Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
No Backroom Deal on LNG!
California is currently considering proposals to build coastal terminals to import liquefied natural gas (LNG) – an explosive fossil fuel – for the first time. LNG imports would handcuff our state to a new source of foreign fossil fuel at a time when we should be investing in a clean energy future.
But despite its massive implications, critical decisions about our state’s need for LNG and even where the terminals could go are being made in backroom deals by lawmakers under intense pressure from Big Energy lobbyists.
Senate Bill (SB) 426, "Informed Choices on LNG," would help solve this, and needs your support today. Please write your state senator and assembly member to urge them to vote for clean energy and a more transparent process for this critical issue!
LNG is natural gas that is super-cooled to a highly condensed form so that it can fit on tankers for transport across the ocean. LNG for California would likely come from the Russian Far East, Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest and Australian coral reefs. There are four proposals for LNG terminals in California and at least seven more in Mexico and Oregon that would potentially serve the California market.
LNG is a fossil fuel that contributes to global warming, threatens the environment and wildlife of our oceans and coastlines, and puts public safety at risk. Importing LNG would deepen our state's dependence on foreign fossil fuels at a time when it is imperative that we switch to renewable, carbon-free energy sources. And it would likely increase the cost of utility bills for California ratepayers.
Incredibly, there has been no statewide analysis of the need for LNG or how many terminals should be built, if any. There has been no examination by the state of how importing LNG would impact its laudable renewable energy and energy efficiency goals. Moreover, there is no process underway to evaluate the safety and environmental concerns of the LNG projects currently proposed for the state.
Senate Bill (SB) 426, "Informed Choices on LNG" (authored by Senator Joe Simitian and Assembly Member Fran Pavley), requires a coherent approach for determining the state's future energy needs and a structure for evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of proposed LNG terminals. These proposals have enormous consequences for all citizens in California, and this bill recognizes that it is unwise to allow a few politicians and Big Energy lobbyists to decide if these dangerous terminals should be located in our state.
Please send a message to your state representatives and ask them to pass SB 426 before this legislative session ends on August 31!
Senate Bill (SB) 426, "Informed Choices on LNG," would help solve this, and needs your support today. Please write your state senator and assembly member to urge them to vote for clean energy and a more transparent process for this critical issue!
LNG is natural gas that is super-cooled to a highly condensed form so that it can fit on tankers for transport across the ocean. LNG for California would likely come from the Russian Far East, Indonesia, the Amazon rainforest and Australian coral reefs. There are four proposals for LNG terminals in California and at least seven more in Mexico and Oregon that would potentially serve the California market.
LNG is a fossil fuel that contributes to global warming, threatens the environment and wildlife of our oceans and coastlines, and puts public safety at risk. Importing LNG would deepen our state's dependence on foreign fossil fuels at a time when it is imperative that we switch to renewable, carbon-free energy sources. And it would likely increase the cost of utility bills for California ratepayers.
Incredibly, there has been no statewide analysis of the need for LNG or how many terminals should be built, if any. There has been no examination by the state of how importing LNG would impact its laudable renewable energy and energy efficiency goals. Moreover, there is no process underway to evaluate the safety and environmental concerns of the LNG projects currently proposed for the state.
Senate Bill (SB) 426, "Informed Choices on LNG" (authored by Senator Joe Simitian and Assembly Member Fran Pavley), requires a coherent approach for determining the state's future energy needs and a structure for evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of proposed LNG terminals. These proposals have enormous consequences for all citizens in California, and this bill recognizes that it is unwise to allow a few politicians and Big Energy lobbyists to decide if these dangerous terminals should be located in our state.
Please send a message to your state representatives and ask them to pass SB 426 before this legislative session ends on August 31!
For more information:
http://actionnetwork.org/campaign/LNG
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
Wow. What a great article. I bet you even spent AT LEAST 20 minutes surfing the internet for information on LNG and it shows. Trust me, I know lots about it and I'm thinking I might need to start consulting you for future information. Can you believe that LNG is 'an explosive fossil fuel'? It just blows my mind - WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING? Maybe we should stick to a non-explosive fossil fuel like.......oil or gasoline.......sounds promising.
Maybe next time, do a little research....
Maybe next time, do a little research....
You are absolutely correct in the opinion that the U.S. is too dependent on fossil fuels, and that the world likewise is. Furthermore, there is no doubt that their consumption is a prime factor in Global Warming, no matter what any all-knowing "President" or other politician may tell you.
The way the real world works though is different.
If you want changes, forget politics: this is a waste of time because it involves people who don't know bona-fide scientific solutions. Why don't you take your passion for this issue and focus it on some research about LNG and how to more safely transport it for starters? To diversify energy sources is quite beneficial in general: instead of being held hostage to only crude oil, for example, it would be safer to have other options to choose from. Furthermore, the way the world's economy is structured, there is simply no quick and easy way to get rid of fossil fuels: they have been and always will play a major part for the foreseeable future. Better to spend time on developing more efficient engines, more effective means of public transportation, and other forms of innovation, then trying to stop the simple worldwide force of more demand for fossil fuels. I guarantee you'll fail if you do this.
Anyway, your concerns are on the right track; your methodology is askew.
The way the real world works though is different.
If you want changes, forget politics: this is a waste of time because it involves people who don't know bona-fide scientific solutions. Why don't you take your passion for this issue and focus it on some research about LNG and how to more safely transport it for starters? To diversify energy sources is quite beneficial in general: instead of being held hostage to only crude oil, for example, it would be safer to have other options to choose from. Furthermore, the way the world's economy is structured, there is simply no quick and easy way to get rid of fossil fuels: they have been and always will play a major part for the foreseeable future. Better to spend time on developing more efficient engines, more effective means of public transportation, and other forms of innovation, then trying to stop the simple worldwide force of more demand for fossil fuels. I guarantee you'll fail if you do this.
Anyway, your concerns are on the right track; your methodology is askew.
Hello - if you wanna fight lng in Cali,examine the economics. there is excess pipeline capacity coming in from the gulf of mexico where tons of terminals are being built. there is so much excess capacity ie 1.6bcfd that the public utilities comission of california has said they don't need lng. moreover, there is already a terminal being built in baja california by sempra which is bring in 1 bcfd. furthermore, the market for gas in california is actually declining! see the PUC's website. the four existing terminals in the US operate at less than half capacity, why would one in cali be different? forget the terminal......the real money is in the pipeline they are going to half to lay down to get the to the start of the gas pipeline distribution system. you can't just pump that much gas into the closest LDC pipe near the beach! who's getting rich off this scam? The aussies who want to build the terminal. Who pays? the ratepayers in california that will pay for the fixed demand charge on the pipeline and the terminal- just like the ratepayers are paying for expensive high empty pipeline ie Kern River Gas pipeline. So....if you don't want lng...follow the money and attack the economics.
I was in Humboldt county when they tried to bring LNG to Eureka. They told us that they would have HOMELAND SECURITY shut down our beaches at least once a month when these ships docked. We drove the LNG hucksters out of our community and you can drive them out of the state as well. We need more permanent solutions than just sucking down fossil fuels and an exponentially expanding rates. The polar ice caps are already melting 3 times faster than expected. How many more danger signals do we need before we realize the status quo will not do?
For more information:
http://treefunk.net/forum/
How can you believe that California doesn't need more energy? Look at the facts. California imports most of it's natural gas from the central U.S. and Canada. These sources are being depleted and declining in their ability to produce at about 10% per year because they are old fields. California is not an island -- it needs to realize that both energy and conservation is needed to replace this decline at the same time that population is growing. California's import mix needs LNG.
Besides, the state doesn't get to make the call -- this is an issue for the entire U.S. and congress has decreed that the Feds will have the final say. Don't waste money on studies that are moot.
Besides, the state doesn't get to make the call -- this is an issue for the entire U.S. and congress has decreed that the Feds will have the final say. Don't waste money on studies that are moot.
A whole new (old) way to live-that's waht we need-- without sucking every gas and liquid from every part of the earth just to fuel some suicidally decadent 'culture' and fulfill the short-sighted perverted dreams of greedy industry crooks.
Some of the people that commented above seem to think they have some informed... something, but their 'ideas' fit right into the corporate brainwash that justifies commodifying every living thing and purports to have some kind of 'sense' behind it. Meanwhile, we're all posioned, wars are waged, sacred sites are destroyed, the oceans are dying-- mostly so that some people in the U.S. can consume everything and anything (including lies) and call it "freedom."
Patty Berg's office, by the way, said that the bill for informed decisions about LNG is not going this year...
Some of the people that commented above seem to think they have some informed... something, but their 'ideas' fit right into the corporate brainwash that justifies commodifying every living thing and purports to have some kind of 'sense' behind it. Meanwhile, we're all posioned, wars are waged, sacred sites are destroyed, the oceans are dying-- mostly so that some people in the U.S. can consume everything and anything (including lies) and call it "freedom."
Patty Berg's office, by the way, said that the bill for informed decisions about LNG is not going this year...
Is it interesting how fake "conservatives" are for states rights until it threatens the corporate bottom line then SUDDENLY it's time to call in the jack booted Feddie thugs when local people actually work to defend their basic right to determine whether a business can operate in THEIR community. Of course everyone knows that corporate funded neo-cons are not actually conservative for they are the party of centralized government in support of the military industrial complex that would make Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and other populist revolutionaries turn in their grave. The point here is people power CAN drive these fossil fuel hucksters out of the state. We packed over a thousand people in the halls in Eureka during the LNG debates. Do the same in Sacramento and the LNG corporate blood suckers will flee.
Finally I'll close with a quote from Jefferson, yep a white male slave owner but he also knew what time it was regarding corporate influence over society early:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff135362.html
Ponder that for a good long while "founding father" lovin' corporate scum.
Finally I'll close with a quote from Jefferson, yep a white male slave owner but he also knew what time it was regarding corporate influence over society early:
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. "
http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff135362.html
Ponder that for a good long while "founding father" lovin' corporate scum.
For more information:
http://treefunk.net/forum/
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$190.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network