Since this post will cover some ground that we’ve covered before, we’ll try to be brief. We’re risking repeating ourselves because this really gets our goat:

Yesterday, we read an interesting column by Jerry Davich in the Post-Tribune up in Northwest Indiana. The column isn’t bad. In fact, in many ways, it’s quite good– better than most, we’d say. It’s well written, thoughtful, fair-minded, and even, from our point of view, appropriately skeptical of Enbridge rhetoric. Even better, it gives plenty of air time to Nicole Barker of Save the Dunes, an organization we very much admire. Nicole and her team have been doing excellent and important work down in Indiana. The whole state owes them tremendous gratitude.

So what’s the problem? Well, once again, it’s the frame. The implied narrative of the story as Davich tells it is that the Line 6B project just pits groups like Save the Dunes against Enbridge. It’s a story of environmentalists versus energy– a simple, clear, compelling, dualistic narrative.

And what’s Davich’s position? Well, he seems to have some sympathy with the enviros like Nicole Barker, but then he (cleverly) allows Barker and Robert Thompson, executive director of the Porter County Plan Commission, to state what he describes as his own “contrarian opinion on this slippery issue”:

“It’s been quite a ride dealing with this for the past two years, and seeing the pipeline come through my area in LaPorte County is still shocking each time I drive by,” [Barker] told me.

This is where Barker unknowingly hints at my contrarian opinion on this slippery issue after I repeatedly hear similar concerns or complaints from many residents.

“Then again,” Barker noted, “I am driving by and it’s my car and my usage of fuel that is contributing to this.”

“So while it’s easy to point fingers, it’s a reminder that Northwest Indiana needs to do a better job of designing communities around people rather than vehicles.”

Thompson echoed this pragmatic, look-in-the-mirror reality check.

“As long as people are going to use their autos and we demand or want lower gas and oil prices, we are going to have companies trying to service that demand,” said Thompson, who rides his bicycle to work to avoid paying for gas.

“This is my choice. But if people are going to have the demand for oil and gas, we are going to see projects such as Enbridge in the area.”

Now, it’s hard to see just what’s “contrarian” about the position stated by Thompson here and endorsed by Davich. Spend 30 seconds in the comments section of any internet article about oil or gas production and that position will invariably be one of the first ones you encounter. Far from being contrarian, it’s just about the most obvious opinion available.

Just how obvious, how un-contrarian is it? Well, it’s the very first thing that Enbridge says, all the time. We’ve heard it over and over and over, from Joe Martucci (remember him?), from Patrick Daniel, from Tom Hodge. In fact, there is almost nothing Enbridge loves more than this version of the Line 6B story because they know it’s a way of framing the story that works to their advantage. Every time. Just look: even environmentalists like Nicole Barker and Robert Thompson concede the point! Enbridge wins!

The problem is, as we’ve said before, that it’s a false choice and a lousy frame. For one thing, it’s a false choice because the idea that we would  suddenly run out of fuel for our cars if Enbridge didn’t get to build its new pipeline is ludicrous. But let’s set that one aside. It’s a lousy frame because it obscures a whole host of other very serious problems with the Line 6B project, many of which (unlike our dependence on fossil fuels) could actually be solved rather quickly: the weakness of federal and state regulatory oversight, the granting of eminent domain to foreign corporations and the erosion of individual property rights, the disregard for local authority and ordinances, the terrible mistreatment of landowners by a rich and powerful multinational corporation.

Just to be clear: we are as concerned about the environmental threats posed by tar sands oil production as anyone. But these are the other issues at stake in the Enbridge project and they can’t easily be fit into the simplistic enviro vs. energy narrative. In fact, you can be the most die-hard drill-baby-drill petroleum-guzzling Hummer-driving energy advocate in the world and still think that the company building the pipeline should have to behave itself and respect the states, municipalities, and private properties through which it passes. That is, you can be in favor of the pipeline project but critical of how Enbridge is going about completing it.