Pipeline Talking Points from my listserv,
representing hundreds of landowners, business owners, farmers,
workers, housewives, nurses,
people who care deeply about our environment, our water, our wells, our neighborhoods, our idyllic pastoral town, and those who are born to the above people, who wil inevitably inherit the environment we leave to them.
like me.
No newspaper here, far in the hinterlands,
where the roads end, we have to yell to the world,
to be heard at the town hall.
Feeling unable to fight this situation by saying how it all affects me or my neighbor.
Better to have succinct points,
are you still with me?
Environment
1. The ANGP would not reduce Vermonters’
dependence on fossil fuel. It would only facilitate replacing one fossil fuel
for another.
2. VGS sells gas extracted by hydraulic
fracturing. While Vermont has banned hydraulic
fracturing within its own borders, the ANGP would sharply increase the
utilization of fracked gas within Vermont, thus contributing to the expansion of
fracking outside its borders.
3. VGS’ claims of reduced greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions do not include leakage rates in the extraction, transmission and
distribution of natural gas. The GHG effect of methane is 100 times that of CO2
in the first twenty years, and current leakage rates make natural gas a worse
choice than either coal or oil. It is not
“cleaner.”
4. The ANGP
would only reduce Vermont's annual GHG emissions by 0.16%, and
this small amount would be offset by the amount of methane leakage in the
extraction of the gas. By contrast,
weatherization would reduce GHG emissions by a rate 30 times greater than
emission reductions for the ANGP and create far more jobs, strengthening the
local economy.
5. Research conducted
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration found that up to nine
percent of gas leaks from wells, more than double the official inventory, but in
line with estimates made in 2011 by a Cornell University research team who also
tested for methane leaks around active wells.
6. A recent
Stanford University study found that New York state alone
could supply 99 percent of the entire state’s energy needs from renewables
within 20 years. This is the model Vermont should consider in order to reach the
goal of 90% renewables by 2050.
Safety
1. VGS’s proposed
route has Vermonters’ homes situated permanently within the “Potential Impact
Radius,” the area within which everything would be destroyed in the event of an
accident.
2. In the U.S.,
approximately 27 serious natural gas incidents are reported each year on
average, according to the Department of
Transportation, resulting in an average of nine deaths, 45
injuries, and reported property damages totaling over $5.6 million. - From the Christian Science Monitor
Explosion, fire, death, and
destruction - it's only a matter of when and where – and VGS cannot guarantee
there will never be an explosion.
Ethics
It is unethical to facilitate the
expansion of the toxic practice of hydraulic fracturing outside Vermont by
increasing the market demand for natural gas within Vermont, and it is unethical
to impose risk of death and destruction on communities and landowners within
Vermont in so that large corporations and a small percentage of landowners may
save money in the short term on their fuel bills.
Economics
1. Proponents of the
ANGP claim Addison County and the western corridor of Vermont are at a serious
economic disadvantage compared to other counties that have natural gas service,
and that this “disadvantage” requires swift action to serve these areas with
natural gas in order to help these areas retain and create new jobs. This is
false. Vermont’s unemployment rate as of April 2013
is 4.0%, third lowest in the nation. Addison and Rutland counties both have unemployment rates
that are proportional to their pre-recession rates.
2. Business
development entities that support the ANGP claim natural gas service will help
maintain and create new jobs. There is no data to support the position that
natural gas service is an important factor that causes businesses to succeed or
fail, or that natural gas service increases
employment.
3. The ANGP is
estimated to create only 20 new jobs per year. Weatherizing homes in Vermont would create 800
new jobs.
4. Claims that the
ANGP will create more jobs are speculative. There is no guarantee businesses
that would receive natural gas service will hire more
employees.
5. Projected savings
claimed by VGS for natural gas users are based on the assumption that natural
gas prices will remain at historic lows
indefinitely.
6. Claimed savings are
overstated and short-term. The collapse in natural gas prices puts the price
below cost of production, an unsustainable situation for drilling companies.
Thus, businesses and residents who would convert to natural gas can expect
prices to rise significantly in the next few years as prices rise to exceed cost
of extraction.
7. ANGP phase II is
solely paid for and intended to supply International Paper (IP) in New York. VGS states over
70% of the gas transmitted through the entire pipeline will be consumed by IP.
This is not in the interests of Vermont or
Vermonters.
8. Ratepayers of
Chittenden and Franklin counties would pay $66.6 million of the ANGP
construction costs, which will extend service to only 3,000 households.
Comparatively, $66.6 million divided by the 14,150 households in Addison County would provide $4,703 per home for
weatherization. Weatherization would cut BTU use by 20-30% per year, saving a
homeowner $1,000 annually.
9. The financial
dividends of weatherization far outstrip the short-term savings of natural gas
service. It costs $2,000 - $5,000 for the average homeowner to convert to
natural gas. This same investment in weatherization reduces overall fossil fuel
use, and reduces heating costs over the lifetime of the house, as opposed to the
short term savings of temporarily low natural gas
prices.
Process
1. VGS has applied to
the Public Service Board (PSB) for a “Certificate of Public Good” in order to
construct their project. “Public Good” is an ill-defined, unquantifiable
concept. Shouldn’t we better define the “Public Good” before we confiscate
Vermont
citizens property to hand over to a multi-national
corporation?
2. Affected landowners
have no voice in the PSB Section 248 process unless they spend many thousands of
dollars on attorneys to protect their property rights against a multi-billion
dollar corporation.
3. VGS objected to
participation in the PSB Section 248 process by any group who may present an
opposing point of view.
4. Corporations who
stand to gain economic benefit by future phases of the pipeline not yet filed
with the PSB have been granted intervener status in the PSB Section 248 process
for Phase I. Meanwhile, potential affected landowners for future phases do not
have the same opportunity to seek intervener status because routes have not been
finalized.
SOURCES
Environment
CFR Title 49 Vol. 3
Sec. 192.903
Vermont Unemployment
Statistics
and if that fails, I decided I would post a gratuitous catchy cat photo to appeal to that side of your brain,
hey, the lizard worked for g*#c*!
tommy
