Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently published an editorial in the Ventura County Star supporting the development of liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the West Coast. He has been called out over this by scores of West Coast environmentalists, including the Columbia River Riverkeepers (RFK Jr. is President of the Waterkeeper Alliance) and the Los Padres Chapter of the Sierra Club opposing the proposed facilities along the Columbia River and near Oxnard, CA respectively. Four days later, on Thursday, RFK Jr. gave a lecture at Whitman College, titled “Crimes Against Nature.” As one of the very first people to confront him about LNG in person after his article, I would like to give a little background on LNG and relay to you my interaction with this celebrity environmental lawyer.
LNG is essentially natural gas (methane) that has been cooled to -260° F so that it can be shipped over seas. It is then heated up again and burned to produce electricity. Much of the natural gas we use in the United States is from North America, so we do not have to waste the energy involved with LNG. In terms of greenhouse gas emissions, LNG is closer to coal than it is to even regular natural gas. The only reason you might want to use LNG is because it is slightly less polluting than coal, but it still is not a good solution for combating global warming.
Around the Pacific Rim, where the natural gas is extracted and exported, the natural gas industry has had immense impacts on the communities located near the extraction facilities. In Sakhalin Island, Russia, the facilities have nearly wiped out the fisheries that the indigenous people subsist on. In Peru, the pipeline to take the gas to the coast has cut through the Amazon, across the land of previously isolated indigenous people. These people were introduced to disease and degradation of their forests and rivers. In Indonesia drilling for natural gas resulted in a mudflow that has displaced over 10,000 people and will likely continue flowing for decades.
Almost all of the proposed LNG power plants along the West Coast are either situated in poor and minority communities or will send the pollution into those communities. LNG facilities have been opposed in Southern California and the Olympic Peninsula because the residents did not want the danger of the power plant or the pollution it would generate in their communities.
Not only does LNG not make sense from the international, humanitarian and environmental justice positions, it also does not make sense here in the West in terms of fighting climate change. Almost all of the electricity produced by the 5 proposed facilities along the Columbia River and the Oregon Coast would go directly to California. Demand for natural gas has declined 20% in the last five years in California, and the storage of North American natural gas is at an all time high. Hmm. Washington, Oregon and California have all made recent statewide commitments to increase the percentage of electricity produced by renewable sources. The development of LNG plants would increase regional GHG emissions, would take subsidies away from the development of more renewable energy and would be at least a 30 year commitment to using LNG.
According to the Richard Heede’s report on LNG and climate change, LNG emits up to 44 percent more carbon than North American natural gas. This brings its emissions close to “gassified coal” (IGCC) and burning oil for electricity generation, sources that LNG is supposed to replace. For climate change issues, we must consider the life-cycle emissions. To begin considering the carbon impacts once LNG arrives in the US ignores the obvious problem globally-circulating greenhouse gas and international environmental justice concerns.
RFK Jr.’s talk focused on the necessity of protecting our environment from corporate abuse, especially from the coal and oil industries. Given this context I find it hypocritical that he supports LNG. So during the question and answer session, I asked him how supporting the development of the LNG industry is any different and why he thinks it is necessary.
Juliana Williams: “I just wanted to ask you a question about the article you published on Sunday in the Ventura County Star about liquefied natural gas. In the West we don’t rely heavily on coal and the renewable energy industries have been booming and in fact demand for natural gas has decreased in California 20% since. Also with liquefied natural gas the extraction practices in places like Peru, Indonesia and Sakhalin Island in Russia are having extreme environmental degradation effects and impacts on indigenous cultures and lands. Also the proposed sites along the west coast are in poor communities and minority communities. So my question to you is: isn’t further development of the liquefied natural gas industry placing those external costs on the communities who are located where the facilities are, and isn’t that also a crime against nature?”
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.: “Well yeah, and there’s ways of harvesting gas that are sustai- and are anyway less damaging and mitigate those kind of damages and I ‘m for natural gas because it doesn’t produce– it produces only a tiny, tiny fraction of the carbon that coal and oil produces*. We need a bridge fuel; we can’t, we simply if you look at reality, we cannot go directly from our carbon based economy to renewables. From coal to wind. It just is not going to happen overnight. And natural gas is an important bridge fuel. It burns clean and it burns efficiently and it doesn’t produce– it produces hardly any CO2, so I think it’s a much better fuel for us than coal and it’s much less, and as injurious as it may be for its harvesting it is far less injurious than oil or particularly in harvesting coal. So it’s not the ideal choice, the ideal choice would be wind and solar but to me we have to be realistic that it’s an important bridge fuel. I didn’t endorse any particular plant. The plant that you’re–You know, that they’re concerned with down there is not in poor neighborhoods, it is in Malibu and Santa Monica. But I’m not endorsing that plant. I actually believe that plant has a lot of problems. All I said is that in concept liquefied natural gas can be an important part of a portfolio, an energy portfolio, that is looking towards sustainability and that’s all. And environmentalists are making a mistake if they just have a knee-jerk reaction against liquefied natural gas. And particularly since there’s a lot of different ways now to bring in the liquefied natural gas that are less damaging than some of the old technologies. (emphasis added)”
*This is completely inaccurate.
First LNG does not produce “a tiny, tiny fraction of the carbon that coal and oil produces.” (See asterisk). Next, we can’t go from coal to wind overnight, but let’s face it here in the West we don’t use a whole lot of coal; we use natural gas as the primary fossil fuel, and as I’ve already pointed out LNG produces far more emissions that North American natural gas. Then, RFK Jr. says that LNG is far less injurious for us than coal. For the United States as a whole maybe, but it would increase the pollution on the West Coast, and oh yeah, what about Russia, Indonesia and Peru? He completely ignores the environmental justice impacts of LNG and simply touts the line that coal is worse. As to the facility proposed near Malibu and Santa Monica? It is positioned such that most of the pollution would be carried to Oxnard and less wealthy and less politically influential communities.
Finally, he trivialized all the rational arguments that oppose LNG and said that I and other environmentalists are having “a knee-jerk reaction against liquefied natural gas.” Way to go RFK Jr. Your weak reasons for supporting LNG weren’t holding up so you had to resort insults. Way to undermine your credibility.
Following the lecture, I attended the by-invitation reception with RFK Jr., where I continued to press him about LNG. I again brought up the point that LNG exports the true cost of liquefied natural gas production onto the indigenous and local communities in the developing countries where the gas come from, specifically in Russia, Peru and Indonesia. He told me that the environmental standards in these countries are not as strict as they are in the United States, so we can’t be responsible for their extraction processes. The completely neglects the fact that if we import the gas that has caused this environmental injustice, we are complicit in allowing these practices to continue.
I switched to the point that we do not need and cannot afford to have this type of a commitment to additional fossil fuels in the West for the next 30 years and that development of LNG would be a step backwards. His response was that there are coal-fired power plants out there in this country that we will be committed to for the next 50 years. So? That doesn’t address the issue that we don’t want an additional 30-year commitment to fossil fuels if we can avoid it. Essentially his point was that liquefied natural gas is better than coal, so therefore it should be developed. RFK, you didn’t do your homework and your approach is too East Coast to apply to the West. He does not understand that while the East Coast needs to reduce its dependence on coal, the West Coast is already transitioning away from fossil fuels to renewable energy. We DO NOT need or want LNG.
—
As a follow up, at the 25th Annual Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (ELAW) held a the University of Oregon in Eugene, OR, Robert F Kennedy Jr. will be giving a key note address. Also speaking at ELAW will be Loretta Lynch and Dmitry Lisitsyn. Lynch chaired the California Public Utilities Commission under Gov. Gray Davis and Lisitsyn is from Sahkalin Island in Russia and is Board President of Sakhalin Environment Watch.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
I have a recording of the event, which I will put up here very soon, so that you all can hear RFK Jr’s response for yourselves.
RFK Jr. has taken some bizarre positions here out East as well. He has been a lead voice in opposing the Cape Wind project, a proposal for an off-shore wind farm off the coast of Cape Cod, MA. RFK has on several occasions repeated discredited arguments that Cape Wind will hurt the local ecosystem and economy. The wind farm proposal, which is supported by almost all credible enviros, is largely opposed by wealthy people on Cape Cod who would see the tiny outlines of wind turbines on the horizon from their beachfront homes. (Is it a mere coincidence that the Kennedy family owns property on Cape Cod?)
RFK’s misguided approaches are especially frustrating to me because I have seen the man at his most electrifying. When the Democratic National Convention came to Boston in the summer of 2004, I saw him address an audience at an environmental side-event and his address was so powerful I was nearly moved to tears! The man has a true passion for the environment, and he could put it to so much better use by arguing for truly sustainable options and not holding up progress on other fronts. So props, Juliana, for taking a stand. We have some LNG facilities proposed out East as well and I hope to follow your example and learn more about what they mean for us in New England and the Northeast. Keep up the good work!
Excellent post, Juliana -
I think that the RFK Jr. position on LNG exposes a growing rift in the environmental movement on some of these energy and environmental justice issues. The notion that we can use LNG to avoid damaging North Americans with coal development is absurd. LNG presents many of the same problems overseas as well as here on the West Coast, as you nailed down in your blog post. RFK’s attempt to frame this as a coal vs. LNG debate is outrageous. Fixing our coal and climate problem with LNG is like avoiding cancer by smoking 1.5 packs per day instead of 2.
The “vital bridge fuel” line, incidentally, comes straight from LNG industry propaganda. RFK Jr. myopically repeated industry logic and wants us to care about coal mining in Montana but not natural gas drilling in Russia, Indonesia, and elsewhere. Calling opposition to LNG “knee-jerk” is offensive, particularly considering the efforts that many LNG opponents (particularly in California) have made to use the LNG industry as a teaching tool to expose the global impacts of our fossil fuel addiction.
For people in the NW who want to learn more, the Public Interest Environmental Law Conference (ELAW) in Eugene will have two panels on LNG, one featuring Dmitry Lisitsyn, Loretta Lynch and others talking about “The Destructive Life Cycle of LNG”. These two are authorities on LNG, and will also be speaking in Portland on March 5 after ELAW. That will be at 7pm at the First Unitarian Church on SW 12th and Salmon. That event is free.
While RFK Jr. wants to paint this as an LNG vs. Coal decision, it’s really an LNG vs. renewables decision. It’s true that IGCC coal development is also on the table in the Northwest, with two large IGCC plants on the Columbia River seeking approval. Yet, both the coal and LNG proposals are very likely unnecessary even from a basic energy need perspective, a point that Loretta Lynch makes very well and that discredits RFK Jr.’s logic. Sadly, both the IGCC proposals and the LNG proposals benefit from a failure to integrate climate and domestic environmental concerns with knowledge and concern for upstream overseas impacts of the coal, oil, and gas industries.
Thank you for bringing this issue to light, Juliana!
LNG has become big since the Canadian/US supplies peaked. The interest in LNG is indicative of the same issues the US and the world already face with oil. Some folks never learn.
What an excellently pulled together article on the issues! This should be getting picked up by the mainstream press!
Excellent work, Juliana! You rock, my girl. GREAT article too
Excellent post, Juliana. Way to stick it to RFK Jr. with the tough questions. He has once again demonstrated his very superficial understanding of energy issues. While RFK Jr. may be an effective advocate at times for environmental causes (he’s certainly a well-known voice), he has been a pretty poor advocate for clean energy and climate change solutions. As Adi points out, he has been a main opponent of the Cape Wind project - which in and of it’s self is not a bad thing provided you base your objections on well-reasoned arguments (there are few left agains the project) and not on discredited arguments and knee-jerk NIMBYism, which seems to be the case with RFK Jr.
RFK is a well known personality and has taken a leadership position amongst the environmental community. His position affords him a relatively loud voice on these issues. Too bad he routinely opens his mouth without first understanding the issues he’s commenting on.
Cheers,
Jesse Jenkins
Portland, OR
http://watthead.blogspot.com
I live on the Columbia River twenty miles up river from the proposed LNG plant at Bradwood Landing. Putting LNG plants on the Lower Columbia River is crazy. There is port traffic and recreational boats on the river and people on the beaches that would be within the safety buffer zone. Does this mean everyone would be told to get off the beach or does it mean that safety will be ‘flexible’? Why should the public give up the way they use the river (not to mention high risks regarding safety) so that private companies can make bundles? I am a great admirer of RFK Jr. and find his thoughts on LNG to be shocking. He’s not a reed that bends whichever way the wind is blowing. He’s not afraid to stand up and speak from his heart. Columbia RiverKeepers are dead against proposed LNGs on the Lower Columbia River and are working hard to do whatever they can to stop them. I can’t believe RFK Jr would be pro LNG, it’s like saying St. Peter has a timeshare in Hell. I don’t think so. Caroline Wood
Interesting logic from Kennedy.
Malibu and Santa Monica are somehow, he says, entitled to less environmental protection than other parts of the United States?
First, the pipeline from BHP Billiton to Los Angeles goes sideways all the way up the coast from Malibu to Oxnard, where it comes ashore at the only place on the southern California coast where farmworkers live near the coast. Several mobile home farms that are occupied by field workers are right on top of the 30-inch pressurized pipeline.
BHP Billiton plans to give them smoke detectors and annual fire drills. Seriously - that;s their plan to mitigate high pressure gas under a trailer park. I hope they will include instructions in nahuatl and mayan - those hardworking people largely do not speak spanish.
But let’s take RFK2’s faulty logic to its logical conclusion: why are Santa Monica and Malibu singled out for exemption from the Clean Air Act, the Marina Mammals Protection Act, Endangered Specias Act, and all the other law violations that BHP Billiton propose? RFK said he is against BHP Billiuton? Or in favor?
Then, let’s take that one step further: if energy factories must be placed away from poor people, what about Hyannisport? Shouldn’t the wind farm that RFK2 rails against in the NY Times be supported by him, because only rich people live there?
Well written, researched and presented. Thanks Juliana!
Thank you Juliana for such an excellent and well-written article.
I was once a fan of RFK, Jr., but his stands on energy issues have made me ask many questions and wonder why he has taken such environmentally unfriendly stands of late.
For instance, NRDC is one of the finest and most effective of the environmental groups, yet I hear that NRDC has accepted a large amount of funding to promote IGCC. Personally, I am against mountaintop removal, and believe that we should completely get away from using coal. IGCC is not the answer to our energy problems, yet RFK, Jr. and NRDC seem to be fully embracing it as the answer to all our energy needs. NOT!
thank you, and please keep exposing the truth!
No new coal fired power plants! Close down the polluters!
No Nukes! Clean Energy through renewables and conservation is the answer.
Nice one! One minor correction: Loretta Lynch is not currently scheduled to speak at the E-Law conference. She will be speaking in Portland on March 5.
Great Job! Kennedy is a real disappointment to me. I had a post in November on The Huffington Post in which I asked Kennedy to help us here in Oxnard. Well, this is his response to my plea for help. If you want to know what I said to him check out Wait A minute Arnold on by blog.
Thanks again for putting him on the spot.
Mike de Martino
Oxnard CA
Thanks Rory for the correction. It slipped my mind that these two events are not in the same place.
RFK’s knowledge of LNG is nearly as deep as his understanding of autism. Or it could be the other way around.