“The agency said the project’s construction would affect 251 streams and 500 acres of valuable forest as well as extensive wetlands.”
From the NYTimes:
“The agency said the project’s construction would affect 251 streams and 500 acres of valuable forest as well as extensive wetlands.”
From the NYTimes:
I’m betting that second water line they put in faced few hurdles.
First NY bans fracking. Now the refuse low cost natural gas from their neighbors in PA. They have repeatedly come out against coal and other fossil fuels. Don’t forget how much they hate nuclear power. They already have to buy a lot of their power from other states and even Canada.
I’m going to consider this a huge opportunity for power suppliers in other states to make big profits… oh wait. The need to build all the power transmission lines will cause even more ecological damage than the pipeline. Hmmm… Guess we should let them live in the dark and cook over open fires.
But if those same 124 miles were cleared of trees, streams and wetlands for windmills and power lines (a much wider path than needed for a natural gas pipeline), that would have no environmental impact at all. Of course.
Sometimes it is way too difficult to write about stupid thinking… it is sort of like bringing the reality of “cut the nose off to spite the face” stupidity.
As of 2014, there were 1,585,329 miles of natural gas pipelines in the US alone.
The US national highway system includes a total of 160,955 miles of highways.
You can see almost every mile of highway (save tunnels) from satellites, and the environmental impact is not trivial.
You can hardly see the miles of gas pipelines at all, and the environmental impact is miniscule.
Great. Let those in New York state keep paying high prices for energy or sit in the dark. Pennsylvanians will keep having jobs and ship the gas elsewhere.
New York values strike again.