Stand up for Oregon. No Pipelines. No LNG. Call-in Days of Action! Wednesday August 12th and August 26th (All Day)August 7, 2015
Yesterday President Obama and EPA Administrator Gina McCarthy revealed the Clean Power Plan. As McCarthy put it, it was “an incredibly wicked cool moment.” But what does it mean?
In short, the plan aims to reduce carbon pollution nation wide by 32% by 2030 by putting limits on how much carbon can be put into the atmosphere by power plants. This is the first time such limits have ever been set, truly a “wicked cool moment.” But I’m sure you want more than the short of it.
To help answer the question I’ve compiled information from a few great articles and sources (all at the bottom) from the internet for you. If you have others you like feel free to post in the comments or tweet at us, @ORsierraclub:
The Plan will cut carbon pollution that is fueling Climate Change:
Power Plants are the largest emitters of carbon pollution in the United States. They total about one third of all the emissions we generate. When fully implemented in 2030 the Clean Power Plan will reduce our carbon pollution by 870 million tons. That’s 166 million cars or 70% of our passenger vehicles off the road.
It will protect our health:
By 2030, each year there will be 3600 fewer premature deaths, 90,000 asthma attacks, 1700 heart attacks, and 300,000 missed days of school and work. That’s because when we limit carbon emissions we are also limiting 318,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 282,000 tons of nitrogen dioxide. Both gases contribute to soot and smog that make people sick.
It will help protect low income communities and communities of color:
The impacts of burning dirty fuels are disproportionately felt by low income communities and communities of color. Van Jones put it best in his CNN piece about the Plan: “The clean power plan will massively help minorities and low-income Americans. After all, one in six black kids and one in nine Latino children has asthma. Seventy-eight percent of African-Americans live within 30 miles of a dirty, polluting coal plant. African-Americans are also more likely to live in coastal areas and die during heat waves.” You should read his entire blog linked in the notes.
It will save us money on our utility bills:
When you total up the health and climate related benefits of the Clean Power Plan we’re looking at upwards of $45 billion of savings when fully implemented. That’s a lot of money that could be going to a lot of other great causes and issues. Bottom line, by 2030 the average American household can expect save around $7 a month on their utility bills. That’s not chump change.
It puts our state in the driver’s seat:
The Clean Power Plan sets carbon pollution standards for power plants across the country, but sets individual state goals based on each state’s current energy mix and what unique opportunities exist in each state. To make is easy the EPA has even created a model rule that states can adopt that guarantees their compliance with the Plan. If they don’t like that plan they can cut carbon pollution anyway they want as long as they meet the goals. This mean big opportunities to be leaders for states like Oregon.
We’ve got a good start to build from in Oregon:
Its Oregon’s time shine. We are already doing some things to move the energy sector to a fossil fuel free future and are on our way to meeting our goals in the Clean Power Plan, but there is a great deal more that needs to be done.
Renewable energy production in Oregon has grown 159% since 2008 and Oregon has a renewable portfolio standard that require utilities to generate 25% of their electricity with renewable sources by 2025. Our only coal fired power plant is already scheduled to go offline. Many Oregon cities and counties have climate plans of their own. Our Low Carbon Fuel Standard will reduce carbon pollution from our transportation sector.
More to do:
Did you know that Oregon already has goals to reduce our carbon pollution 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Unfortunately those are just goals and aren’t enforceable in any sector. We could challenge the nation and lead by making these goals rules rather than aspirations. Leading this way will spur clean energy and efficiency development and create a center for innovation here in Oregon and the economic benefits that come with it.
Utilities are also looking to replace their coal fired energy production with natural gas fired power plants instead of clean renewable energy. We must move away from fossil fuels, not toward them. Gas is not clean and added are the impacts of fracking and methane releases from wells. Natural gas is not a long term solution. We need our utilities to be planning for a fossil fuel free future.
Multinational corporations are also hoping that Oregon and the Pacific Northwest will be a tap for dirty fuels on the global market. We need our elected officials and state agencies to stand up and say “no way.” We have to decide if we want to talk about climate leadership or really show what that leadership looks like. We can’t talk about reducing our own carbon pollution while allowing big oil, gas, and coal to ship their dirty fuels around the globe for others to burn.
It is equally important that as we begin to comply with the Clean Power Plan and take further climate action that our changes are not burdens to low income communities or communities of color. These communities disproportionately are impacted by the negative consequences of our current energy system, both from climate change and pollution. Our Climate Action Plan should serve as a means to lessen those impacts on those most in need of relief, not add to them. In addition the benefits of clean energy should be shared equally and not go to further these inequalities and benefit some more than others.
I fully applaud the President and Administrator McCarthy for their leadership and for producing the Clean Power Plan. I also call on our elected officials to not rest here, to continue to lead and push for further carbon reductions and an end to the fossil fuel era. I also call on you to make sure elected officials are accountable for their actions or lack of action when it comes to climate. As the President said yesterday in his announcement “If we don’t do it nobody will.”
By: Ted Gleichman
National and Oregon Sierra Club teams, as members of a vibrant coalition of many of Oregon’s most important environmental groups, have now assembled the latest climate science studies to answer one of the most important questions about liquefied natural gas (LNG):
We know that the proposed LNG terminals and pipelines in Oregon, and the fracking fields needed to serve them, would cause monumental environmental and economic damage.
But could burning North American natural gas in
Asia actually be good for the global climate?
Climate science now shows that both LNG export and natural gas production are climate killers – just like every other fossil fuel.
Click on the links below to read our one page science summary or the expanded eight page summary:
Gas is a Gangplank, Not a Bridge
Natural gas can no longer be considered a “bridge to the future.” As Sierra Club executive director Mike Brune puts it, “natural gas is not a bridge – it’s a gangplank.”
Despite the scientific findings to the contrary, the industry continues to claim that natural gas is actually “clean.” Industry advertising surrounds us, pitching the bright future with gas. Even many of us who have long known that no fossil fuel is actually clean – that all fossil fuels are dirty sources of carbon pollution – thought for a long time that natural gas was “the best of the worst” – the least dirty. But now we know that was a myth, and we must face the reality.
The Myth: “Now You’re Cookin’ With Gas!”
Here’s why this myth came to dominate our old understanding.
First, natural gas, post-refinery, is essentially pure methane. When you burn methane, it emits only carbon dioxide and water vapor. That’s why it’s reasonably safe to burn in your kitchen, and why we’ve felt good about it, personally.
Second, at the point of combustion, burning methane puts out only about half as much carbon dioxide as, say, burning coal. It’s still putting out dirty carbon pollution, but at a lower rate. That’s why we’ve felt good about it economically and politically.
But the key to this second point is “the point of combustion.” That turns out to be just a small piece of a global puzzle. It completely ignores the long, complex natural gas supply chain.
It’s like saying that milk is invented inside the supermarket in plastic jugs. Turns out there’s a history for supermarket milk, including grass, cows, pasteurization, trucks, fossil fuels for plastic-jug manufacturers, and so on.
The same thing applies to methane, and the key issue for the climate is methane leakage.
The Reality: Fugitive Methane Emissions are Deadly for the Planet
Methane leaks at every stage of the natural gas supply chain. It leaks at the well, during drilling and production, and wellhead leakage rates get worse as wells age and well casings decay and fail. Methane leaks in pipeline transmission from the well fields, in processing and refining at multiple steps along the way, and in pipeline distribution to consumers after it’s been refined.
Methane also leaks throughout the LNG process: during pipeline delivery from wellhead to terminal; during liquefaction, ocean transport, re-gasification, and redistributing by pipelines and tanker trucks in the destination country.
These fugitive methane emissions are critical factors in the overall life-cycle pollution of natural gas because, molecule for molecule, methane is MUCH more dangerous to the planet than carbon dioxide. Unburned methane is a much more potent heat-trapping greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assesses methane impact over a twenty-year period as having a global warming potential 86 times greater than carbon dioxide. Over a 100-year period, methane presents a global-warming effect 34 times that of carbon dioxide – still a massive imbalance, with dangerous ramifications.
Because methane is such a devastating greenhouse gas, even tiny leaks have an enormously destructive climate impact. Variations that may superficially seem small – say, from a rate of 1.5% spiking to 3% – drastically increase overall pollution.
As the new science shows, methane leakage is endemic, and so severe that natural gas production and LNG export are inherently deadly to the planet. They offer no advantage over other fossil fuels.
The LNG Export Assault on Oregon
We face two sets of massive LNG export terminals and the pipelines needed to feed them, aimed at the corners of our coast:
— Oregon LNG, Warrenton. For this $7 billion project, the pipeline would run 220 miles, from the Canadian border to Woodland, Washington, then under the Columbia River for one mile (!), and across Columbia and Clatsop counties. The industrial terminal, with its two twenty-story liquefaction tanks, would be built on dredged land, just inside the mouth of the Columbia, in Warrenton, on the Youngs Bay steelhead and salmon breeding grounds, across from Astoria.
— Jordan Cove, Coos Bay. For this project, another $7 billion, the pipeline would run 234 miles from Malin (near Klamath Falls), across Klamath, Jackson, Douglas and Coos counties, traversing more than 400 rivers, streams, and wetlands, and crossing the most rugged and dangerous part of the Coast range. The industrial terminal, with two 22-story liquefaction tanks, would be built on a Coos Bay sand spit.
Both projects would suck massive quantities of fracked gas out of the entire western half of North America. These methane exports would ship to Asia under 20-year contracts. Proponents cite two good reasons to build them: jobs, and helping the climate.
LNG Jobs are NOT “Good” Jobs
Now we know the climate claim is bogus. The jobs argument is false too. LNG jobs are not “good” jobs because LNG export is bad for the planet – as well as being bad for Oregon, environmentally and economically. No job that damages the climate, the environment, and the broader economy can be considered a good job.
What the Oregon Coast needs, instead of $14 Billion of fossil-fuels investment in the two destructive and dangerous LNG pipeline and terminal projects, is a two-fold alternative:
- Invest in Seismic and Tsunami Safety. First, we sit on the most dangerous earthquake and tsunami zone in North America, the Cascadia subduction zone. We are guaranteed to suffer a catastrophic break, the mirror image of the 2011 Tohoku-Fukashima fracture, at a minimum of Magnitude 8, and an eventual Magnitude 9. The odds of that massive earthquake, and the huge tsunami that will result, happening during the planned lifespan of the proposed LNG export projects are well over 50%.
- Invest in Decentralized Renewable Energy and Energy Reform. Second, we all know the climate requires the complete conversion away from fossil energy to sustainable renewable energy. And renewable energy is completely ready for prime time, technologically and economically. The only barriers to a sustainable energy economy are political: the destructive subsidized power of the fossil fuels companies.
Therefore, half this $14 Billion of investment needs to be channeled into seismic upgrades, earthquake-proof reconstruction, and relocation out of the tsunami zone. The other half needs to go for the development of decentralized, community-based renewable energy, with smart grids for resilience and a universal upgrading of efficiency and conservation in energy use.
This two-part jobs program is feasible. Financing for it can be structured. It would dwarf these LNG projects in short- and long-term jobs, and would provide a vital permanent contribution to our economic and environmental health.
We Need Genuine Good Jobs
We’ll talk in detail about jobs over the next few months. Genuine good jobs are vital; hundreds of thousands of people here in Oregon are still suffering from the 2008 Great Recession brought on by the megabanks. But LNG jobs are not “good” jobs: we can do better, and we must.
In the meantime, the climate science is clear: No longer can anyone say that LNG export is good for the planet.
# # #
Ted Gleichman has chaired the Beyond LNG Team of the Oregon Sierra Club since 2011, and served on the National Leadership Team of Sierra Club’s Beyond Natural Gas Campaign from 2012-14.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission opens paltry 30 day comment period to identify major impacts of Southern Oregon LNG export plans
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is giving you 30 days to provide input on what impacts to consider when exporting liquefied natural gas (LNG) from the United States to Asia.
The Jordan Cove LNG export/Pacific Connector pipeline proposal would build a 235-mile pipeline through southern Oregon, cutting through nearly 400 streams, clearcutting through 80 miles of public forests, and increasing domestic energy prices by exporting U.S. natural gas from a proposed terminal in Coos Bay.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is expected to be released this winter, but now, within the next 30 days, FERC wants to hear from the public on what issues to include in the DEIS.
30 days is not near enough time.
Natural gas companies envision U.S. LNG exports to China and other Asian nations from Oregon as a new way to capitalize on low-cost US natural gas made abundant by ‘fracking’ for gas in shale deposits in the Rocky Mountains. Fracking has come under intense scrutiny due to harms to water quality and the gas drilling boom it has created. Unfortunately, exporting this gas will only increase the amount of harmful fracking, build a damaging gas pipeline across Oregon, intensify climate change, and raise US energy prices.
Federal regulators should give the American public a reasonable amount of time to provide input on this precedent-setting proposal.
Please ask FERC to extend the public commenting time to at least 60 days. Please click here to send a quick email to Paul Friedman, the FERC representative for this project, and ask him to convey to the FERC commissioners that they should extend the comment time to at least 60 days.
More time is needed for this complicated and wide-reaching project that includes impacts to public forests, endangered fish and wildlife, climate change, family farms and forest owners, domestic gas prices for homes, businesses and manufacturers as well as the cumulative impacts of fracking more gas in the Rockies.
In early June, Governor Kitzhaber unveiled a draft 10-year energy plan for the state of Oregon. The plan focuses on strategies geared at ensuring that Oregon will meet significant greenhouse gas reduction goals and strengthen our economy by moving away from fossil fuels, like coal. The Governor is taking comments on the plan until July 31, and three public meetings are being held to take testimony.
If you can, please also attend one of the upcoming public meetings:
Wednesday, July 18th, 5:30pm-7:30pm
Oregon Institute of Technology (OIT), 3201 Campus Drive, College Union Auditorium,
Thursday, July 19th, 5:30pm-7:30pm; Location: Central Oregon Community College (COCC), 2600 NW College Way, Pioneer 201 Auditorium,
Friday, July 20th, 5:30-7:30pm
Location: Mt. Hood Community College (MHCC), 6000 SE Stark St., Visual Arts Theater (in back)
Key points to make in your public testimony and comments:
- The plan should require all Oregon utilities to make major gains in phasing out coal power between now and 2020.
- New energy needs over the next decade should be obtained with substantial increases in energy efficiency and conservation in homes, public buildings and commercial buildings; through the creation of ‘energy performance scores’ for buildings; and expansion of the Clean Energy Works weatherization program.
- The plan should increase ‘distributed energy’ like rooftop solar across the state, and should include a large-scale, state-wide ‘feed-in tariff’ program to allow homeowners, small businesses, farmers, houses of worship, and local governments to be paid a fair rate by utilities for producing clean energy.
- The plan should make Oregon’s greenhouse gas reduction goals legally binding to push all utilities to reduce coal use, and should also expand the state’s Renewable Portfolio Standard to obtain 33% of the state’s energy from new renewable sources by 2025.
- The plan should ensure that state and federal permits for the export of coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG) are not issued. If approved by state agencies, coal and LNG export could render irrelevant all of Oregon’s efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
In unveiling the draft 10-year energy plan, the Governor wrote:
Oregon has a track record of successfully pursuing clean energy policy, programs and practices to reduce energy use and promote renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. These public and private initiatives have made Oregon a national leader, but we continue to face a fundamental challenge –
that is, to develop a comprehensive energy strategy that meets the state’s carbon reduction, energy conservation and renewable energy goals and timetables, and that balances complex needs – including affordability and reliability – while enhancing Oregon’s economic objectives.
This 10-Year Energy Action Plan takes a practical approach to that challenge, focusing on specific initiatives that move the dial in the short term and can be scaled up over time. It is also an economic action plan, emphasizing priorities that can get Oregonians back to work on energy related projects in urban and rural communities across the state.
The Governor’s plan is an important opportunity to accelerate our region’s transition from a fossil fuel dependent energy and transportation system to a clean energy future. We encourage all Oregonians concerned about the growing harms from climate change and the need for urgency and decisive action to weigh in to help create a final plan that will result in decisive near term and long term actions.
And you can read both the plan and background materials here, as well as sign up for email updates.
We thank Governor Kitzhaber for bringing Oregonians together to focus on a 10-year energy plan for the state designed to significantly reduce reliance on fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas.
By Ted Gleichman, Chair
Oregon Chapter Anti-LNG Committee
Note: “Natural gas” may be the most effective rebranding in history. It is actually 100% methane (see “The Gory Details,” below), so here we call it by its name.
We’ve been working to prevent mega-ports for liquefied natural gas (LNG) on the Oregon Coast and in the Columbia estuary, and to stop the new pipelines necessary to feed them, for most of a decade. We’ve learned a lot, and this article tackles a few current FAQs.
So they don’t want to import it anymore?
Right. Until this year, LNG was sold officially as the right way to import methane, to increase domestic supplies and protect our fossil-fuel future. But that was only a marketing ploy. North America has the least-costly methane in the world. Prices in Asia are four- to six times as much; in Europe, they are triple. Import economics made no sense.
Anti-LNG activists, including Sierra Club leaders, pointed this out to federal, state, and local authorities years ago. In fact, we warned the Oregon Legislature about this in 2011, to no avail. The developers consistently denied this was their plan. Now, throughout the U.S., they have flipped formally to EXPORT, with hedge-fund financing to send methane overseas.
Why is import versus export important?
There are three big reasons. First, imported LNG was touted as a key fossil fuel for our entire society: to bolster our business-as-usual economy, to protect our way of life, and to enhance our energy security.
That sales pitch is distorted too. Regardless, though, none of that applies to export. Depleting our supplies by sending significant quantities overseas risks more job loss, economic stress, and energy problems. Estimates are that 20-40% of North American methane could be exported if the industry simply plays to foreign markets.
Which leads to the second major difference: Methane export will raise costs for all domestic users – from folks heating homes with methane furnaces and frying eggs on methane stoves, through manufacturers in all segments of our job-starved economy, to the chemical industry, where methane is a major feedstock. The U.S. Energy Information Administration recently estimated that if all of these export proposals come to pass, methane prices in the U.S. could increase by as much as 54%. A single plant in Louisiana is estimated to increase all U.S. prices by 10%.
We know that the oil market is a global market, affected only a tiny bit on the margins by domestic production and oil policy. (It turns out that the President doesn’t actually set gas prices at the pump, campaign rhetoric notwithstanding.)
So globalizing the methane market has been a key industry goal. But moving a gas across oceans is tougher than moving a fluid, and liquefying methane into LNG targets that problem. The move to export clarifies that the hearts-and-flowers about domestic energy security was just so much fluff.
In a globalized methane market, we will all pay more. Just as OPEC reaps windfall profits from oil geography, North America’s methane is targeted for windfall profits through LNG export.
Finally, much export methane would come from FRACKING. Hydro-fracturing of tight underground shale formations is exploding throughout North America, based on new and enhanced extraction technologies. There are more than 46,000 wells in Colorado alone. Severe damage to air, land, and water has been documented, and most fracking impacts are wholly or partially unknown (see “The Gory Details,” below).
As eco-leader Bill McKibben points out, no restaurant could dump toxic fumes, deadly fluids, and hazardous waste into the neighborhood, but that’s standard operating procedure within much of the hydrocarbon industry. The fracking specialists are among the very worst offenders, and human and ecosystem health are being dramatically damaged as a result.
Maybe some fracking can be safe; EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson says that’s possible. Others disagree; apparently the jury’s still out. While information leaks out and assessment evolves, I use “renegade fracking” for toxic industry practices.
So follow the windfall profits: LNG export would bring the money for renegade fracking, and renegade fracking fuels LNG export. They are two sides of the same coin, fused by money.
|The Gory Details:To liquefy methane for LNG, it must be cooled to -261° F, reducing its volume to 1/600th of normal to ship by tanker. This is energy- and carbon-intensive; LNG export terminals must have their own power plants, and LNG tankers burn significant amounts of fossil fuels to maintain that temperature. LNG is warmed and regasified at the destination port, to move by pipeline.Most hydrocarbons are found mixed together; hence the need for refineries. Methane is often found with oil, benzene, propane, other hydrocarbons, and miscellaneous chemical compounds; these are stripped out in refining to make it pure methane (CH4). When methane is burned, the primary byproduct (in addition to heat) is carbon dioxide. So, contrary to the industry-fueled myth that “natural gas” is a clean fuel, methane is a carbon-based fossil fuel and invariably contributes to global warming and climate change.The cleanliness myth is understandable (and marketable), however, for two reasons: First, unlike coal, tar sands, and oil, burning methane does not directly create toxic byproducts. You can burn small quantities in your kitchen at low risk. Second, when burned, it releases less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than coal and other hydrocarbons.
But methane itself is a potent greenhouse gas, contributing massively to climate disruption. For its first 20 years in the atmosphere, by volume, methane traps 75 times more heat than carbon dioxide. Within the general crisis of fossil fuels, methane that leaks or is vented from fracked wells is a major problem. Atmospheric leaks are epidemic, and significant in volume. Methane is not clean.
Hydro-fracturing (fracking) is the process of pumping high-pressure fluids into methane-rich shale formations, breaking the rock down so methane and other hydrocarbons will flow into wells for extraction. Formulas for fracking fluids – most of which are highly toxic – are secret under the 2005 Energy Act. More than 500 fracking compounds have been identified by independent activists. That federal law, structured by then-Vice President Richard Cheney, also removed EPA jurisdiction over fracking. States and local jurisdictions throughout the country are struggling with how to protect their people and ecosystems, since there is such minimal federal opportunity for leadership.
What about the pipelines?
Moving methane for LNG would require hundreds of miles of new high-pressure explosive pipelines. Developers want eminent-domain paths as wide as interstates, ripping through national and state forests, woodlands, farms, and vineyards.
These new pipelines are unnecessary (and in the wrong place) for any current or projected actual need; existing methane infrastructure is decent for that. These would only run from the existing major pipelines serving population centers to feed the new LNG export terminals.
What’s going on with the projects we’re trying to stop?
Glad you asked: there are two now, bookending the Oregon Coast.
Oregon LNG. In Northwestern Oregon, Oregon LNG recently came roaring back from apparent dormancy. They’ve restructured their effort to build in Warrenton, on the south bank of the Columbia River by Astoria. The Port of Astoria is leasing State-owned land there, and subletting it to Oregon LNG.
They have re-routed their pipeline to bypass Washington County, where many of the best-organized opponents are. Now, they want to dig from a major pipeline in Washington State, near Woodland. It would run 86 miles, tunneling under the Columbia, through Columbia and Clatsop Counties, and back to the river.
In Clatsop County, years of first-class political organizing helped to flip the County Commission to a strong anti-LNG majority. They revoked a prior decision authorizing the pipeline, and Oregon LNG sued over their right to do that. That case is currently in the Oregon Court of Appeals and will go on for months to come.
But Oregon LNG is pitching their refurbished plan to elected officials, labor leaders, and bureaucrats across the communities of interest. They are claiming a $6 billion project, with 2,000 construction jobs and 150 permanent jobs; they are getting strong support from some Building Trades union leaders. (They are focusing on export, of course, but claim they’ll establish import capability too, in case we ever need it.) Regardless of the Court of Appeals outcome, this will be a tough battle for the duration.
Jordan Cove. In Southwestern Oregon, this Coos Bay project has moved completely to export. So the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) ruled that export does not equal import, and revoked licenses for both the LNG import terminal and its pipeline. The Pacific Connector Pipeline would run 235 miles from the existing methane network near Klamath Falls, through Klamath, Jackson, Douglas, and Coos Counties.
This was good news; Jordan Cove must redo major parts of federal, state, and local approvals, including new environmental impact statements. However, FERC made a point of noting that they still see “the market” as determining facility need – not any independent analysis of the value to the people of the United States. So if a developer believes they can make money, they can get a site license and build.
Now, state and local issues are critically important. One is the decision by the Oregon Department of State Lands to authorize the Port of Coos Bay to dredge some 5.6 million cubic yards from the estuary to make room for LNG tankers (and coal tankers, another goal for the Port). This is the largest dredging project in an Oregon bay in history; one leader in Southern Oregon calculated that the dredging spoils would fill the Rose Bowl 16 times over.
Sierra Club’s national leaders have been vital, helping to assemble a coalition (and helping to pay for the legal team!) for a formal state appeal of this dredging permit.
Liquefaction Power. It takes a lot of juice to liquefy methane for ocean shipment. Jordan Cove has proposed a new 350-megawatt methane-fired power plant. Oregon LNG has not yet revealed their liquefaction energy plans.
What’s Sierra Club doing nationally now about methane?
Attention and determination have spiked upwards this year. Our Natural Gas Reform Campaign, which has focused heavily on fracking, has just been renamed the Beyond Natural Gas Campaign and added staffing.
Most critically to us, national Sierra Club leaders are serious about fighting LNG export. Our leadership knows it is irrevocably linked to fracking, and we are engaged in five legal battles against LNG export (including the Coos Bay dredging appeal) and tracking eight other project proposals (including Oregon LNG).
We can’t overstate the importance of having serious legal resources on our side. Industry money is unlimited, and our lawyers keep us in the institutional game. That’s been vital – although, in most cases, it is probably not enough to win all by itself.
So how do we win on LNG export and fracking?
Good question. I don’t think anybody knows yet. There’s a lot of good work going on, within Sierra Club and with our allies, on the various legal, technical, and political questions. We know grass-roots organizing will be vital to our success. As a Buddhist friend says, “More to be revealed!”
And here are two other key things we know:
- We need to end all use of fossil fuels. They’ve been pretty wonderful for us over the last 250 years, powering industrial society (along with horrific oil spills, mercury in our food, etc.) But their time has past: now, they are causing climate disruption that will extinguish civilization if it is not mitigated as quickly as possible. This slow-motion catastrophe shows up most vividly in extreme weather – and there is nothing slow about hurricanes, tornadoes, and forest fires. So we know we need an urgent transition to genuine clean renewable energy.
- And clean renewable energy is here, now, and ready for prime time. The technology works and the economics work. This is vital, because it’s not enough for Americans just to fight evil; we need simultaneously to promote the good. We can do that: it’s what the “Beyond” means in our campaign names.
Ending fossil fuels and developing clean renewable energy are bottom-line policies for Sierra Club, nationally and in Oregon. I’m confident we’ll come up with the right ways to stop LNG export and renegade fracking. So stay tuned: we’ll definitely be in touch!
Ted Gleichman, Chair, Oregon Chapter LNG Committee – 503-781-2498; email@example.com
Big coal companies are eying Oregon. With coal fired power plants closing across the Northwest and nation due to public demand for cleaner energy, big coal companies want to export the dirty fossil fuel to fast-growing countries in Asia were environmental standards are far lower than in the U.S.
In 2011, the Port of St. Helens along the Columbia River, and the Port of Coos Bay on the southern Oregon Coast, revealed they were in confidential negotiations with unnamed coal companies seeking to export tens of millions of tons of coal to Asia. The Ports have kept the plans secret for months.
But things have been heating up recently. In late December, the Oregon Department of State Lands approved a controversial dredging in north spit of Coos Bay necessary for huge ships that export coal and liquefied natural gas (LNG). On January 18, a coalition of conservation groups and local citizens appealed the decision, arguing that the dredging would cause significant harm to water quality in Coos Bay, and that environmental and public health impacts of exporting LNG and coal were never considered. Read the coalition press release.
Meanwhile, the Port of St. Helens has announced a public meeting to hear from two companies vying to build a coal export terminal on the Columbia River. This is in addition to a coal export terminal proposed for the Washington side of the river in Longview, and another in Bellingham, WA. Read the press release on St. Helens’ coal export plans.
The Sierra Club is fighting multiple coal export plans in the Pacific Northwest as well as plans to export LNG.