It just doesn’t make sense.
Let’s say you’re like me. You love the environment. In fact, maybe you’ve contributed to environmental causes or even, as I did, had a career in the movement. Of course, these days you’re very concerned about climate change. And you live or have a place up in the North Woods.
There’s a big pipeline carrying oil and natural gas 645 miles across Northern Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula. It’s been there for 70 years. There’s a dispute over a 12-mile section. The answer is to reroute the line 41 miles around the disputed area.
So now, here’s the question. If we agree (and I do) that a pipeline carries not only fuel but risk, why is it better to have 41 miles of risk than 12?
Of course it isn’t better and that’s not what the opponents of the pipeline actually want. They want to shut down the entire line. That’s the stated goal of the Bad River Band of Lake Superior Chippewa and the various environmental groups fighting the line.
The 12-mile section of the current pipeline crosses the tribe’s land. In 2019 the tribe told Enbridge, the Canadien company that owns and runs the line, that it had to leave. Enbridge said it would comply and planned the 41-mile reroute. Ever since then the company has been battling lawsuits filed by Midwest Environmental Advocates on behalf of the Sierra Club and others. They argue that the reroute is fraught with danger, but of course they also oppose the current line through the reservation. Their goal is to use this 12-mile section to shut down the whole 645-mile line.
But this is madness. There is simply no way that any court or any government agency is going to shut down that whole line over this dispute over a small section of it. And even if the line’s opponents were successful, the product would still get transported, either by ship or rail and probably both, and probably at even greater risk.
Last week the opponents lost a big battle when the Wisconsin DNR issued a construction permit for the line after reviewing a lengthy environmental impact statement. The permit came with 200 conditions, but predictably, the opponents were outraged. They claim, as is routinely the case, that the EIS is inadequate. They vowed to continue the fight.
And for good reason. Here’s part of an email I received the other day from Midwest Environmental Advocates:
Despite widespread opposition to the project, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued permits yesterday for the construction of a new 40-mile pipeline segment that would facilitate the ongoing transportation and combustion of fossil fuels in the Great Lakes region.
Line 5 endangers our natural resources and threatens to lock us into decades of carbon emissions—exactly what we cannot afford if we hope to meet our climate goals and protect future generations.
But we are not backing down... We are determined to stop this dangerous and destructive pipeline, but we can’t do it without your help.
At times like this, legal action is the best line of defense to secure and protect a healthy environment. With your support, we are prepared to do just that. Will you help make sure we have the resources we need to meet this moment?
Bingo. That’s what this is about. It’s essentially a scam to raise money for MEA and I suppose the Sierra Club and other parties to the dispute. They know full well that they don’t have any chance of winning their case. Eventually, the line will be fully permitted and construction will happen.
If this wasn’t about fundraising, here’s what people who were sincerely concerned about the environment would try to do. They’d work with the tribe to convince them that the best thing for the environment they truly care about would be to leave the line exactly where it is. In exchange, they’d demand that Enbridge do everything it can, under the strict scrutiny of the tribe and the DNR, to make the line as safe as possible. And, of course, have Enbridge pay a hefty lease. Enbridge would likely be a willing partner since, no matter what it spent to do that, it would have been a fraction of what it’s spending on the 41-mile reroute.
Then, since the goal is to lessen climate change, negotiate a shutdown date, in a decade or two, for the line. And during the intervening period have the company set up a fund that would be used to ween Northern Wisconsin and UP property owners from heating their homes with propane. That could involve incentives to convert to electric heat or, better yet, to install solar.
That would be a sane, achievable and orderly outcome that would benefit the environment. Instead, what will almost certainly happen is that 12 miles of risk will be replaced with 41 miles of risk and the line will continue to operate for another 70 years. And, during that time, the many blue collar home owners in Northern Wisconsin and the UP will continue to heat with propane. Only it will be more expensive because of all this. Ever wonder why the environmental community is so disliked among this demographic?
If MEA is pushing this with the notion of eventually reaching the sort of sensible negotiated settlement above, I’ll be the first to say I was wrong — and I’ll send them a check.
But I don’t think that’s what they’re up to. Instead, MEA, the tribe and the other groups are wasting effort — but not my money — on this ill-considered lost cause.
Yellow Stripes & Dead Armadillos 
For this one, Dave, the rare “double-like.” Thanks. Hess
>
LikeLike
You have a lot of nerve accusing MEA of running a fundraising scam just because you disagree with the approach MEA is taking on Line 5. It is no different than Republicans alleging election fraud because they lost. I thought you were better than that.
LikeLike
I disagree with MEA’s approach because it has virtually no chance of success and that’s an organization filled with smart people who must understand it has no chance of success. I can’t come up with another explanation beyond its usefulness as a fundraising strategy.
LikeLike
You have a right to your opinion, but it is bordering on libel to say MEA is scamming its donors. You and I have no idea what discussions MEA has had with its clients regarding possible strategies and outcomes. MEA is a highly regarded organization that would not pursue issues on which they know they have no merit. I think you should state your opinion in a way that does not malign the organization as a whole.
LikeLike
MEA is pursuing a course that I believe any objective observer who has been down this road before (and I have, most notably with the fight against HWY 12 expansion many years ago and just recently with the Cardinal-Hickory power line) would see as a lost cause. Worse, because they’ve chosen this course they may have sealed off a negotiated settlement that would achieved some of their goals. So, yes, for MEA to hit me up for a contribution under those circumstances is what I take to be something accurately described as a scam.
LikeLike
First, regarding your statement that “There is simply no way that any court or any government agency is going to shut down that whole line over this dispute over a small section of it.” Well, one judge already has ruled that! And the Army Corps of Engineers may find there are environmental problems with the reroute.
Second, it’s not just about this pipeline (although we are trying to stop it), but to send a continuing message that these fossil fuel projects will be opposed, and certainly delayed, if not stopped. And the longer we delay fossil fuel projects, the more chance there is that it will hinder them as well as other projects. Yes, it is an uphill fight, but no one thought we could prevent and shut down coal plants when that fight started, but we did.
As to being a fundraising scam, all the funds being raised go back into the fight and to cover costs. It’s not like the organizations don’t have other things to fight and raise money for. But public sentiment, and well as tribes across the country, have rightly been very ardent on pipeline issues, and we are supporting them.
Which leads to the last, and perhaps most cogent issue. The Bad River Tribe was already offered $80,000,000 to allow the current line to continue. The turned it down flat. There is no price they will accept for the continued risk to their sacred homeland. That is their culture and way of being, and you have chosen to completely disrespect their autonomy and way of life. It’s not anyone’s right to choose what is right for them, and it is their lead we are following.
When it comes to fossil fuel madness, and once again, harming indigenous peoples, having that fight may be the right and necessary thing to do.
LikeLike
Thanks, Don.. Those are good arguments and that’s a reasonable point of view. There was a time when I would have agreed with you. But I’ve become more practically minded over the years. It looks clear to me that the likely outcome here will be that nothing will be accomplished. The line will be approved and 12 miles of risk will be replaced by 41 miles of risk and it will be in place for as long as Enbridge profits from it. What I was suggesting was a compromise that could have achieved some of the tribe’s goals instead of none of them. And regarding the tribe’s sovereignty, that does’t preclude criticism of their decisions. Because the tribe is insisting on the line’s removal from their land (which is certainly their right) they’re imposing costs on those impacted by the reroute. It’s possible to respect the tribe and at the same time point out where one thinks they’re just wrong.
LikeLike
Thanks Dave. I get your points, but I still have to disagree with you on several things. First, let’s not confuse saying nothing will be accomplished, with whether we will win on this issue. Unfortunately, I admit that the odds of winning on this particular fight are not good, but continuing the battle does constitute part of a longer-term winning strategy to halt future tar sands pipelines. With the transition to clean energy, delays are not to the advantage of fossil fuel interests, and facing constant pushback and opposition may lead to hesitancy on their part.
Second, were the Bad River Band disposed to some sort of negotiation to lead to other advantages, I would support that. I get your points and you certainly have to criticize or present an alternate viewpoint. But given the history of harms and wrongs done to Indigenous peoples, and their connections to nature, lands and life that are different than ours, what makes ‘sense’ for us, may not for them, and I don’t see it as our right to judge them for that.
You also talked about negotiating with Enbridge. You have some good thoughts on what we might want to accomplish, but I doubt Enbridge would accede to some of those things, and as to trusting them with an agreement, such as to shut down the pipeline in X years, some might characterize that as blind faith.
Maybe you chose the headline for impact, but to suggest that this is a scam by MEA and the Sierra Club is simply inaccurate. We pick and choose our battles on strategic grounds. We don’t win all of them, but we don’t regret those fights we took on. Here, we are following the lead of the Bad River Band (who we connect with on other environmental issues as well as other tribes), and where we do see advantages to continuing this fight – even if we don’t get the desired outcome. One has to have significant differences to abandon friends and allies – which we don’t here – but more significantly is to show that we honor and respect them as a peoples and culture, something that has all too often just been the opposite.
LikeLike
Again, thanks for your thoughtful comments here, Don. I’m probably scarred by my experiences. Kathy Falk and I fought Hwy 12 and lost — she cut the best deal she could when it became clear we were going down. I opposed the South Beltline before that. Lost. I recently opposed the Cardinal-Hickory power line and, while the opponents DID win in court, the line got built and is now fully operational. Even as Mayor, I fought the power line along the Beltline and lost that too. I wish I had cut a deal with ATC and gotten everything I could have for the city.
LikeLike
Understand about the past battles, but every situation is different, and this isn’t simply about making the best deal. It’s based on a culture and a way of being. And any deal might include more unacceptable losses and risks than gains, including that once again a big corporation can buy their way.
It’s possible that if all avenues are lost, the Bad River Band could decide to see about making a deal, but certainly wouldn’t tip their hand early if that is under consideration – and we’re not there yet. They may also decide to stick by what they value and maximize the preservation of their home.
And a new pipeline would presumably be safer than a 70 year old one, especially where there is current spill risk where it is eroding away near the Bad River.
I understand you have a different perspective, but I think there are adequate reasons to reject the four letter word you chose to use regarding this situation.
LikeLike