's that. But there are other matters pending now as well, such as the AG's suit and the MPSC appeal before the Michigan Supreme Court. So nothing is inevitable!
I need clarification. Many posts about the Line 5 approval blame Whitmer. However isn't it true that the decision came from the engineers and scientist of EGLE. Does the governor have the authority to veto or override the Departments decision? If not, and despite the fact that she said she objects to line 5, do we want her or a future governor overriding the decision of the state environmental department? If we cannot block Line 5 due to lack of need then putting it inside a tunnel is better than leaving it vulnerable as it lies now.
Thanks for your question. It is true the decision came from EGLE. But it would be naive to think that the Governor does not have any influence with the agencies she oversees. And Whitmer has been completely silent on Line 5 for these past few years, totally abandoning the cause. As for the tunnel, it's not some simple fix: it will take years to complete and cause massive disturbance and destruction to habitat, sacred burial sites, and more-- all to lock-in the transport oil for decades and decades, the last thing an overheated planet needs right now.
I guess I am naive in I do not believe this governor would or should interfere with or have influence over EGLE with respect to environmental and engineering reviews. I am sensitive to the sacred burial site impact , but the disturbances, like the 1.5 acre wetland, and the discharge into the lake of treated wastewater, if properly monitored, seem actually trivial. The treated wastewater flow though it sounds like a lot is less than most municipal discharges throughout the Great Lakes and represents a minute fraction of the daily flow through the straits. I think that rather than using superlatives lake catastrophic and massive, opponents should actually argue the specific science with counter scientific findings.....I have not seen that in any published responses.
but that's just it, isn't it? our processes divide these things up into narrow little pieces and treat each of them as distinct "scientific" questions (I am not anti-science, of course), which allows us to shrug off an acre or two of wetland here, a few trees there, maybe some uprooted ancient burial sites on occasion. Yet here we are, pushing 2 degrees celsius, witnessing mass species extinction, watching the forests burn, etc etc. And any rate, plenty of others in their comments to EGLE addressed the scientific analysis; that's not my beat.