Late last week, I wrote a column about the BHP Billiton proposed liquefied natural gas 
(LNG) facility that would be located 14 miles off of the Los Angeles/Ventura County coast (hereafter the proposed facility will be referred to as "Cabrillo Port"). Frankly, the issue caught my eye because of the high-profile enviro-actor-activists opposing the project, the Pierce Brosnan and Martin Sheen crowd. You know, the ones who are worth mega-millions and enjoy residing in lavish coastal estates? The same ones who feverishly work to prevent public access to the beach in front of their estates and ban others from having similar – or even more modest – homes themselves? I call them the “Hollywood Hypocrites”.
Anyway, the Cabrillo Port proposal has been described and debated in the papers and the blogosphere with increasing frequency the last few days as it is about to face three different hurdles to progress: a hearing of the State Lands Commission this Monday, the California Coastal Commission this Thursday, and ultimately the consideration of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.
THE NEED FOR ENERGY SOURCES
Reflecting on this "Battle of the Hollywood Stars”, it struck me that everyone who has been dealing with this issue should step back and look at it from the thirty-thousand foot view. The Cabrillo Port proposal is really an issue of the energy needs of a state with huge populous. I really couldn’t sum it up better than this excerpt from City-Data.com, a leading website that tracks population around the United States:
Perhaps what is most startling is the projected growth in California’s population over the next few decades and beyond. Guess what? All of these people are going to need basic necessities, one of which is power. Whether for their homes or their vehicles, everyone will need it. This isn’t a 
partisan issue. It’s a practical issue. It is about economics. If energy supply becomes scarce, the costs will increase. But Pierce Brosnan and Martin Sheen will always be able to afford gas for their many cars and power for their huge estates. They won’t feel the hurt of scarcity. Most Californians – even those from the less successful “starving actor” set – will be significantly impacted if, while the population grows, there is a large reduction of available energy. We’re already seeing that now.
Also, don’t forget the hidden energy tax, the energy cost component in all manufactured goods (i.e. what it costs to make and transport all of the goods we rely upon).
Back in the 70’s when there was a move to reduce dependence on oil, a lot of changes took place in the infrastructure of energy in this state. Those changes now allow for natural gas to power most things. Many in the latter day environmental movement were advocates of this shift away from a society exclusively dependent on oil.
Of course, today’s environmental movement is different. Today’s environmental movement is split between those that want us to completely shift to renewable energy and those who, frankly, would like to look to extreme social engineering and reduce population growth. Of course, as we know from the current debate, renewable energy sources come with a really, really big price tag for consumers.
Based on what I have read, it appears that California cannot produce enough LNG to even come close to meeting our energy needs. This is where a project like Cabrillo Port comes in. It is 
a means to bring in a necessary energy source for tens of millions of residents. The Cabrillo Port facility is important for our state’s future energy needs since it could provide 12-15% of California’s energy. What are the cost effective alternatives? More dependence on oil? Bring back coal? Assemblyman Chuck DeVore is proposing a return to the construction of nuclear power plants. Take your pick.
It really wasn’t that long ago that we were afflicted with power outages all over California as summer heat overloaded the state’s available resources. Just this week I received an offer in the mail from Southern California Edison offering me a cash prize if I would volunteer to be one of the first to have the power turned off if they have similar problems this summer. (If you have SCE, sign up here.)
The quest by the professional environmental extremist movement allied with the enviro-actor-activists really has displayed an amazing short-sightedness. Stopping the placement of the Cabrillo Port facility will end up hurting millions of Californians and will make our Golden State a much more difficult place to live.
THE ENVIRONUTS TURN ON ONE OF THEIR OWN
The agenda of environmental extremists seems to be to shut down any means of providing reasonably priced energy to California’s population, perhaps with the hope that if it costs too much to live in California, people will settle elsewhere. Hardly! Yet, you can see where they effectively killed a proposed LNG facility in Long Beach and another off of Baja California. As a matter of fact, you can be pretty certain that if this project wins the “triple crown”, approval by the Lands Commission, the Coastal Commission, and the Governor, the extremists will try to tie up construction of the facility in court for years, starting with fighting the environmental impact report. (I have these visions of Pierce Brosnan chained to the completed facility, gel in his perfect hair, refusing to move so workers can do their jobs.) Of course, every day the population of California grows and with it the energy needs of our residents…
While watching the news stories on the Cabrillo Point project, one story that really stuck out was the reaction of the enviro-wacko community to accomplished surfer and long time ocean-protection activist Glen Henning’s conclusion that any effects of Cabrillo Port would be negligible.
Apparently, from the environmental extremist point of view, Henning (pictured) has now jumped the shark and is no longer a credible spokesperson for environmental issues. This is ironic given that Henning has amassed an extensive 20-year history of fighting to protect the ocean. What was Henning’s crime? To quote from an article last week in the Ventura County Star:
Below is a video of Henning being interviewed. Listen to what he has to say about the opponents of this project and his disdain for their war of verbal extremism. (It’s actually a two part video, the second part is here.)
If you look in my original story, you will see I found some interesting background stories on the web about this situation. The most captivating of these was of the extensive research (here page 7 of the newsletter) conducted by Andy Caldwell, the Executive Director of a group called the Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business, on startling potential conflicts of interests of Coastal Commissioner Sara Wan (I talk more about her below). I also reference an outstanding column from FR friend Bill Whalen of the Hoover Institution with his overview of the situation.
Since my first column, a number of other articles and columns have appeared (all of them featured on our main news page on the appropriate day). John Howard over at the Capitol Weekly penned a general article. Matt Cunningham, the Editor of the Red County Family of Blogs, blasted the California Coastal Commission. The Ventura County Star has been running a stream of stories, like this one, following the action. Here’s a succinct update from the web-based Malibu Surfside News. Finally, the esteemed Bill Saracino penned an outstanding piece ‘outing’ Pierce Brosnan for being the bag of hot air that he truly is (check that out here).
A COMMISSIONER WITH A CONFLICT?
Since I first wrote on this topic, I have started to get a lot of interesting feedback from FR readers. Some of it’s been sent to my e-mail and some through the site’s anonymous tip page. As I have been sorting through the e-mails and notes, I have been doing some online research.
Of the items brought to my attention, the one I find the most alarming has to do with uber-enviro-nut Sara 
Wan (pictured to the left), who serves as a member of the California Coastal Commission. The commission is one of the entities that must approve this facility. Hardly shy about her own extreme environmental agenda, her biography on the official Coastal Commission website places her at the epicenter of the uber-environmentalist movement. When we read horror stories about people being unable to carry out even modest construction on their own property because of evidence of the possible migration pattern of an endangered rat, Sara Wan is the kind of person advocating for more anti-human bias (somehow the life of some extreme people, the value of the rodent is placed on a equal level with that of human beings). If she could have her way, the entire California coastline would undoubtedly be free of any signs of civilization.
I’m still doing fact checking on a bunch of outrageous stuff in Wan’s background, which includes a slew of apparent conflicts of interest that make me wonder how she can vote on anything as a Coastal Commissioner. You really have to question the wisdom of the State Senate leadership that put her on the commission. Her views are so skewed to one far extreme that it’s like David Duke has been to the United States Commission on Civil Rights!
Feel free to contact me if you have any more information on Sara Wan and I will try to piece together everything I have for FR readers.
In concluding this piece, it is my hope that the State Lands Use Commission on Monday, and the Coastal Commission later in the week, will be able to step back and understand the important role they have in rendering a balanced decision (to the extent that is possible with Sara Wan on the commission). If they approach their decision in a balanced way, considering the amazing demographic and energy challenges facing the Golden State, they would logically move this project forward. It’s simply that important to the future of California.
Care to read comments, or make your own about today’s Daily Commentary?
Just click here to go to the FR Weblog, where this Commentary has its own blog post, and where you can read and make comments.