Skip to content

Climate “whopper” as New York towns, cities battle proposed Pilgrim pipelines

December 11, 2015

Coalition Against Pilgrim Pipelines – New York (CAPP-NY)

For Immediate Release: December 11, 2015

Kate Hudson (914) 388-5016,

Iris Marie Bloom (845) 687-7810 (land), (215) 840-6489 (cell),

As New York towns confront Pilgrim’s proposed pipelines, Pilgrim’s claim that pipelines would benefit climate called “whopper” by author, national climate leader Bill McKibben


In the past three weeks, at least fifteen towns and cities in New York State have made public, transparent commitments — the majority with unanimous votes at Board meetings — to oppose the New York State Thruway Authority’s attempt to act as Lead Agency for the environmental review of the proposed Pilgrim pipelines.

The cities of Albany and Kingston; the county of Ulster; and the towns of Athens, Bethlehem, Catskill, Coxsackie, Harriman, Newburgh, New Paltz, New Windsor, Plattekill, Ramapo, Rosendale, and Saugerties are now standing up to what Harriman Mayor Steve Welle called a “fox guarding henhouse” attempt by the Thruway Authority to fast-track approval for Pilgrim pipelines’ permit.

Pilgrim has recently tried to head off this opposition with a press campaign claiming that their proposed crude oil and gasoline/diesel/jet fuel (refined products) pipelines would be “good for climate”—an assertion that has met with widespread criticism.

Well-known author and international leader on climate issues Bill McKibben said of Pilgrim’s claim: “The idea that new oil pipelines would be ‘good for the climate’ is Orwellian. At this point, with the price of renewable energy plummeting, the thing that would be good for the climate, and consumers, is an end to new fossil fuel infrastructure designed to extend the oil age a few more decades. We know from the recent Exxon revelations that oil companies don’t always tell the truth, but this one is a whopper.”

Jen Metzger, Rosendale Town Board member, said, “Pilgrim’s analysis completely ignores the most significant climate impacts of their proposed project: These pipelines would add capacity to refine more and more crude oil, not just for east coast markets but for export, encouraging continued growth in fossil fuel consumption and its dangerous impacts on the global climate.”

Metzger pointed out that the rationale for rejecting these pipeline is no different from the federal government’s decision to reject the Keystone Pipeline: The pipelines would encourage expansion of GHG intensive fuel products for the long term, undermining our role as a leader in moving to a low-carbon economy.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that introducing new crude oil infrastructure with a 100-year life span to New York State is completely at odds with New York State’s energy goals,” Metzger continued.

Kate Hudson, Riverkeeper’s Director for Cross-Watershed Initiatives, said that Pilgrim’s premises on climate are incorrect on two levels: “One, building the pipelines would not mean that barge traffic would come off the river. There is no guarantee, nothing that would require it.  If the crude oil export ban is lifted, crude will continue to move by barge, rail and the pipelines (if they are built), leading to an increase in greenhouse gases associated with transport, NOT a decrease!

“Two, Pilgrim’s study fails to count the greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the oil that its pipelines would transport being burned! The greenhouse gas effect of building an expensive piece of fossil fuel infrastructure in the present that would last 50 plus years would lock us into taking that fossil fuel out of the ground and burning it decades into the future, decades of greenhouse gas emissions. Unless curbed, greenhouse gas emissions will drive our planet over the edge of climate change.

Hudson concluded, “Theoretical differences between the greenhouse gas emissions of various forms of transport evaporate in the face of the additional greenhouse gas emissions that would result from the inevitable burning of all the fuel transported by Pilgrim’s proposed pipelines.”

Thus far, fifty-eight towns in New York and New Jersey have passed resolutions which oppose the pipelines altogether. Copies of the resolutions, along with Pilgrim’s maps of the project, FAQs, and news, are here:


Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: