It is no secret that the COVID-19 pandemic has taken an economic toll on employment rates, and people are desperate to get back to work.
In a recent Minnpost article, PUC Commissioner Joseph Sullivan recently talked about how Minnesota needs to start taking advantage of utilities projects that can put people to work. Well, I can think of one project that could kickstart what this commissioner is talking about: The Line 3 Replacement Project.
Not only is it the most studied pipeline project in the history of Minnesota, it has been approved by the PUC multiple times. The only reason construction hasn’t started yet is because Minnesota regulatory departments have decided to play politics instead of doing what is best for Minnesota.
Line 3 will provide a safe and reliable source of petroleum to our state as it has for many years. We need the oil. The fact of the matter is that even if we go 100% green in the next 25 or even 50 years we will still need oil to get there.
It is time the state buckles down and stops playing games. They need to approve the Line 3 Replacement Project and put our laborers to work. This project will in fact put thousands to work and support families and communities all over northern Minnesota, without requiring a cent of tax dollars. Now is the time to get started on this project.
MinnPost welcomes original letters from readers on current topics of general interest. Interested in joining the conversation? Submit your letter to the editor. The choice of letters for publication is at the discretion of MinnPost editors; they will not be able to respond to individual inquiries about letters.
It’s important for readers to note, Jim Schuelke is an engineer with ONEOK, an oil and natural gas company.
The jobs would last like one year? I’m not denying that it would be great for those with the needed skills. But otherwise this project is all downside. For starters we don’t actually need the oil — even if we assume that oil is our only energy source — because the US is already a net exporter of oil. What we “need” is to wean ourselves off of oil, which is the whole point of the argument against the project.
The environmental aspects of this pipeline should far outweigh whatever transient employment benefits there may be. The (extremely short term) boost in employment in fact shouldn’t even be part of the calculation, that’s how incidental it is. Every energy decision now must begin and end with how much it contributes to CO2 emissions.
And if we REALLY want to “put laborers to work!” on infrastructure, progressive Dems (like AOC) have proposed a Green New Deal, one of whose main arguments is the creation of (high paying) Green jobs. Of course, the Green New Deal does not favor (high cost) petroleum extraction and refinement, and AOC and her ideas have been vehemently vilified by the “conservative” movement, which has bamboozled the very working class voters who would principally benefit from such a program. Think about that the next time you see some rightwing ad spewing hatred of AOC and other progressives.
This is the kind of thing that makes me less likely to support this project. I’m like, that’s all you got?
I agree with BK that investing in green infrastructure is a much better way to go. Instead of wasting money on technology we know is going away, lets accelerate the future.