Today is the Community Day of Action of the Week of Climate Action. Here are some things you can do to help stand up to dirty energy, to say Not In Anyone’s Backyard!:
- Call into Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick’s office (617-725-4005) with this message: “Thank you for signing the regional pact to reduce greenhouse gases from power plants, but you need to put your word in practice and stop the Chelsea Power Plant proposal of EMI (Energy Management, Inc.).”
- Visit www.energyjustice.net/actionalert to send an email and/or make a phone call to Xcel Energy’s CEO, Board of Directors and their Environmental Policy Director, asking them to take a leadership role in using conservation, efficiency and renewables, rather than building the Comanche 3 coal-fired power plant.
- Visit www.energyjustice.net/oil/nd/ to help raise crucial funds for an environmental justice struggle against a proposed oil refinery.
- Get 1 or 2 others to follow suit. Yeah friends!
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Thanks for these Mattie!
Here’s another action you can take, especially good if you are on the left coast of the US.
Telephone Call Regarding Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Developments in Coos Bay and along the Columbia River.
Call to: Oregon Governor Kulongoski: (503) 378–4582
Washington Governor Gregoire: (360) 902-4111
I am calling to urge you to express my opposition to LNG development along the Columbia River and in Coos Bay. You have indicated your support for reducing the Northwest’s contribution to global climate change, and you have strongly advocated developing renewable energy resources. LNG is a foreign fossil fuel that will displace renewable alternatives and seriously harm our coast and our river. Please take steps to ensure that LNG development in the Northwest does not occur, including directing state agencies to withhold permits for projects that are not in the public interest.
I have many specific concerns about LNG along the Columbia River and in Coos Bay, including (pick one or two):
• The LNG supply chain will emit significant amounts of greenhouse gases, much greater than that of domestic natural gas. LNG development represents a massive new commitment to foreign fossil fuels, and a huge future climate impact.
• LNG infrastructure is dangerous to communities, ecosystems, and will cause significant air and water pollution.
• LNG places our future energy reliability and cost at the whim of governments and social forces in Russia, Indonesia, Peru, and other foreign countries.
• As an LNG terminal will deliver huge volumes of natural gas, committed to utilities with long term contracts, LNG will likely undermine cleaner alternatives, like renewables and efficiency.
• The push for LNG is largely driven by the California energy market, yet the terminals are being proposed for Oregon as the industry has been met with strong community opposition in Northern California.
• Thousands of landowners in Oregon and Washington face losing use of their lands through eminent domain for a project that does not serve “public need and necessity” in the Pacific Northwest.
• There is no proven need for LNG, nor has there ever been a process by which to establish that need in Oregon or anywhere on the West Coast. The State can undertake an independent needs analysis and would likely determine that LNG is unneeded in the NW.
• LNG will likely result in increased utility bills for all West Coast utility customers, no matter where terminals are sited.
The Columbia River and/or Coos Bay deserve better than LNG. Please use all of your authority and influence as Governor to support renewable energy and to prevent the Northwest from committing itself, in a huge way, to destructive fossil fuels.
Background:
Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG): ENERGY FIRMS TARGET OREGON
Since late 2004, multiple energy companies have proposed large, controversial liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments along the Lower Columbia River and in Coos Bay. Liquefied natural gas (LNG) is super-cooled natural gas. Stored in its liquid state, natural gas (mostly methane) becomes extremely dense and can be shipped long distances. LNG typically comes from developing nations with little local demand and serious environmental and human rights issues, such as Nigeria, Peru, Indonesia, and Eastern Russia. Currently, five proposals exist to import huge quantities of LNG in Oregon, each of them generating concern among people who live, work, and recreate in their vicinity. Each import terminal will import more than 100 percent of Oregon’s natural gas use each year and more than 16 percent of California’s natural gas demand. Below is a brief update on the three most viable proposals (the other two appear to be dormant). Although all of the proposals are in Oregon, the Bradwood proposal, in particular, impacts Washington residents and the Columbia River very seriously. A project impacting the Lower Columbia, a bi-state resource, will necessarily involve Washington.
1. Bradwood Landing LNG (Northern Star Natural Gas). Bradwood, OR. Located 35 miles from the mouth of the Columbia, this is Oregon’s most fast-moving proposal. Northern Star Natural gas has filed its application with the regulatory agency, FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission), that controls most siting decisions. FLOW and many other citizen groups, environmental organizations, and concerned citizens have filed to be intervenors in the FERC process, reserving the right to appeal FERC decisions, if necessary. The project may ultimately result in multiple pipelines in Northern Oregon and SW Washington to deliver natural gas into pipelines feeding California.
2. Jordan Cove LNG (Fort Chicago and EPD, LLC). North Spit, Coos Bay, OR. The project, now majority owned by a Canadian energy company, Fort Chicago, is being pushed forward by the Port of Coos Bay whose commission is appointed by Gov. Kulongoski. The California connection is clear with this proposal, as its sendout pipeline will be partially owned by PG&E, a major CA utility. The pipeline, known as the “Pacific Connector”, covers 223 miles and will clearcut a 100’-wide right-of-way from North Bend to south of Klamath Falls. The pipeline is drawing severe opposition from inland communities, with the City of Canyonville recently adopting a resolution against the project.
3. Skipanon LNG LLC (Leucadia National, formerly Calpine Corp.). Warrenton, OR (near Astoria). This proposal on the Skipanon Peninsula at the mouth of the Columbia River has completed its local land use application. The lease for the LNG facility was recently sold to Leucadia National Corporation, an investment firm with no background in LNG.
Why We Oppose LNG:
All of the current LNG proposals are extremely problematic from a public safety, economic and environmental perspective. We are concerned with the environmental impacts implied by the heavy dredging needed to maintain safe passage for LNG tankers, habitat disturbance in sensitive waterways, and loss of public use and enjoyment of these areas. Additionally, in the cases of these large LNG developments, concerns for public safety constitute our paramount environmental reason for opposing the projects. Members of communities targeted for LNG development may be unknowingly or unwillingly subjected to risks associated with a possible accidental or intentional LNG spill and fire. Because the best available information indicates that LNG should be sited remotely from human populations and because all of the sites will bring LNG vessels close to local populations, we oppose the Oregon LNG proposals as being inconsistent with the public interest.
Furthermore, the measures necessary to lessen the risk to the public of LNG storage and traffic—particularly closing rivers and bays to non-LNG vessels and securing these areas—constitute an additional burden on residents and visitors. The economic benefits of LNG are minimal and short-term, and locally the impact of LNG will be negative on the economies of the Lower Columbia and Coos Bay. Our research indicates that, in these areas, introduction of LNG could create a high-risk, heavily secured area that will be unattractive to residents, tourists, and other business. Regardless of the nation’s alleged “need” for natural gas, LNG development is inequitable due to the disparity in costs and benefits for those who live near proposed sites versus the relatively remote end-users of the energy (primarily in California, a state that drives the Western natural gas market).
Indeed, the impacts of Oregon’s flirtation with LNG may extend far beyond our coastline and the Lower Columbia River. As with other types of fossil fuel development, many members of the source communities for LNG may not benefit from exporting this resource to Oregon. Oregonians, by accepting LNG development, will deepen the region’s dependence on fossil fuel resources that are often exploitatively extracted to the severe detriment of local people and environments that do not receive adequate protection. The LNG issue transcends NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard), as these projects not only impact Oregonians negatively, but they also support negative impacts that occur in distant, upstream locations in the LNG supply chain such as Indonesia, Russia, and Peru.
For More Information and to get involved, please contact Dan Serres, Energy Options and FLOW, 503-890-2441.
Links to more information: oregonwaters.org lngwatch.com columbiariverkeeper.org citizensagainstlng.googlepages.com columbiarivervision.org nolng.wahkiakum.info