Sierra Club California LNG Decision

The Sierra Club's California-Nevada Regional Conservation Committee voted to oppose on and off shore LNG facilities or terminals being put along the California coast (March 14, 2004). The charge to make this decision was led by Bruce Manor of the Angeles Chapter Harbor Vision Task Force.

There are a number of good reasons to oppose the construction of the new LNG facilities:

LNG will become yet another fuel on which we will be dependent on foreign supplies, including from governments which oppose democracy or may be hostile to the United States. Reliance on fuel from unstable sources like this will increase the need for American military preparedness and the likelihood of military conflicts. It could also lead to unexpected price fluctuations.

Importing LNG will further hurt the American balance of trade by increasing our trade deficit.

We need to focus our resources on developing non-global warming, nonpolluting, renewable fuel resources using domestic suppliers. Rooftop solar is one example. Let's make California the "Solar State" and speed up and increase the state's solar energy goals. Let's do it with responsible domestic suppliers and domestic labor.

With the introduction of ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) fuels in California, LNG is no longer vital as a fuel to reduce toxic emissions. Ultra-low sulfur diesel used with particulate traps reduces particulate pollution—the most toxic component of diesel fuel—even more than LNG.

LNG is a global warming fuel. Global warming is a serious problem which has already resulted in costly weather changes. Continued global warming could lead to rapid climate change with enormous costs to humanity and wildlife. The possible effects are so severe that the Pentagon has done "what if" studies to explore the expected military conflicts that global warming could produce.

The large-scale size of LNG facilities proposed, whether on or off shore, pose significant hazards to people and the environment. LNG facilities should not be located near population centers, earth quake faults or environmentally sensitive areas. This, by itself, precludes almost all of the California on and off shore sites.

LNG transported in our ports is disruptive to other port operations because of security zones required around LNG super tankers. It poses an unfair safety risk to port workers who do not derive their income from its transport and to nearby residential and business neighborhoods.

The fossil fuel industry is heavily subsidized by the American taxpayer in the form of energy depletion credits and and by health costs incurred by Americans who breathe polluted air. In Southern California alone, the health costs from all air pollution sources are more than $1000 per household per year. Most of this cost comes from fossil fuels.

Though LNG will help reduce the health impact, neither LNG nor ULSD fuels still do not burn clean enough to bring the most impacted areas into compliance with clean air guidelines.

Like fossil fuels, LNG has a limited life expectancy. We are already at the point of diminishing return on many fossil fuels, and we might face fuels shortages before 2030. That's really soon, if you consider how long we've been using gasoline and diesel. Like diamonds, renewable fuels are forever. Economies based on renewable fuels will be more stable than others.

We should preserve rather than squander our fossil fuel stores, which includes natural gas. These materials have many other valuable uses than simply burning them up.

Harbor Vision Task Force Home Site Map
2005.03.22