Supreme Court approves Virginia/W.Virginia Natural Gas Pipeline

[Melensdad]

Regardless of wether the green energy advocates like it or not, there will be no "transition" to solar/wind. The reality is there needs to be a back up source of energy to keep the lights on. That is currently Natural Gas, Nuclear, and to a lower extent, Coal. We need either N.G. or Nuclear, as both are clean sources of energy. The S.C.O.T.U.S. made a logical, and legal, decision to allow a long contested pipeline to continue. And that pipeline is needed.

We were energy independent 3 years ago. Today we are importing fuel. We were exporting a lot of fuel.

Full story at the link:

Supreme Court allows work on contested natural gas pipeline to resume​

The court’s decision greenlights approval of a section of the Mountain Valley Pipeline crossing federal land in Virginia.​

July 27, 2023, 10:08 AM CDT / Updated July 27, 2023, 10:41 AM CDT​

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed work on a natural gas pipeline crossing federal land in Virginia to resume over the objections of environmental groups.​

​

The justices granted an emergency request filed by Mountain Valley Pipeline, meaning that final elements of the 303.5 mile pipeline running from the northwestern part of West Virginia to southern Virginia can be finished.​

​

In doing so, the court blocked decisions by the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Richmond, Virginia, that prevented the project from moving forward. The appeals court intervened despite Congress including language in the recently enacted Fiscal Responsibility Act backed by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., that stripped courts of authority to review approval of the pipeline.​

​

Construction of the pipeline is almost finished. The dispute before the Supreme Court was over a 3.5-mile stretch in the Jefferson National Forest in Virginia as well as several stream crossings outside the forest.​

​

Environmental groups including the Wilderness Society have sought to prevent the pipeline from being constructed, saying that there is a risk of pollution and that the project will disrupt wildlife and degrade water quality. The groups also point out that the gas itself when used will emit harmful carbon emissions that contribute to climate change. . . .

STORY CONTINUES​