Whenever the political left wants to inspire its troops, it never takes long before they reach back to the glory days of the 1960s for one of its favorite rallying cries: "By any means necessary."
Back then, the words meant grit, determination and a willingness to endeavor against difficult odds for causes such as racial equality. For today’s left – particularly environmentalists – "any means necessary" means something entirely different.
We can all think of examples of this kind of environmental ‘extremist’ – such as “tree spiking” — but there much more pervasive level in which environmental radicalism is running rampant – through the use of political action to deceive, delay, and “game the system” for their extreme ideological and political agenda.
**There is more – click the link**
March 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Jon, your work is really well researched here and you are to be commended.
However, opposition to these facilities is not just from the left wing. Coastal area Repubicans who call themselves “conservative” also opposed the idea of such a facility off San Clemente and Dana Point. Coastal Republicans get into “NIMBY” mode real quick when they think their expensive view properties might be threatened by environmental or “view” pollution.
There really isn’t an answer to the need for LNG unless we are to stop progress entirely. But one thought has been to place these fascilities as much as possible off the Mexican coast, where the business may be welcome and the implications are lessened by the smaller population to be affected.
In any event, thanks for your post.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
John, thank you for drawing additional attention to California energy issues. With the Electricity Crisis of 2001/02 now a dim memory for most Californians, it is too easy to forget how important, fragile and interdependent our energy has become.
Natural gas is the cleanest burning fossil fuel and California will consume more of it in the decades to come to heat its home, power its manufacturers, generate its electricity and cook its food. Experts know we do not have the pipeline capacity in the western US to meet our growing demands and are counting on liquid natural gas (LNG) to expand the supplies available from sources around the world.
Locating the facilities to receive the LNG should be a careful, but routine matter. While off-shore sites seem to make the most sense from a safety standpoint, even the Billiton Project is being challenged by NIMBY opponents. The best solution is actually the Sound Energy Solutions project in Long Beach Harbor that would make LNG available for transportation uses in a region that suffers from air quality problems caused by diesel trucks and trains.
Sadly there are also NIMBYs in Long Beach who are blocking this responsible solution to our energy and environmental challenges. Eventually the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission will need to step in to pre-empt these narrow interests and provide a solution that works for California and the rest of the nation. As we learned in the Electricity Crisis, our California’s energy system is too important to let politicians and interest groups mess it up.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
The proposed LNG plant IS in my backyard, and I am distressed by the misinformation and campaign of fear being waged on the area residents. I hope my neighbors look at this rationally. They fear gas pipelines, yet they have gas pipelines leading to their own kitchen appliances. When they travel, they often strap themselves into a flying fuel tank (I mean airplane) and shoot themselves into the air. Why then, the fear of an offshore LNG plant?
March 28th, 2007 at 12:00 am
Put the receiving facility next to San Onofre and other nuclear plants, what will Enviromentalist say then? “You are ruining the quality of life next to the nuclear plant!”