Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Liz Warren on MA proposed gas pipeline
In recent months, representatives of Kinder Morgan, Inc. and its subsidiary, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC, have approached Massachusetts landowners, towns and land trusts to ask permission to conduct surveys for a proposed pipeline that would carry natural gas from the New York border across our state to Dracut. Rather than using existing infrastructure, roads, and rights-of-way, the company is considering routing this pipeline largely through undeveloped land.
I have heard from many Massachusetts homeowners and businesses that are deeply concerned about the impact of this proposal on their farms and properties. Conservation commissions in towns along the intended route and citizen groups dedicated to protecting our state's environment have also raised concerns that this proposed natural gas pipeline would needlessly disrupt environmentally sensitive conservation land. Because I share many of these concerns, I do not support the current proposal.
…
But the need to improve our short- term energy outlook and reduce unacceptably high energy prices does not mean that we should rush to support every energy infrastructure project, no matter the consequences. The decisions we make about energy proposals today will have an impact on future generations, and in each instance we must weigh the potential benefits against the potential consequences -- both in the short- term and long-term.
Given the cost and infrastructure realities of the Northeast, it is likely that natural gas will continue to play a role in our transition away from coal and oil electricity production and toward a cleaner energy future. But our aim must be to reduce reliance on carbon based fuels, and than means careful consideration of clean energy alternatives as well as other natural gas pipeline alternatives that do not create wholly new infrastructure. For example, upgrading our old, methane- leaking pipes can help provide affordable power for businesses and consumers without threatening our families and our state.
Before we sink more money in gas infrastructure, we have an obligation wherever possible to focus our investments on the clean technologies of the future -- not the dirty fuels of the past -- and to minimize the environmental impact of all our energy infrastructure projects. We can do better -- and we should.
I have heard from many Massachusetts homeowners and businesses that are deeply concerned about the impact of this proposal on their farms and properties. Conservation commissions in towns along the intended route and citizen groups dedicated to protecting our state's environment have also raised concerns that this proposed natural gas pipeline would needlessly disrupt environmentally sensitive conservation land. Because I share many of these concerns, I do not support the current proposal.
…
But the need to improve our short- term energy outlook and reduce unacceptably high energy prices does not mean that we should rush to support every energy infrastructure project, no matter the consequences. The decisions we make about energy proposals today will have an impact on future generations, and in each instance we must weigh the potential benefits against the potential consequences -- both in the short- term and long-term.
Given the cost and infrastructure realities of the Northeast, it is likely that natural gas will continue to play a role in our transition away from coal and oil electricity production and toward a cleaner energy future. But our aim must be to reduce reliance on carbon based fuels, and than means careful consideration of clean energy alternatives as well as other natural gas pipeline alternatives that do not create wholly new infrastructure. For example, upgrading our old, methane- leaking pipes can help provide affordable power for businesses and consumers without threatening our families and our state.
Before we sink more money in gas infrastructure, we have an obligation wherever possible to focus our investments on the clean technologies of the future -- not the dirty fuels of the past -- and to minimize the environmental impact of all our energy infrastructure projects. We can do better -- and we should.
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/25292-we-can-do-better-than-the-pipeline