I am sharing a letter to the editor that was written by neighbors in Middlebury and printed in the Addison Independent on Aug 22, so it may not have been seen by many in our town. It's a little longer than the others, but a good comprehensive look helpful in advance of the public hearing on September 10 (6 pm, Middlebury.)
~~~
“Another letter to the editor about the pipeline?” you ask. Haven’t we heard enough? Perhaps. But we would like to discuss this issue in a broader context. That is, how building the Vermont Gas Systems (VGS) pipeline would contribute to one of the biggest threats facing civilization: runaway global warming.

Almost daily, the news features a story about a severe weather event; droughts and wildfires in California, Arizona and Colorado, flooding in the midwest, tornadoes larger than ever before, melting polar ice caps and severe hurricanes. And now, newspaper articles are suggesting that we shift from trying to prevent climate change to adapting to the inevitable changes that will result, such as rising sea levels. Climate change is not something that may happen in the distant future; it is here NOW.

Building significant additional infrastructure such as the VGS pipeline in Vermont to promote the use of fossil fuels primarily in New York would be questionable judgment at best, and at worst, a triumph of short-term gain over long-term human and environmental health. One Middlebury selectboard member cites greater economic vitality and lower emissions as reasons to support the pipeline.

Greater Economic Vitality. The lure of more jobs is seductive, but needs scrutiny. Gas is cheaper now than ten years ago, and the price will go back up, especially as the U.S. exports more gas to energy-hungry emerging markets. And even the short term benefit of lower gas prices ignores the truth of fossil fuel economics: the true total costs of extracting, transporting, processing and burning fossil fuels, added to the costs of dealing with pollution and climate change, are much higher than the price paid at the pump or the meter. Why? Because many of those costs are not borne by the industry; they are externalized and passed along to taxpayers and future generations.

Lower Emissions. Methane burns cleaner than coal and fuel oil, but what VGS doesn’t tell you is that in its lifecycle from extraction to burn, fracked methane is at least as dirty (in terms of greenhouse gases and other chemicals added, such as mercaptan) as other fuels:

* Before it is burned, methane leaks from wellheads, pipelines and storage tanks. Methane is up to 120 times as potent a greenhouse gas as CO2.

* Fracked methane can contain radon, a radioactive gas that is a decay product of uranium and thorium. Decay products of radon are solids that stick to surfaces; if dust particles of this stuff are inhaled, it can stick to the airways and significantly increase the risk of developing lung cancer.

* Each fracking of a well uses millions of gallons of water laced with toxic chemicals, and each well can be fracked up to eighteen times. The industry says that ‘if done properly,’ this water should not find its way into aquifers and water supplies, but it does. And water that is recovered from these wells is placed in large lagoons, where toxic ingredients evaporate into the atmosphere.

* (Details of the carcinogens and other toxic chemicals used to frack gas wells are not publicly disclosed, let alone accounted for, thanks to the Halliburton loophole, which exempts fracking from the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts regulation.)

VGS indicates that 70% of the methane that travels through this pipeline would end up at International Paper and beyond. Is this the ‘public good’ that the VERMONT Public Service Board is to rule on?

A recent editorial stated that, barring a major breakthrough, moving to renewables is not going to happen in our lifetime. The only breakthrough needed is political will. Germany supplies up to 40% of its energy needs using renewables. A Stanford University study concluded that New York State could supply 99% of the entire state’s energy needs from renewables within twenty years. The alternative? Experts tell us that if we continue on our present path, within 15 years runaway, impossible-to-stop global warming will begin in earnest and would take at least 1000 years to begin to reverse itself. Is this the legacy we want to leave to our children?

We urge the many intelligent, well-respected people in positions of leadership and responsibility in our community to deepen their understanding of the science and economics of fossil fuels and reassess their support for the pipeline. It's never too late to learn more and make wiser decisions.

Tad Powers, J.D.
William K. Fifield, M.D.