Hissy Fit
It seems the flakes in California are at it again. The problem this time? A reasonable opinion stated in an essay. Part of the issue is whether natural gas should be considered for energy use, the other part is whether it should be in my backyard.
The second part takes place almost 14 miles off the coast where a company (BHP, but I don’t think it would matter who it was) wants to build a liquefied natural gas facility. Well, there’s trouble for sure. Californians like to consume a lot of energy but some of them don’t want it to be produced there. They certainly don’t want anything built off their precious coast (especially very high dollar communities like Malibu).
That’s old news really, the big flap now is that one individual endorsed another individual’s opinion that natural gas was a good intermediate step to more desirable energy sources. Since we can’t get the most desirable source yet why not do the best with what we have? That is, swap coal and oil for natural gas. I can’t quote the numbers but I believe it is well understood that natural gas has fewer emissions than either coal or oil. If you use a fuel cell for the gas you really have a winner. Is it that hard to think in terms of progression instead of instantaneous results?
The sad part of all this is the amount of peer pressure used to condemn individuals who cross the party line set by the greener-than-thou elite. If we wanted you to have an opinion we would have given you one.
In the essay, Kennedy said he supported Waiya for “his courageous consideration of offshore liquefied natural gas facilities near Ventura County.” Kennedy called natural gas an important “bridge” fuel — a transition to renewable energy such as “solar, wind, ethanol and hydrogen” — but he never endorsed Cabrillo Port.
Susan Jordan, director of the Coastal Protection Network environmental group, called Kennedy’s piece a “missed opportunity.”
“Instead of supporting LNG and Mati, he could have pointed out all the flaws of the project,” Jordan said. “That’s much more important to the communities of Oxnard and Malibu.”
Linda Krop, chief counsel of the Santa Barbara-based Environmental Defense Center, accused Kennedy of “backtracking” in the Malibu publication. “They’re definitely feeling the heat for that (essay),” said Krop, who has asked Kennedy to retract the opinion piece and clarify his position.
Feuds and infighting, however, dot the history of the environmental movement, said Huey Johnson, president of San Francisco-based Defense of Place, an environmental group.
The Waterkeeper Alliance represents 156 local groups, including Ventura County’s chapter, that monitor waterways and take legal action against polluters if necessary. The umbrella organization does not take a position on liquefied natural gas but asks chapters to formulate their own policies, Fleischli said.
Seriously, 156 local groups and what do they do - cat fights. Great. If you want to have an open discussion on energy you better not have it in Calicforina. They’d rather import their energy from other states than produce it. That’s why they were ripe for the picking when Enron came along.
- Posted in : Environment, In the News, Pictures
- Author :Rt
Comments»
There is a lot more going into this debate than just the LNG plant. Kennedy is against the Cape Wind project in his own backyard, but proposes an LNG plant (something with much more negative environmental impact) for someone else’s backyard? Seems that these groups have a right to dispute what is built in their area. I know nothing about the project so I can not say if it has merit.
What I do know is this smacks of hypocrisy on Kennedy’s part. He doesn’t want to look at a few wind turbines but suggest other people half way across the country get an LNG plant?
Are you certain this is the same Kennedy? I think this one lives in CA (that doesn’t mean he didn’t come out against Cape Wind, it just seems less likely).
Regardless, he didn’t say he was for the LNG plant. According to the article (I presume this reporter read the essay) “Kennedy called natural gas an important “bridge” fuel — a transition to renewable energy such as “solar, wind, ethanol and hydrogen” — but he never endorsed Cabrillo Port.”.
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who will not accecpt that some progress is better than none - LNG is better that coal or oil.
Yea its the same one, him and teddy, and the rest of the family have a big compound here. They are all against it because if they get drunk they might crash their private yacht into a turbine or two. Or maybe they think it will be ugly. More and more residents of this state are waking up to the blatant foolishness of the Kennedy family position on this issue.
I feel like natural gas is on its way out just as fast if not faster than oil, I would say since you have the technology why not skip the bridge fuel and go right to wind, solar, tidal, wave, etc.