Friday, January 9, 2015

Different Year, Same Bad Idea

Speaking out against the LNG Port. Photo: Sane Energy

I'm re-posting this because the Port Ambrose LNG monstrosity is back like a recurring nightmare. Public hearings are being held in New York and New Jersey as we speak but the problems with the facility have not changed from the first meeting in July 2013. The line to speak against the facility snaked out the door at that meeting. It was a bad idea then and it's a bad idea now. 

If you cannot attend the most recent meetings, please post your comments online here. It takes only a few minutes.  Below are listed 11 reasons to oppose the project. 

July 2013

The first Ambrose Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Terminal public scoping hearing in Long Beach, NY was an eye opener not without some lively drama.

When I got off the train at Long Beach, appropriately, ocean breezes led the way.  The LNG Terminal intends to receive gas imports just off the coast.

There were so many people who wanted to speak and who spoke that the hearing went way over its scheduled time. The line to speak snaked out the door.

The good news is that only two speakers of easily fifty plus favored the terminal -- two guys who have one mindset: jobs.  Research expects the facility to generate only 6 jobs.

It's possible that all six of those guys were at this meeting.  At one point, one of them said, "Shut up all you tree huggers!" before he was succinctly drowned out by a chorus of those nefarious huggers of trees.

My list of three reasons to oppose the terminal quickly grew to eleven as speakers young and old made thoughtful and impassioned comments.

Eleven reasons to oppose this facility; a summation of many voices: 

1. I don't see how it could ever be good for healthy oceans.

2. It's more of the same old fossil fuel mindset. Support clean energy -- it's the future.

3. I don't want New Jersey's rejects.  No offense New Jersey, but this is the exact same project that was recently rejected by NJ Governor Christie.  Doesn't that smell fishy?

4. The public comment period is way too short.

5. There are no assurances that this will not switch to an export facility, which will greatly increase the desire to frack gas in New York.  This is a genuine concern because natural gas is abundant and cheap in the US and expensive elsewhere and switching to an export facility does not require extensive review.

6.  The impact on the nearby proposed wind turbine farm is unknown.

7. A highly explosive super pressurized gas facility just offshore -- seems like a viable homeland security issue.

8. What happens if there is another BP-like blowout?  Is that ridiculous "junk shot" in the plan?

9. It is a huge safety issue very close to many people and viable fisheries.

10. Has sea level rise even been considered, or the facility's ability to withstand the 30-plus foot waves recorded during Sandy?

11. The guy called me a tree hugger; hurt my feelings.

Take Action: 

Contact your state and city representatives.

For more information, see Sane Energy ProjectClean Ocean Action, Bayshore Watershed Council, and/or Surfrider to name a few great organizations who are all over this old-new bad idea.

No comments: