Happy Monday everyone. This week, among other things we’ll be discussing a couple of newspaper articles from phase two of the Line 6B project, one from Griffith, Indiana and the other from Niles, Michigan. What do the two articles have in common? Well, they both feature some of that good old fashioned Enbridge public relations film-flammery. Here’s part one:

Over the past year or so, we think we’ve established pretty clearly that the things Enbridge’s spokespersons say can rarely be trusted. Their utterances can generally be grouped into five categories:

1. Statements that are true, BUT...
2. Statements that are hollow and vacuous
3. Statements that simply can’t be verified
4. Statements that are terribly misleading
5. And statements that are simply not true

We’re not sure if there’s some sort of training manual that teaches these people how to communicate this way, whether it just somehow comes naturally to them, or whether it’s the result of imbibing the Enbridge culture. But what we do know is that the obvious sixth category– just saying things that are honest, forthright, and transparent– is an area into which Enbridge spokespersons rarely stray; perhaps they occasionally get there accidentally.

At any rate, our latest specimen of Enbridge PR-speak comes from the Northwest Indiana Times. Apparently, Enbridge will be removing a dozen trees from a local park in Griffith, Indiana. That fact is uncontroversial, as the Town Council reached an agreement with Enbridge and received compensation months ago. The problematic part is when Enbridge spokesperson Jennifer Smith (you may recall her from months ago) says this:

Enbridge has a neutral footprint program, so for every tree the company removes, it will plant a new one, Smith said. However, trees will not be replanted into the easement due to the safety issues, Smith said.

What we have here is a Category Four statement (terribly misleading). Why? Well, just imagine that you are a casual reader of this Griffith news article. You would likely come away from reading it with the idea in your head that Enbridge will be replanting all the trees they cut down– including the dozen or so they’re cutting down at that town park. Then later, when you are driving home and you see the enormous swath of denuded land that Enbridge has cut through your county and beyond, you might understandably think, “Well, that’s quite a lot of tree removal they’re doing, but at least they’re going to replant them.” At some other time, you might notice somewhere around town that Enbridge is taking down large quantities of trees on someone’s property– at which point you might reasonably say to yourself, “Wow, that would suck to see all the trees in your yard getting cut down. But at least Enbridge is going to replant them.” And as a result of all of this, you might well find yourself saying to someone during casual conversation at dinner, “Man, Enbridge sure has cut down a lot of trees around these parts. But while that’s a little unfortunate, I learned from the newspaper that they will be replanting all the trees they cut down. And that’s pretty neat. They sure are a respectful and responsible company. Let’s raise a toast to Enbridge!”

And that’s just how Jennifer Smith and Enbridge like it.

Unfortunately, all of those thoughts you’d be having and that positive impression you’d have based on your (quite reasonable) understanding of Jennifer Smith’s statement would be very, very wrong. You see, while Enbridge might very well be planting a dozen trees in that park in Griffith to replace the ones they’re cutting down, they absolutely will NOT be replanting new trees for every tree they cut down all around town and on people’s property. Despite the rosy, generous, responsible impression conveyed by Jennifer Smith’s blithe statement, that is not at all how their “neutral footprint program” works.

You see, it’s not really true that Enbridge plants a new tree for every tree the company removes. It certainly isn’t true when it comes to trees on individual properties; believe us, we’ve asked. Moreover, to the extent that Enbridge DOES replant trees to offset those that they remove, they don’t necessarily replant them in the same place where they took them down. Rather, the slightly misleadingly named “Tree for a Tree” program is really just a way to try and offset, in some general way, the depletion of resources as a result of some project as a whole. We are quite confident that nobody has been out counting the number of trees Enbridge has cut down along Line 6B and equally confident that nobody is then making sure the same number get planted as a result. Our best guess is that there is some general formula for this neutral footprint: X number of acres of forest were affected (which probably doesn’t include individual properties) so somewhere up in some Canadian wilderness (or who knows where), Enbridge pays to have that same X number of acres planted with some saplings– or something. But there is no real way to verify that that actually happens (if Enbridge plants a tree in the woods and no one is there to see it…). Nevertheless, Enbridge does pretend like they keep some sort of scrupulous count of trees; they keep a running tally on their website–which is itself a Category Three infraction: that number can’t possibly be verified!

Why does all this matter? Well, as always, we just think the truth matters– even though Enbridge and Jennifer Smith, it would appear, do not. But it also matters because there are lots of us along Line 6B who have been devastated by the loss of our trees and more than a little dismayed to learn that the Tree for a Tree program Jennifer Smith is so proud to tout in order to make Enbridge look so very neighborly does not actually apply to us. We have heard that there may well be some alternative tree replanting program that might well apply to us, but despite our numerous and repeated attempts over the course of several months to obtain some information about that program– phone calls, emails, follow up emails– we’ve gotten nowhere. If that somehow magically changes, we’ll let you know.