US Government Agency report on Line 5 provides conflicting messages, but seems to green light the Line 5 tunnel that the Enbridge Corporation is pushing

In late May, the US Army Corps of Engineers released a report about the Enbridge Line 5 oil pipeline and their proposed tunnel that would run under the Great Lakes. 

Locally, channel’s 13 and 17 ran stories about the report. The headlines for the online versions of those stories are instructive, since they present how headlines can be misleading. It’s also interesting, because both WZZM 13 and WXMI 17 used the same Associated Press (AP) article.

The AP article emphasizes that the construction of a pipeline tunnel by the Enbridge Corporation would do lots of environmental damage to ecosystems where the construction would take place. Some of the environmental impacts would be the loss of an estimated 300 trees, a serious impact on aquatic life, cause significant soil erosion, the vibrations from the drilling would have geological consequences, loss of wetlands, vegetation, the harm of construction equipment, the trucks hauling soil and the possible destruction of archaeological sites. 

The AP story does quote the Sierra Club and a spokesperson for the group Earthjustice, which stated: “My key takeaways are the Army corps has put blinders are in service to Enbridge and President Trump’s fossil fuel agenda.”

The Michigan-based environmental group Oil & Water Don’t Mix, are a bit more to the point on what the Enbridge Line 5 tunnel would mean, stating:

The construction of a new pipeline tunnel would massively disrupt the ecosystem, destroy wetlands, and contaminate the Great Lakes. Moreover, under a backroom deal struck by Enbridge and former Gov. Rick Snyder, Michigan taxpayers would be stuck for 100 years with owning a risky underwater tunnel and the financial costs of any failure. The oil tunnel would also extend the life of dangerous polluting fossil fuel infrastructure at a time when urgent climate action is needed.

Unfortunately, the AP article does not link to the US Army Corps of Engineer’s report, which you can find here. The AP story also omits a response from the Enbridge Corporation, which has the usual propaganda message from a company that makes massive profits from moving fossil fuels from point A to point B, without any real concern for the consequences of such activities.

Lastly, it is worth noting that in 2018, Gov. Whitmer campaigned on the promise that the Enbridge Line 5 would be shut down. This has yet to happen and it is unlikely to happen, especially if we put our trust in the political process. What I want to know, is why don’t we have a Standing Rock for Line 5?