- The Jordan Cove Pipeline -



-James Hansen

Jessica Smith

Jessica Smith


Coos bay map .jpg

- The Documentary FILM -

Full Film Link: https://vimeo.com/311991865
Link to this webpage: www.Lightheartedhumans.com/jordancove

- Article -

AN Investigation of what JORDAN COVE might mean for Oregonians

An expanded version of what has been published in ENVISION MAGAZINE, 
an investigation into the costs and benefits of an LNG pipeline. 

Written by Tyler Young 
Select images and interviews by Jessica Smith  


	Pembina, a Canadian Energy corporation wants to build a Liquid Natural Gas connector pipeline spanning 234 miles from Malin Oregon to Coos Bay. This would be Oregon’s largest  investment in greenhouse gas infrastructure in the state, the permit has been previously submitted by two separate organizations, and has already been denied twice on grounds that Pembina does not have right to much of the proposed land, and unsecured export markets. The pipeline would bring several jobs to Southern Oregon, and as Pembina claims, 10 billion dollars to the state and local economy. Those from the logging era have found a revival of hard earned industry dollars, and many Environmental Activists are unequivocally opposed to the large scale investments in dirty energy. This issue which will determine Oregon’s energy future and its place in the modern economy has locals divided. 
Tuesday, Jan. 15, 2019 — Salem, Oregon.
In the parking lot of the Veterans’ Affairs building, clusters of glowing faces watch a projected broadcast of the public hearing happening within. Pacing side to side and warming their hands with their breath, onlookers intermittently weigh in on the testimonies in hushed voices.
An eager line of people extends out from the building and mixes with the crowd outside. They are all waiting for the chance to either condemn or support the removal-fill permit proposal of the Jordan Cove Pipeline, a project belonging to the Canadian energy corporation, Pembina, which seeks to construct a 229 mile liquid natural gas pipeline (LNG) from Malin, to Coos Bay, Oregon. Having been twice denied by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) for failing to provide evidence for public benefit, the pipeline is now under the consideration of the Department of State Lands for the third time.
Leading the charge against the pipeline are environmentalist organizations such as Our Children’s Trust (OCT), Rogue Climate, Cascadia Wildlands and 350 Eugene, a local chapter of 350.org.
Allie Rosenbluth, campaign director for Rogue Climate, says that in the wake of the hearings she and her team are taking a much needed rest while continuing to push for additional public comments through online outreach. “Communities have stopped it before,” Rosenbluth says, “we’ll continue to be the watch dogs.”

 Protestors dressed as governor Kate Brown
Jessica Smith

Jessica Smith

The founders of Rogue Climate 
Jessica Smith

Jessica Smith


	The pipeline would connect from Oregon’s coastline to the California border where an existing pipeline transfer location already exists for diverting gas to different locations across the western US. As stated by Pembina, the total development cost of constructing the pipeline would be roughy 6 billion dollars, would take just over three years to construct, and over that time, employ 450 people. After this, 60 permanent jobs would be mostly concentrated at the Coos Bay terminal. 

Today, the United States is the worlds largest producer of natural gas, and this gas is currently supplying about 1/3rd of all US energy needs, and 1/2 of household heating fuel. Natural gas which is extracted from fracking is roughly 600 times more dense in its liquid form than it is in its gaseous form, so it is cooled to a temperature of -260 degrees Fahrenheit for transport on specialized tanker ships to locations where pipelines cannot reach. This is the intention of the Jordan Cove Pipeline where Pembina claims growing Asian markets are poised to purchase the gas.
	The pipeline, if approved and constructed would transport Liquified Natural Gas (LNG) in a 36 inch in diameter pipe which are usually made of double layered, reinforced stainless steel. The pipes are mostly placed underground and are often invisible from the surface after installment, Pembina has a beautiful photo of farmland being replanted over a pipeline here but in a place like Oregon, where  winters can be harsh, and rain is a given; pipes underground, especially within just a few feet of topsoil can shift, and even slight shifts, along with age, can cause leaks.  So lets talk about leaks. 


	While carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions account for approximately 81% of all emissions released into the atmosphere and are the largest contributor to climate change, there is also methane (CH4) which is at least 20 times more potent than CO2. Many of our household appliances including our stoves and water heaters are powered by CH4, and when it is burned, the combustion creates both heat for cooking, and results in a release of CO2 into the atmosphere which is a greenhouse gas less potent than if you were to let the stove run without lighting it which is quite dangerous as CH4 in an enclosed space can lead to explosions and fires. So the oil development fields which are drilling, cracking, and fracking the earth for natural gas, are actually harvesting the CH4 which is piped directly to our stovetops. That’s a long way, and surely something could go wrong in any number of ways, from the mining to the storage, or the transport. Scientific American states that while gas leaks are difficult to trace, some natural gas companies already in operation can give us a better understanding of what leakage rates might be. the largest gas distribution company in the United States, “ Southern California Gas Co. states that their loss rate was 0.84% in 2011, and 0.87% in 2012 this is quite low when compared to “Washington Gas Light Co. serving the Washington DC area has loss rates of 4.04% in 2011, and 3.65% in 2012, and furthermore, it has been found that some natural gas extraction sites in Russia have loss rates as high as 7%  and the gas companies themselves are certain to state that the gas is simply unaccounted for, which could mean a leak, an accounting error, inconsistent conversion rates among other things.
In an article by Greenpeace,  they site research from the Washington DC pipeline system and researchers found that in the gas transport system, there were more than 6000 leakage points overall across the 1500 miles of pipeline, that’s 4 leaks per mile, and it is including that of pipes to households which can be very old, additionally, in 12 locations methane had accumulated to explosive levels between (50,000 and 500,000 PPM) A similar study in Boston found almost 3400 leaks over 785 miles of pipeline, that’s an average of 4.3 leaks per mile. So while the 234 mile long Jordan Cove pipeline is much shorter, and would not be connecting to households directly, if just for fun, we were to apply the same statistics; after some time, and not accounting for possible newer techniques and equipment, we could  expect somewhere on the order of 1010-936 leaks in total, and an average of 4.15 leaks per mile, and those leaks mean the more potent methane emitted directly into the atmosphere. 
This all brings up the Question:
how much cleaner is natural gas than coal .png
Turns out, from current data, not by much, and we’re not even entirely sure, as there is very little monitoring done outside of the US and EU. After surveying 174 companies with LNG distribution systems, and more than 1000 miles of pipeline, Greenpeace found the average rate of gas which was unaccounted for was 1.6% and furthermore, the International Governmental panel on Climate change (IPCC) currently estimate that methane leakage rates have more of an impact on global climate change over the next 20 years than the CO2 emissions from burning the methane  gas and releasing it as CO2, this is because methane has a half life of about 7 years before it reacts with atmospheric gasses and is turned to CO2 and water vapor. CO2 however does not react with atmospheric gasses, it needs to be absorbed by any number of carbon sinks including the ocean and plant life. The IPCC also state that a leakage rate of 2.8% would negatively offset any greenhouse gas emissions advantage that LNG has over Oil and Coal. 
So the Jordan Cove pipeline, which would be going under, over, around, and through more than 400 waterways, streams, lakes, rivers, and wetlands, a leak and dire effects is not only possible, but likely.  Furthermore, mitigation is hot or miss, in an article by Street Roots titled “Jordan Cove LNG pipeline; a never-ending nightmare,”  They point out that the mitigation does not even need to take place at the source of the contamination, and that mitigation efforts elsewhere, while they do offset the overall impact, by cleaning up the environment, they do little to help the local communities, and wildlife that has actually been affected by the spill or contamination. That would be a little bit like the Flint Michigan municipality paying for watershed and wetland mitigation in Louisiana while their own river and source of drinking water continues to remain polluted as it is today. The overall pollution  in the world remains the same, though people are continually suffering, and this sort of suffering is most often forgotten about or swept under the rug by corporations that have the money to do so. Until it comes to election years when people actually begin to care about all the rotten things in the world after uncovering the hard truths about our political system and realize that it’s even more important to participate than they had previously thought. 

	All forms of energy production (even solar) get a bad wrap from environmentalists, so how dangerous is LNG, aside from leaks and back end emissions, how much of a polluter is LNG? Well, according to Breaking Energy,  LNG has the best safety record of all common fuel types, and is completely non-toxic. This is due to  the nature of transporting methane which is very difficult, it needs to be first cryogenically cooled to reduce its shipping volume and weight for transport, and if LNG in this form were to spill on the ground, or on water, it will quickly evaporate and leave no trace residue behind. 

Lets rephrase that; 
Furthermore if spilled off one of the transport tankers into the ocean, the LNG would simply float on top of the more dense water, and then evaporate causing a lot of greenhouse gas release, but little direct environmental impact. The necessity of mitigation would be mostly planting more trees to absorb CO2 out of the atmosphere and combat the climatological effects, not cleaning up dirty oil from the ground or water. If anything, since it’s so cold, it may kill some plant life simply from freezing it, and while fires or explosions could occur, they are far less likely than that of traditional coal or oil pipelines. 

Photo of the site of the Jordan Cove terminal 

Pipeline Edits-199.jpg

	Breaking energy lists safety demonstration methods for firefighters who may have to combat fires which could occur only if an ignition source is present at the site of the spill (and even then LNG still has a much smaller richness ignition window than traditional Oil) Firefighters are shown the following demonstrations: 

•Pouring LNG on the ground at the feet of the trainees to show that LNG vaporizes quickly leaving behind no residue. 
•Pouring LNG into a glass of water and then drinking the water.
•Pouring LNG into a glass dish with goldfish in it to demonstrate that LNG floats on the surface of water and does not harm aquatic life.
•Putting out a lit cigarette in a glass of LNG to demonstrate that liquid methane does not burn (only the vapors are flammable).


	In this video,  it is apparent that firefighters had a difficult time lighting the pool of LNG on the ground. They also note the richness of the gas which determines its flammability is often too high, and this would be the case for all gas remaining within the pipeline, and its double walled standards of  The United States Department Of Transportation (DOT) meaning that if there were sparks present at a leak, there would most likely not be any sort of explosion of the pipeline, the cooled gas would extinguish itself, or if it had managed to catch fire outside of the pipeline which is rare, burn up on the ground. What is more common, is some sort of disaster causing a spark near a leak, and igniting the oxygenated gas that is outside of the pipeline causing not an explosion, but more of a flame thrower scenario. Explosions might only occur in an enclosed space like we see in house fires.

The DOT data that documents pipeline incidents that have  ”caused personal injury resulting in hospitalization or death, estimated property damage of $ 50,000 or more, loss of 5 barrels of hazardous liquid, or 50 barrels of other liquids.” 

This is the Data from 1998-2017 for Crude Oil Pipelines & Hazardous Liquids. There were 105 injuries, 35 deaths, and, 3.7billion dollars of property damage.
Then we can look at the data from LNG pipelines from 1998-2017.
There were three incidents in total… a single injury, zero deaths, and $46 million in property damages.
While data collection techniques have changed over the years, I am personally not sure what sort of accounting methods they (DOT) are currently using, because an article in Frac Dallas wrote in 2015, that in Texas alone, when looking at these same significant, and serious data sets that;

“Those "significant incidents" in Texas accounted for 1,669 incidents (21.5% of incidents nationwide), 78 fatalities (14.6% of all deaths nationwide), 371 injuries (15.7% of all injuries nationwide) and property damage of about $668 Million (9.9% of all damages nationwide), numbers which are staggering considering that natural gas production takes place in at least 34 states and its use is found in all states. Improper monitoring and maintenance of pipelines is the primary cause of these incidents according to safety reports filed with PHMSA and various state agencies, the Railroad Commission of Texas in cases within the State of Texas.”
And this article appears credible, even with a bit of slant against all the fracking in Texas, it seems convincing….
 However, when I look at the same data; selecting Texas, under “significant incidents” I see the data that only goes back to 1990, and since then,
So I sent DOT and email asking;

They responded, and said; Something in the way of “Accounting methods have changed since then, and that I should review the definitions of the data.” The correspondent obviously could not, or was not permitted to answer my questions about different types of pipelines incident rates directly, only give me more links to the DOT website.
So, while everything is getting a bit more murky, what are people saying on the ground? The outcome looks bleak. A tweet from Dr. Sandra Steingraber;
Either way, even if data is somehow being suppressed or just made more difficult to find, (though I don’t imagine that’s the whole story, safety and policy regulations likely have to do with the changes in accounting and documenting incidents) it seems that crude oil pipelines are more dangerous than LNG pipelines no matter which way you choose to look at it, and it appears that LNG pipelines will harm the environment less due to their nature, though DOT does not keep environmental records. It is also important to note that there are many more miles of crude oil pipeline than LNG, as it’s been around much longer, right? 

 As Earthly Issues states, there are roughly 95,000 miles miles of crude oil lines which are mostly 8-24 inches in diameter that deliver oil to terminals for refinement, and then tanker trucks deliver oil the last few miles from fuel terminals to places like gas stations where the everyday person interacts with gas and oil. 

But then there’s natural gas which indeed goes from the fracked ground, all the way to almost every home in the US, as transported by pipeline, and there are more that 305,000 miles of LNG pipelines in the US, far more than oil lines. 
So if we wanted to trust the DOT data completely, (though sketchy) oil pipelines have an injury rate of 6 people per ten thousand miles and a fatality rate of 2 people per ten thousand miles, while LNG pipelines have an injury rate of 0.03 people per ten thousand miles, and “have not yet had an associated death over the years studied.” This is not to say that this data means no one has ever died in relation to a natural gas pipeline, (or is even accurate) because that is not true as you can see for countless examples like what Dr. Sandra Steingraber has pointed out in Texas. Though her example is too recent to appear on DOT data, there are countless other examples like this reporting one dead. Though DOT may not document this as it is to a home, something like this where one fatality is also seen, or the PG&E San Bruno Explosion here which killed 8 people, is more likely to be documented, yet we see nothing in the DOT data. 
DOT is designated with the admittedly difficult task of assigning regulations to the equipment used to construct, and maintain pipelines, and while they may have their own motives, not saying they don’t, their data which is clearly defined, and needs to meet certain criteria to be documented for both LNG and Crude Oil pipelines does indeed show that in terms of pipeline safety, LNG pipelines are undoubtably responsible for far fewer injuries and deaths when compared to traditional crude oil pipelines. 
So there is a decent argument for LNG over Coal or OIL in that it is much safer, nontoxic, does not harm waterways. If strict measurement techniques are put in place, and methane is kept at bay,
Currently we get our energy in the United States from many different sources as we have high demand for electricity. Oregon’s energy mix is currently about 40% Hydro Power, 32% coal, 17% natural gas, 6% wind, and 3% nuclear among others. For its size, Oregon actually produces quite a bit of energy, and while it doesn’t consume nearly as much as it produces, much of it is exported. According to a 2009 NY Times article,  Oregon had the largest employment of green energy jobs over any other state. 
Since 1990, Oregon’s carbon emissions as a state have gone up by 23.4%,  and compared to it’s neighbors to the south, Californias emissions have gone down by 0.1% over that same time. Furthermore, California with a current population of almost 40 million people is the largest state by a long shot over number two which is Texas at 28 million, but from 1990-2000, California grew in population by 13.8%, a larger absolute number than Oregon’s  growth of 20.4%, and from 2000-2010, Census numbers were 10% and 12% respectively, Oregon is growing faster proportionately, but California is growing faster by absolute numbers. EPA data shows us that California released a total of 362 million metric tonnes CO2 in 1990 and 359 million metric tonnes of co2 in 2014 while Oregon released 31 million metric tonnes of CO2 in 1990 and 37 million metric tonnes CO2 in 2014 . Per capita emissions from both of the states are Oregon with 9.56 metric tonnes, and California with 9.26 metric tonnes, that’s the average Oregonian’s and Californian’s carbon emission footprint today. It’s interesting to note that much of Californias energy (below) actually comes from Oregon.
  • 62% of California’s wind energy is coming from Biglow Canyon Wind Farm in Sherman, OR. 
  • 100% of its hydropower comes from Oregon’s own Clackmas river, and the Willamette. 
  • 100% of its natural gas comes from Oregon’s own fracking developments from, “Beaver” Clatskine, Oregon,  “Carty”Boardman, Oregon, “Coyote springs’, Boardman, Oregon, Port westward Unit 1& 2, Clatskine, Or. 
  • 100% of its hydro power, all from the Deschutes 
  • And 63% of its coal from Boardman Or. 
In total, that’s at least half of all Californias energy, not including purchased power which comes from Oregon alone. And since California is the worlds fifth largest economy in itself, that is a significant number. The entire US population will soon begin to slow it’s growth rate to zero, and beyond to negative numbers as industrialized nations tend to do. As we get healthier, are more educated, and live longer, we have fewer children as they no longer work on the farm, and our populations grow slower, and when it comes to carbon emissions for the largest emitters of fossil fuel like the United States, this is a very much good thing that our population is not following the exponential growth rates which we have been seeing worldwide over the last decade. However, the true difficulty is is limiting the fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gas emissions of developing nations, especially the larger ones like China, India, and Sub Saharan Africa who are gearing up for large scale and rapid industrialization, and of course the accompanying carbon emissions, all with massively growing populations, and growing emissions per person. Its not as simple as saying they must simply go through the industrialization process using 100% clean energy, largely due to the fact that it is still more expensive at this moment in time, which would slow their development, as widespread use of cheap energy is the driving factor behind developing nations economic growth, take China for example who has consumed 3.4 billion dollars worth of Coal in the year 2000, and 5.5 billion dollars worth of coal in 2014, though just recently announced that; they will be canceling at least 100 of their previously planned coal power plants. India is consistently consuming around 2.5 billion dollars of coal, while the US and EU are consistently consuming about 1 billion or less of one of the dirtiest fossil fuels.  
However, who are we as industrialized nations to say develop this way, or develop that when we polluted all our rivers, mined our minerals, exploited others, and emitted millions of tons of CO2 in the process? Furthermore, we are still building new fossil fuel infrastructure, Jordan Cove Pipeline or not, the investment continues. We only later began to care about the environment once we as a society felt secure enough to do so. Studies have shown that once a nation is developed, and individuals have a higher income, people begin to care about the environment past clean sources of food and water, but until then, it is clear that there are other more immediate issues for many developing nations. 
	Data from BP Oil shows us that CO2 levels are indeed continually rising and between the years of 2006- 2016, emissions rose by 1.3% globally, the largest emitters are China with 27%, the US with 15% and the EU with 12% of total emissions. The asian pacific countries including China and India make up almost 50% of all global emissions, and China’s emissions were growing by 3.2% from 2006-2016 India grew by  6% making up 7% of all emissions. Europe which makes up 12.4 of all emissions has actually reduced emissions by 1.5% over those same years, but gone up by 2.5% in 2017 alone while the United States which makes up 18% of all emissions has reduced CO2 emissions by 0.9% over ten years and then  reduced, (yes REDUCED!) emissions by 0.05% in 2017 alone, a greater reduction than Europe as a whole and the US energy information Administration predicts US emissions to increase slightly in 2018 and level out soon after, (which is not exactly encouraging, but it’s a start) Europe will likely follow suit. However, to meet our climate goals laid out in the Kyoto Protocol, the Rio Earth Summit, or the Paris Climate Accord, those negative numbers, and falling emissions will need to be much larger.
	These are a list of years with higher than average temperature anomalies as reported  by the national oceanic and atmospheric administration.
The global target that has been generally accepted, or forced upon countries within the Paris Climate Accord,
 (if they decide not to back out
The UN is aiming to limit global warming to a temperature increase of less than 2 degrees celsius compared to pre industrialization levels, and that is generally thought of as 450ppm of co2 in the atmosphere, and in that case, our current level of roughly 402ppm of co2 is daunting, especially at the rate with which we are burning it, and especially while leading climate scientist James Hansen says that the only safe level is 350 parts per million, this is where 350.org founder Bill McKibbon got his inspiration. Either way, it seems that we might have only a little bit time left for what some call a transition period, some think we are generally safe right now, and could even burn a bit more, and remain under that 2 degrees celsius mark, but as green investment lags behind, the clock ticks on. 
Many site green investment to be more expensive without subsidies, and they would be right, however, under the current system, there is an inherent subsidization of any industry using fossil fuels for production and the externality of that cost is being paid by our children and our grand children. Thats is why 21 youth plaintiffs known as “Our Children’s Trust” are suing the federal government in the case of Juliana v US over their own right to a healthy climate, the public trust doctrine states that “public lands, waters, and natural resources are to be held in trust for the benefit of the public” and currently the federal government has no comprehensive plan to protect these. If we want to remain under 2 degrees celsius, it is going to be a battle, it could take as much as 25 years to develop batteries that are efficient enough to hold the power of wind and solar farms, but in the meantime, there are proposals to better share energy between states that could reduce emissions from electricity generation by as much as 80% and this just might require a revival of Tomas Edisons Direct current energy transportation method with a few modern tweaks to regulate current that just weren’t possible when Edison lost the battle against Nikolai Tesla and his Alternating current. A switch like this requires some heavy investment, among other things if we’re to switch, but what incentive is there for oil companies not to drill, not to mine, and not to sell their oil reserves when they are still making money on Adam Smith’s ancient free market? Meanwhile, a trade war is raging between the United States, and China who now claims they will place a tax on all LNG imported from the US.  
Naomi Klein, a Canadian author and social activist, who has visited and spoke at the University of Oregon in the past, advocates for a carbon tax and divestment from the fossil fuel industry in her book “This Changes Everything, Capitalism vs. The Climate.” She writes that once large scale investments have been decided on, it is difficult to change course, and that as time goes on, more drastic mitigation efforts will be required.  She also claims there is no shortage of options to equitably funding the lowering of carbon emissions. Among other things, Klein suggests a $50 tax per metric ton of CO2 emitted in developed countries, and the phasing out of fossil fuel subsidies. The revenue from this and additional measures, if implemented simultaneously, would amount to roughly $2 trillion annually, which she claims is the seed money for “a very healthy start to finance a Great Transition (and avoid a Great Depression).”

People waiting in line to submit a public comment on the record in Salem, Oregon
Jessica Smith

Jessica Smith

Jessica Smith

Jessica Smith

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  (IPCC)’s  latest report on climate change states, “Limiting global warming to 1.5°C would require rapid, far-reaching and unprecedented changes in all aspects of society…limiting global warming to 1.5°C compared to 2°C could go hand in hand with ensuring a more sustainable and equitable society.”
Many politicians refer to the IPCC as an authority figure on climate data. Leaders are now looking to the panel for information as they make political decisions on these matters. The IPCC typically releases a climate report every six years and has recently released an important special report in 2018. In this most recent report, the IPCC has reiterated its intention to influence nations to make drastic and far reaching changes to infrastructure. 

Students from the University of Oregon are widely outspoken on the subject. 

Of the known fossil fuel reserves, we have SIX TIMES more fuels to burn than the amount that would be within our 2 degrees celsius target, this is sometimes called our carbon budget, and, like our reserves, it is certainly not infinite, no matter if it were, it is obvious that one day we will run out of fossil fuels no matter what, and by that point we will need to be running on 100% renewables, no questions asked, so this disastrous climatological game we are playing with the atmosphere, and this fun little experiment we are conducting on our oceans, coral reefs, and their acidity is crazy, and theres’s no need to indefinitely continue this madness. While its unfortunate to say, the outcome of our energy in both the United States and the world, is highly dependent on  public education, political cooperation, a bit of self sacrifice, and lastly prioritizing the avoidance of environmental destruction that discounts our future.
Something like a carbon tax in addition to green energy subsidies could help solve the conundrums developing nations, but over the long term, across borders and cultures, it’s clear that we need more than just a carbon tax.

The IPCC continues in the vein of Naomi Klein and the major environmental organizations, advising that if we do not act quickly and radically, unalterable damage to the climate will ensue. Still, it might be worth exploring alternative narratives like that of Bjorn Lomborg who has written on global welfare, and given an analysis of economics in climate change throughout his books, “How to spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place,” “Cool It,” and “Prioritizing development.” 
Lomborg first indicates that the IPCC’s warming prediction has actually gone down in their recent reports when compared to 1990 data. He also notes that climate models have very wide margins of error, and that organizations like Greenpeace, 350.org, and the Sierra Club often lead with the highest estimates as they are interest groups who have members, subscribers, and lobbyists who all benefit when the climate predictions and stories told continue to get worse. This places them at the forefront of the climate movement, and on the front page of the news where “if it bleeds it leads.” As polar bears tend to do.
University of Sussex economist Richard Tol claims that a carbon. Tax is a terribly inefficient means of mitigating climate change. He says that drastic carbon cuts will do more harm than good, and that the effects of an 80% reduction in carbon emissions to achieve the 2 degrees celsius of warming mark by 2100 will be felt by developing nations most. 
Ambient air pollution killed nearly 6 million people globally in 2010, more than alcohol and drugs combined, and many of these deaths were in developing nations and Southern Asia. These same markets, who cannot afford green energy, could cheaply reduce dangerous levels of Ambient, and Household 2.5 Micron Particulate Matter air pollution by substituting the higher carbon footprint fuel used for cooking and heating; Biomass and replacing it with Natural Gas.
Lomborg suggests we count all humans, in all areas, as equal, prioritize human welfare, and bring as many people out of poverty, as fast as possible, as he claims this has been demonstrated to do the most overall good, both in maintaining equity between nations, and in reinforcing the climate’s relatively stable position.
Yet here we are with another pipeline proposal. Pembina state that the benefits of the pipelines construction will contribute more than 10 billion dollars to the state, and rural economies. It will provide locally sourced jobs, and will contribute to schools, public transportation, and various other infrastructure Needs, and they weren’t kidding. They have already  helped the communities in Southern Oregon in ways that were much needed and appreciated, they helped the Egyptian Theater in coos bay purchase new curtain rigging equipment, they helped fund Dillian’s park an all inclusive park in North Bend, they purchased paint for the Winchester bay lighthouse, purchased jaws of life equipment for the Reedsport volunteer fire department, purchased shelves for the freezers of the Sutherlind Emergency Food Pantry, bought Douglas County’s Sheriffs office a drone which has already helped apprehend a suspect, they gave money to Habitat for Humanity in the Rogue Valley, Donated computers to Klamath falls schools, built dining halls, restrooms and a kitchen for the Klamath Outdoor Science School, and have a few environmental education programs up and running for the youth…. As the list goes on, one begins to wonder, 
Pembina have recently offered landowners in the path of the pipeline who’s land it will cross $30,000 pre approval payment with a deadline to accept of December 31st, 2018. If the project does not go through, the homeowners would be able to keep this payment. This is in addition to any offers they have already made, and likely a means of persuading the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission into approving their permits as when they were previously denied, the board sited the fact that they only have homeowner access, and approval, to very little of the proposed route. Nicholas A Johnson Quotes residents offered the money in his article
““I’m pretty firmly against it … even with the $30,000 their offers haven’t even been close to compensation for moving a house,”

 landowner Mark Williams said; that the original offer to use his property was $11,000. He also said that he would have to move his home and sceptic tank to accommodate the project.
“It would cost me $30,000 just to move the septic. They want to use the land right where my house is as a staging area. Their offers haven’t been good, and even $30,000 more I wouldn’t accept it."
Another landowner on the pipeline route in Douglas County, Stacey McLaughlin, said that she was uninterested in the incentive program, and felt that many of her neighbors were also against it.
“For some reason they think it’s about money, and it’s not about money. It’s about the sanctity and sacredness of this land,” McLaughlin said.
So on the one hand, theres an energy company with a lot of money, and on the other side, activists with endless willpower who are gathering data to bring to the courts, all battling over a pipeline which will bring some money to the state, and some pollution to the atmosphere, which side are you on? 

Jessica Smith

Jessica Smith

Pipeline Edits-148.jpg

Additional Sources: