NEWS
Letter to the Editor Anti-Pipeline Activists Would Give Money from Poor to Corporations
If the hundreds of "extra" voters in the Schoharie "News" poll this week is any indication, a lot of outsiders are weighing on on the idea of the Constitution Pipeline coming in.
It's not the same as the fight against fracking, which would devastate local water supply. Whether activists agree or not, of all modes of hydrocarbon transfer, pipelines have the safest record. By far.
If the pipeline doesn't come through, then the natural gas will come by rail. Remember that explosion that leveled part of a town in Quebec? Well, here comes those same trains through Cobleskill. They can argue that they'd rather have no gas coming through at all, but that simply won't happen. Why do they support the method with far more accidents and deaths attached?
There are a lot of comments about how the corporations hold too much influence. Damn right. Denying the pipeline will keep artificially high energy prices high, hurting the poor the most. Electricity rates are averaging about 18 cents a KW in New England, over double many parts of the country due to shutdowns of coal and nuclear plants and reduced pipelines.
Who bears the highest burden and pays the largest share of their income to heat their homes in the winter? "Retired" trust fund babies telling us how to live our lives or the working poor?
Well, they can just apply for HEAP, you may say. Certainly, but that means you support taking tax dollars from the 90+% of the local economy that is not energy based and handing it almost straight through to the large corporations. The higher surcharges and service fees that customers have to pay-- who gets them? The large utilities and energy conglomerates.
The pipeline might be a bad thing for the area and something that should be fought. But realize that in doing so, you will also be supporting taking money from the poor and working class to buy another cigar for a corporate CEO.
Richard "Halliburton"
Summit
It's not the same as the fight against fracking, which would devastate local water supply. Whether activists agree or not, of all modes of hydrocarbon transfer, pipelines have the safest record. By far.
If the pipeline doesn't come through, then the natural gas will come by rail. Remember that explosion that leveled part of a town in Quebec? Well, here comes those same trains through Cobleskill. They can argue that they'd rather have no gas coming through at all, but that simply won't happen. Why do they support the method with far more accidents and deaths attached?
There are a lot of comments about how the corporations hold too much influence. Damn right. Denying the pipeline will keep artificially high energy prices high, hurting the poor the most. Electricity rates are averaging about 18 cents a KW in New England, over double many parts of the country due to shutdowns of coal and nuclear plants and reduced pipelines.
Who bears the highest burden and pays the largest share of their income to heat their homes in the winter? "Retired" trust fund babies telling us how to live our lives or the working poor?
Well, they can just apply for HEAP, you may say. Certainly, but that means you support taking tax dollars from the 90+% of the local economy that is not energy based and handing it almost straight through to the large corporations. The higher surcharges and service fees that customers have to pay-- who gets them? The large utilities and energy conglomerates.
The pipeline might be a bad thing for the area and something that should be fought. But realize that in doing so, you will also be supporting taking money from the poor and working class to buy another cigar for a corporate CEO.
Richard "Halliburton"
Summit