Okay, it is not hard to guess what this is about. The reverse tells more of the story:
From its website, here's a description of the Constitution Pipeline:
Not terribly surprisingly, there is local and regional opposition. Natural gas is a cheap fuel, but opponents argue that improving gas infrastructure merely keeps us hooked on fossil fuels when we desperately need to wean ourselves from them for the maintenance of a stable climate. Stop the Pipeline argues that gas pipelines are like addictive drugs: say yes to one and pretty soon New York State will start building ever more gas-moving facilities. These pipelines will increase the pressure for New York to end its moratorium on fracking. Central New York is not currently known for earthquakes; does it want to join Oklahoma as a locus unprecedented, fracking-induced tremors? Does it want to risk additional pollution of its water supplies?
Meanwhile, a study released Friday by the Environmental Protection Agency's inspector general suggests the Constitution Pipeline may face additional obstacles:
We can guess that pipeline owners will fight these controls vigorously.
The signs that sparked my interest in the Constitution Pipeline clearly come from the Laborers' International Union of North America. No doubt the members have hopes of working on building the pipeline. But will the pipeline actually bring lasting jobs to the areas through which it passes? It now seems agreed that the even more controversial Keystone XL pipeline bringing tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico will only create some 35 permanent jobs. If I lived along the route of the Constitution Pipeline, I would not be expected to be employed by it.
The Laborers are a good progressive union, and like most unions, they work hard for their members. But it is darn difficult to believe that lending their good name to a gas pipeline is good for their home communities or for the country's future.
I noticed that LIUNA was a major sponsor of the recent Netroots Nation conference -- and also that this year's NN seemed without nearly the emphasis on injecting looming climate disaster into our politics that I saw at NN San Jose. Was this lack of emphasis on issues vital to our ability to keep our democracy on a stable path a consequence of NN's dependence on union funding? The only large environmental sponsor was the Sierra Club. Just wondering.