Guest post by Roger Caiazza,
In an article about Enbridge Line 3 pipeline, Rachel Frazin of the Hill reported that:
“Asked about Line 3, a White House spokesperson said in an email the administration will evaluate infrastructure proposals based on energy needs, if they will help the country reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 and whether they can create good-paying union jobs. The spokesperson didn’t say anything specific to the Line 3 project.” (Emphasis added)
Has anybody heard of an announcement that the United States has a goal of carbon neutrality by 2050?
The article was about an Enbridge pipeline upgrade project, Line 3, in Minnesota:
“The $4-billion U.S. portion of the Line 3 Replacement Program, known as the Line 3 Replacement Project, consists of replacing existing 34-inch pipe with new 36-inch pipe for 13 miles in North Dakota, 337 miles in Minnesota, and 14 miles in Wisconsin. The Wisconsin portion was completed in 2018, while the North Dakota segment was completed in December 2020.”
“In December 2020, construction began on the 337-mile Minnesota portion of the project, the only segment of Line 3 yet to be replaced with new state-of-the-art pipe.”
Activists unable accept that the oil is going to flow with or without this upgrade and unwilling to believe that the alternatives are higher risks for the environment are trying to block the segment in Minnesota even though construction began in December 2020. Blair King explained why the cancellation of the Keystone XL pipeline was bad for the climate, the environment, and Canada and all of his arguments are equally applicable to this pipeline.
The Hill article explains that there are active lawsuits against the pipeline in Minnesota despite the fact that “both the federal and Minnesota state government assessed the pipeline’s impacts and approved it”. This attempt to delay yet another pipeline is bad enough but the Administration’s response that the infrastructure project will be evaluated to see if they help reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 is far worse. Is it too much to ask that the politicians do a feasibility study to determine effects on affordability, reliability, and the impacts on the environment before committing to a political slogan?
—————————————————————————————————————————————
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York because New York politicians have enacted legislation to meet a carbon neutral goal by 2050 with including a feasibility assessment. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
For the White House (especially for our current President of declining brain power), setting a goal is easy.
Now comes the hard part.
I recently flew on United, they are quite certain they will be carbon neutral soon. I was just thinking if I’m a good engineer and I work for a company saying crazy crap like this I’d probably rather work somewhere else.
nah, a bankrupt company can be carbon neutral without too much effort. Dementia Joe won’t rest until all companies are carbon neutral.
Given that human breath contains around 45,000 ppm, does this mean that every citizen will become a criminal in the year 2050?
The husband and wife, and their “Posterity” are excess carbon. A Planned Population is a Green environment. Choice matters.
For lack of somewhere better to post, I just thought you guys might be interested in the most Australian drive for solar power to date:
Power drinkers – Aussie brewer offers beer for excess solar energy | Reuters
Aussie innovation at its best.
From the article: “This attempt to delay yet another pipeline is bad enough but the Administration’s response that the infrastructure project will be evaluated to see if they help reach its goal of carbon neutrality by 2050 is far worse. Is it too much to ask that the politicians do a feasibility study to determine effects on affordability, reliability, and the impacts on the environment before committing to a political slogan?”
The year 2050 is a long way off. The years 2022 and 2024 are much more important.
The Democrats can make all these grandiose plans and now that the nation sees the Democrat insanity they will elect Republicans to roll back the insanity.
The question is: How much damage can the Democrat Socialists do in two and four years? Will Senators Manchin or Sinema vote with the Democrats or against the Democrats? They are about the only hope we have of stopping the Demcrats on a national scale. But States still have their Constitutional rights, no matter how U.S. Senators vote.
I see the war on the gas cooker has begun-
How your gas stove sparked a battle over climate change (msn.com)
Makes you wonder when the doomsters will cotton on to the notion that electricity isn’t natural and what about all the electromagnetic radiation?
Burning natural gas in the home is the most efficient use of the fuel.
The alarmists don’t care. All they care about is converting everything over to electricity to get rid of fossil fuels.
The alarmists are delusional. You knew that, didn’t you?