Greenpeace USA reacted to today’s announcement that the Minnesota Administrative Law Judge, Ann O’Reilly, is recommending that Enbridge receive a certificate of need for its Line 3 replacement project:
Greenpeace USA Tar Sands Campaigner Rachel Rye Butler said:
“Greenpeace vehemently disagrees with today’s recommendation in favor of granting Enbridge a certificate of need for their Line 3 pipeline.
“This much is clear: oil pipelines should not be routed through Indigenous People’s land without their consent; nor should we stand for pipelines that risk the safety of our water and climate. The climate cannot handle another tar sands pipeline. Line 3 still faces a negative recommendation from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, Tribal opposition, and grassroots protest that will continue until this project is cancelled for good.
“Tar sands pipelines carry too much environmental and economic risk to move forward, especially since all these pipelines cross Indigenous lands. In a clear demonstration of this risk, pipeline company Kinder Morgan announced earlier this month that they are halting non-essential spending and may consider even canceling plans for their Trans Mountain expansion project. Investors should ask if the case with Line 3 is similar. Just last week, HSBC, the seventh largest bank in the world, announced that they will not be providing funding to new tar sands infrastructure projects including the Line 3 pipeline.
“That should serve as a lesson to every bank and its investors: tar sands pipelines that violate Indigenous sovereignty and destroy the environment—including Line 3, Keystone XL, and the Trans Mountain pipeline—are full of risk and are a reputational liability for funders and their shareholders.
“Greenpeace encourages the Public Utilities Commission to follow the recommendation of the Minnesota Department of Commerce not to build this project. The only safe pipeline is the one we don’t build.”
###
Contact:
Yianni Varonis
Greenpeace USA
Senior Communications Strategist
330-806-3599
