Take action: say NO to more dirty tar sands pipelines
The Department of State
Take action and make your voice heard: submit your public comment saying NO to the Alberta Clipper tar sands pipeline today.
Right now, the State Department is going through a process to consider the environmental impact of nearly doubling the amount of tar sands oil being pumped through Enbridge’s Alberta Clipper tar sands pipeline.
At a time when it’s critically obvious that our energy system needs to be moving away from the exploitative and destructive oil economy and embracing renewable energy, it’s absurd for the State Department to defend an increase in the most destructive kind of oil on earth. Opening up more pipeline capacity locks us into extracting and burning more oil, period—in this case, an additional 350,000 barrels per day.
The Alberta Clipper Pipeline threatens the wild rice beds of northern Minnesota, before cutting through several Anishinaabeg/Ojibwe reservations. Tar sands oil requires some of the most destructive mining processes to extract, and gets transported through pipelines operated by a company responsible for over 800 spills in a single decade. Extracting, transporting, and burning tar sands also results in much higher greenhouse gas emissions per barrel than regular crude oil, directly contributing to the climate crisis.
With a federal administration saturated with oil executives and oil dollars, it’s more critical than ever that we raise our voices in opposition to these regressive oil politics at every opportunity. Add your voice and tell the State Department to stop dirty tar sands and say NO to the Alberta Clipper pipeline today.
Sponsored by
To:
The Department of State
From:
[Your Name]
Docket: DOS-2017-0009, Public comment on the Enbridge Line 67 SEIS
I’m writing to strongly oppose the proposed expansion of the Alberta Clipper Pipeline (Line 67). While the environmental impact statement is a step in the right direction, it inadequately addresses some critical concerns:
First, increasing the pressure and capacity of the Alberta Clipper increases the potential damage from an oil spill. The Alberta Clipper crosses the Mississippi River, the Great Lakes’ Wild Rice beds, the Chippewa National Forest, and the Fond du Lac, Red Lake Nation, and Leech Lake Indian Reservations of the Anishinaabe/Ojibwe people. Enbridge had more than 800 pipeline leaks between 1999-2010, making it clear that their ‘safety’ promises should not dissuade the State Department from doing a rigorous analysis of possible major pipeline rupture. This should encompass both the potential for ecological devastation from a tar sands spill, and the health implications of chemical contamination in communities near a spill. The current SEIS does not sufficiently address the possibility of massive leak in the Alberta Clipper with expanded capacity.
Second, the SEIS erroneously presumes that the quantity of tar sands oil proposed for the Alberta Clipper increase will inevitably be mined and exported. Tar sands is an increasingly risky investment with the low oil prices and interest in carbon pricing that we’ve seen over the last few years. Both Forbes and the Wall Street Journal have publicly stated that tar sands are no longer a stable investment, despite Enbridge’s confidence in the project. The Alberta Clipper expansion would therefore enable and incentivize the unnecessary and unwise extraction and combustion of 400,000 additional barrels per day of tar sands oil, which significant impacts on the planet’s climate that are not addressed in the SEIS. The State Department must analyze the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the Alberta Clipper.
Finally, it is unacceptable that the State Department is holding only one public meeting for a national process that has such widespread impacts. Anyone living along the Mississippi who could be impacted by contamination in the river should be heard; anyone living in a coastal city or desert region that could be negatively impacted by the associated increase in climate change should be heard; anyone along the rest of the pipeline route who might be directly impacted by a spill should be heard. I ask that the public comment period be extended to 90 days, and additional hearings scheduled along the rest of the pipeline route at a minimum, and preferably across the country. International import of tar sands oil is an issue of national interest, and should be treated as such if the State Department is to honor the legal requirement for meaningful public input.