Report on the Southeast Supply Enhancement Project and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Project Overview

Williams Companies has proposed the Southeast Supply Enhancement Project (SSEP) to expand the Transco network of high-pressure methane gas pipelines. The project’s alignment with several key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) is a subject of significant concern.

• Proponent: Williams Companies
• Infrastructure: 42-inch diameter pipeline
• Capacity: 1.6 billion cubic feet of methane gas per day
• Construction Method: “Dry-ditch, open-cut” methods

Analysis of Impacts on Key Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The proposed SSEP presents direct challenges to the achievement of multiple SDGs, particularly those related to environmental protection, public health, and climate action.

1. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

   The project poses a direct and substantial threat to the availability of clean water resources.

   • The pipeline route is planned to cross 173 wetlands and streams.
   • Major drinking water sources for over one million North Carolina residents, including Jordan Lake, would be impacted.
   • The proposed construction methods increase the risk of contamination to these vital water bodies.

2. SDG 14: Life Below Water & SDG 15: Life on Land

   The SSEP threatens the integrity of critical aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.

   • Construction will compromise wetlands that serve as natural flood buffers and crucial habitats.
   • The operational history of the Transco network, which includes a high rate of environmental accidents and gas spills, indicates a significant risk of pollution events that would harm local ecosystems.

3. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being & SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   The project raises concerns for public health and the safety of communities along the proposed route.

   • The pipeline requires additional compressor stations, which are associated with the emission of noxious gases that degrade air quality.
   • The potential for water contamination presents a direct health risk to residents in Orange, Alamance, Chatham, Guilford, and Davidson counties.
   • Transco’s record of incidents involving fatalities and property damage raises questions about the project’s impact on community safety.

4. SDG 13: Climate Action

   The expansion of fossil fuel infrastructure is fundamentally at odds with global climate goals.

   • The project facilitates the transport of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, thereby contributing to climate change.
   • Investment in such projects diverts resources from the development of clean, renewable energy sources required to meet climate targets.

Stakeholder Response and Governance (SDG 16)

The project has faced opposition from local communities and government bodies, highlighting a conflict between corporate objectives and public welfare, a key concern of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Bipartisan resolutions opposing the pipeline have been passed in both Guilford and Davidson Counties.
• Elected officials have cited concerns for the safety and well-being of their constituents, particularly regarding access to clean air and water.
• Environmental advocacy groups, such as the Haw River Assembly, have provided data and analysis highlighting the project’s environmental risks.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The article raises concerns about public health due to potential air and water pollution. It mentions the “dubious ‘science’ that all people need clean water to drink and clean air to breathe” and notes that compressor stations “spew noxious gas,” directly linking the project to health risks.
• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire piece satirically argues against the need for clean water while highlighting a project that threatens it. It explicitly states the pipeline would be “impacting major drinking water sources for over one million North Carolinians,” including Jordan Lake, by crossing “173 wetlands and streams.”
• SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy: The article directly engages with this goal by sarcastically referring to the methane gas project as “affordable clean energy.” It critiques the “greenwashing” of a fossil fuel project, which is contrary to the goal’s aim of promoting genuinely clean and renewable energy sources.
• SDG 9: Industry, Innovation, and Infrastructure: The pipeline is a major infrastructure project. The article questions its quality, safety, and sustainability by pointing out the company’s poor record of “environmental accidents,” “fatalities,” and the use of less safe “dry-ditch, open-cut methods.”
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The project’s impact on communities is a key theme. The article mentions bipartisan resolutions against the pipeline from local counties concerned about the “safety and well-being of their constituents” and the negative effects on local air and water quality.
• SDG 13: Climate Action: The project involves a “high-pressure methane gas pipeline.” Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, and expanding such infrastructure runs counter to efforts to combat climate change.
• SDG 15: Life on Land: The article highlights the project’s direct impact on terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. It states the pipeline would “cross 173 wetlands and streams” and “‘temporarily compromise’ wetlands that provide natural buffer zones from flooding,” indicating a direct threat to these habitats.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Target 3.9: By 2030, substantially reduce the number of deaths and illnesses from hazardous chemicals and air, water and soil pollution and contamination. The article’s focus on threats to “clean water to drink and clean air to breathe” from “noxious gas” and potential water contamination directly relates to this target.
2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Target 6.1: By 2030, achieve universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water for all. The article highlights a direct threat to safe drinking water for “over one million North Carolinians.”
   • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution. The risk of “gas spills” and contamination from construction across streams threatens to degrade water quality.
   • Target 6.6: By 2020, protect and restore water-related ecosystems, including… wetlands, rivers… and lakes. The pipeline’s path across “173 wetlands and streams” and its impact on “Jordan Lake” directly contravenes this target.
3. SDG 7: Affordable and Clean Energy
   • Target 7.2: By 2030, increase substantially the share of renewable energy in the global energy mix. The article critiques the expansion of methane gas infrastructure, a fossil fuel, which works against increasing the share of renewables.
4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Target 11.5: By 2030, significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected… caused by disasters. The article points to the company’s record of “fatalities” and “disasters,” suggesting the new infrastructure poses a similar risk to communities.
   • Target 11.6: By 2030, reduce the adverse per capita environmental impact of cities, including by paying special attention to air quality. The mention of compressor stations that “dramatically effect air quality” is a direct link to this target.
5. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services, in particular… wetlands. The pipeline’s route through numerous wetlands directly threatens their conservation.
   • Target 15.5: Take urgent and significant action to reduce the degradation of natural habitats. The construction method (“dry-ditch, open-cut methods”) and the crossing of natural streams and wetlands represent a significant degradation of natural habitats.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being
   • Implied Indicator 3.9.1 (Mortality rate attributed to… ambient air pollution): The mention of compressor stations that “spew noxious gas” and “dramatically effect air quality” implies a risk that could be measured by this indicator.
   • Implied Indicator 3.9.2 (Mortality rate attributed to unsafe water): The threat to the drinking water of over one million people implies a risk to this indicator. The company’s history of “fatalities” also serves as a qualitative indicator of risk.
2. SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation
   • Implied Indicator 6.1.1 (Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services): The article suggests this proportion is at risk for “over one million North Carolinians” whose water sources would be impacted.
   • Implied Indicator 6.6.1 (Change in the extent of water-related ecosystems over time): The article provides a direct, quantifiable measure of impact: the pipeline will “cross 173 wetlands and streams,” which can be used to track the degradation of these ecosystems.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • Implied Indicator 11.5.1 (Number of deaths… and directly affected persons attributed to disasters): The article’s reference to the company’s record of “fatalities, cost per incident and gas spills per incident” serves as a historical, qualitative indicator of the potential for future disasters affecting communities.
4. SDG 15: Life on Land
   • Implied Indicator for Target 15.5 (Habitat Degradation): The number of wetlands and streams crossed (173) serves as a direct, quantifiable indicator of the extent of habitat degradation caused by the project.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: chapelboro.com