In a late Friday news dump, the feds reported that an Enbridge underground pipeline has dumped about 70,000 gallons of crude oil in Wisconsin:
A petroleum pipeline spill was first detected Nov. 11 in the town of Oakland during a routine inspection by an Enbridge technician, according to a recent accident report from the U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration.
DENVER — This summer, an Exxon Mobil pipeline carrying oil across Montana burst suddenly, soiling the swollen Yellowstone River with an estimated 42,000 gallons of crude just weeks after a company inspection and federal review had found nothing seriously wrong.
And in the Midwest, a 35-mile stretch of the Kalamazoo River near Marshall, Mich., once teeming with swimmers and boaters, remains closed nearly 14 months after an Enbridge Energy pipeline hemorrhaged 843,000 gallons of oil that will cost more than $500 million to clean up.
While investigators have yet to determine the cause of either accident, the spills have drawn attention to oversight of the 167,000-mile system of hazardous liquid pipelines crisscrossing the nation.
The little-known federal agency charged with monitoring the system and enforcing safety measures — the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration — is chronically short of inspectors and lacks the resources needed to hire more, leaving too much of the regulatory control in the hands of pipeline operators themselves, according to federal reports, an examination of agency data and interviews with safety experts.
They portray an agency that rarely levies fines and is not active enough in policing the aging labyrinth of pipelines, which has suffered thousands of significant hazardous liquid spills over the past two decades…
“The latest spill is another tragic reminder of the costs of our reliance on fossil fuels. At every stage, from extraction, to transportation, to burning, fossil fuels put our environment and health at risk. Not only are they the driving force behind climate change, but when the pipelines spill — and they always spill — the damage is severe. The path to a clean and healthy future is clear, and it doesn’t travel in an oil pipeline.”
Despite claims to the contrary, eliminating them would have a significant effect in addressing the climate crisis
When it comes to tackling the climate crisis, ending $400 billion of annual subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry worldwide seems like a no-brainer. For the past decade, world leaders have been resolving and reaffirming the need to phase them out. All of the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates have committed to eliminating fossil-fuel subsidies, and the vast majority of the American public supports doing so. International financial institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have joined the chorus, pointing to the benefits of reform.
Every dollar spent on energy transition would pay off up to seven times.
When it comes to tackling the climate crisis, ending $400 billion in annual subsidies to the fossil-fuel industry worldwide seems like a no-brainer.
In 2018, however, a group of researchers questioned the magnitude of the climate benefits of subsidy reform, reporting that their simulations showed its effect would be “limited” and “small.” Stories in the press began asking whether such subsidies are such a big deal after all.
