Daily Kos - Tar Sands Cannot be the Future of Our Energy Supply

Op-Ed

By Shenna Bellows

One of the moral questions of our time is whether we will muster the political will to reduce carbon emissions and confront climate change as the grave threat that it is. Or will we give up in the face of the big money and short-term energy gains offered by big oil interests? In Maine, just as in New York on Sunday, the grassroots are siding with the next generation to acknowledge the threat of climate change and do something about it.

While attention has been focused on the Keystone XL pipeline proposal, oil companies have sought approval to reverse two existing pipelines to potentially transport tar sands through the northeast -- without even requiring new pipeline construction. ExxonMobil and a Canadian pipeline company called Enbridge want to reverse the direction of two existing pipelines that currently pump oil west, so they can send Alberta tar sands crude to the Maine coast. The first goes from Ontario to Montreal. The second is called the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line and runs from Montreal through Vermont and New Hampshire to South Portland, Maine.

The dangers of these proposals to our local economy and environment are significant. The pipeline crosses through the Sebago Lake watershed, the water supply for greater Portland. The shipping plans would have tar sands shipped out of Casco Bay, threatening our tourism, fishing and lobster industries. Given the record oil spills we've seen stemming from pipeline disasters, it is not a question of if but when there will be an accident and not whether but how much damage will be caused.

Not only is tar sands oil one of the dirtiest to produce and to consume, it's also one of the most difficult to clean up, and the companies involved do not have a good safety track record. A 2007 fire that erupted during an Enbridge pipeline repair in Minnesota killed two workers. In July 2010 -- less than two weeks after the leaking BP oil well was capped in the Gulf of Mexico -- one of the company's pipelines spilled 840,000 gallons of crude oil into Talmadge Creek, which flows into Michigan's Kalamazoo River. The Kalamazoo cleanup cost more than $765 million, and the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration hit the company with a record $3.7 million in civil penalties. The head of the National Transportation Safety Board said that in reviewing the company's slow response to the initial break, "you can't help but think of the Keystone Cops."

Do we want the Keystone Cops piping one of the world's most polluting substances through our state or our ports? Not here, we don't. South Portland residents and the city council passed a Clear Skies ordinance this past summer to prohibit the bulk loading of crude oil onto marine tank vessels necessary to complete the tar sands project, sending a clear signal that these dangerous activities are not welcome here. It's an important stand to take and one that deserves support from Maine's entire Congressional delegation.

As a candidate for federal office, I'm proud to let Mainers know that I oppose the transport of tar sands across Maine, and if elected Maine's next senator, I won't need to be lobbied on the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line or Keystone XL. Everyone will know where I stand, and they can be sure my principles won't change.

My opponent, Republican Susan Collins, has not taken a position on the Portland-Montreal Pipe Line project despite the enormous stakes for our state and the nation. She has, however, voted for the Keystone XL pipeline twice and has given no indication that she's changed her mind about tar sands. That's a shame because Maine has a long history of conservation and environmental leadership that needs to be upheld. We're the home of Acadia National Park and Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge. Our license plates read "Vacationland" and our state motto is "Maine: the Way Life Should Be." But that's only true as long as we're willing to stand and fight to keep it that way.

Source