Post by Sharon W on Jul 12, 2021 4:24:07 GMT -8
Since 2014, thousands of Minnesotans have shown up at hearings, talked to neighbors, written letters, and organized in their communities to oppose Enbridge’s Line 3 tar sands oil pipeline. Line 3 is a clear danger to our climate, water, and land in Minnesota, and would undermine the Indigenous treaty rights of the Anishinaabe people.
Climate scientists warn that we must keep the vast majority of known fossil fuels reserves in the ground, and drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions before 2030.[1] Climate scientist John Abraham has shown that building Line 3 would be the climate change equivalent of 50 coal plants.[2] This project would cost society $287 billion in climate impacts in its first 30 years of operation. That risk in unacceptable. Simply put: no one can be a leader on climate change and support this project — a choice must be made.
Enbridge’s route crosses the 1854 and 1855 treaty territory where Anishinaabe people retain the right to hunt, fish, gather medicines, and harvest wild rice. The impact of construction - or worse, an oil spill - would permanently damage their ability to exercise these rights. Three tribal governments and hundreds of Anishinaabe and Dakota community members in Minnesota are actively opposing this pipeline. Building Line 3 would carry on a legacy of state-sanctioned oppression of Indigenous people.
The proposed route for Line 3 crosses 227 lakes and rivers, including the Mississippi River and rivers that feed directly into Lake Superior, putting those waterways at risk of a spill from the 760,000 barrels of tar sands oil that would flow through Line 3 every day. Tar sands oil sinks in water, making it nearly impossible to clean up from wetland areas. A spill could destroy prize fishing lakes and sacred wild rice beds, and gut the local economy. Enbridge’s negligent spill of over 1 million gallons of tar sands oil from its aging Line 6B into the Kalamazoo River in 2010 demonstrated the immensity of the threat, with a cleanup cost of over $1.2 billion. Unfortunately, Enbridge’s newer pipelines are no safer: since 2002, Enbridge has had 73 spills due to equipment installed less than 10 years prior to the incident.[3] Enbridge should not be trusted near precious waterways like the Mississippi River.
In the largest public comment period on Line 3, 94% of the comments submitted opposed the pipeline. Protecting our lakes and rivers, cleaning up polluting pipelines currently in the ground, and moving to a clean energy economy will create many more jobs than pipeline construction. We must not let fossil fuel companies build long-lasting, dangerous projects like Line 3.
Please sign
www.stopline3.org/take-action
Climate scientists warn that we must keep the vast majority of known fossil fuels reserves in the ground, and drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions before 2030.[1] Climate scientist John Abraham has shown that building Line 3 would be the climate change equivalent of 50 coal plants.[2] This project would cost society $287 billion in climate impacts in its first 30 years of operation. That risk in unacceptable. Simply put: no one can be a leader on climate change and support this project — a choice must be made.
Enbridge’s route crosses the 1854 and 1855 treaty territory where Anishinaabe people retain the right to hunt, fish, gather medicines, and harvest wild rice. The impact of construction - or worse, an oil spill - would permanently damage their ability to exercise these rights. Three tribal governments and hundreds of Anishinaabe and Dakota community members in Minnesota are actively opposing this pipeline. Building Line 3 would carry on a legacy of state-sanctioned oppression of Indigenous people.
The proposed route for Line 3 crosses 227 lakes and rivers, including the Mississippi River and rivers that feed directly into Lake Superior, putting those waterways at risk of a spill from the 760,000 barrels of tar sands oil that would flow through Line 3 every day. Tar sands oil sinks in water, making it nearly impossible to clean up from wetland areas. A spill could destroy prize fishing lakes and sacred wild rice beds, and gut the local economy. Enbridge’s negligent spill of over 1 million gallons of tar sands oil from its aging Line 6B into the Kalamazoo River in 2010 demonstrated the immensity of the threat, with a cleanup cost of over $1.2 billion. Unfortunately, Enbridge’s newer pipelines are no safer: since 2002, Enbridge has had 73 spills due to equipment installed less than 10 years prior to the incident.[3] Enbridge should not be trusted near precious waterways like the Mississippi River.
In the largest public comment period on Line 3, 94% of the comments submitted opposed the pipeline. Protecting our lakes and rivers, cleaning up polluting pipelines currently in the ground, and moving to a clean energy economy will create many more jobs than pipeline construction. We must not let fossil fuel companies build long-lasting, dangerous projects like Line 3.
Please sign
www.stopline3.org/take-action
