In the debate about the Line 3 tar sands pipelines, I would say they are unnecessary and dangerous. Minnesotans don’t need to choose between good jobs and protecting the environment. Enbridge, and those that support Line 3, have misrepresented the necessity of the pipeline. They plan to expand the pipeline in a futile attempt to save a dying industry. New pipelines leak just as much as the old in a mile-by-mile comparison. All pipelines leak.



I’m speaking about this subject because as a Minnesotan who has lived by great rivers my entire life, I hate to see them destroyed. As an advocate for workers' rights, I want to see families able to choose jobs in sustainable markets that are also sustainable for the environment. Minnesota doesn’t need this pipeline for jobs. Formal testimony in the Line 3 case relied on the work of Dr. Marie Fagan and Dr. O’Connell, who showed that Minnesota refineries currently have all the oil they need, and won’t use Line 3 much.



We have an opportunity to rebuild these systems to protect the health of workers and communities, to reduce carbon and methane emissions, and to build a stronger, more resilient system for the future. If we act to stop the harmful Line 3 project and redirect resources to building up green infrastructure we can prevent environmental devastation and actually help Minnesota workers thrive.



We don’t need Line 3. We need jobs with dignity that will invest in our families, farm lands and wetlands.

Visit StopLine3.org for more information.

Hannah Holtegaard, Byron

Newsletter signup for email alerts