Another opinion on the utilization of this resource in California, which would require building terminals for it.
Another View: Choices other than LNG are cleaner and smarter
By Cameron Benson - Special to the Bee Published 12:00 am PST Sunday, November 19, 2006
The Bee's editorial endorsed liquefied natural gas importation and belittled LNG opponents as shortsighted. However, the editorial revealed a limited understanding of the impact of importing natural gas by relying on incomplete data. Given the grave importance of the decision for our state, readers deserve the rest of the story.
Allowing the construction of LNG terminals in California means choosing a monumental new commitment to foreign fossil fuel dependence, while rejecting the homegrown, renewable energy sources we need. Choosing LNG would also represent a huge step backward in California's fight against global warming. The elaborate process required to deliver natural gas from offshore Australia to California consumers would discharge between 23 million and 26 million tons of new greenhouse gas emissions annually -- about 5 percent of California's 1990 output, according to greenhouse gas emissions specialist Richard Heede, who conducted an analysis of BHP Billiton's Cabrillo Port proposal for the Environmental Defense Center. A 2005 Carnegie Mellon University study determined that use of imported natural gas for electricity generation emits carbon dioxide -- CO2 -- at levels approaching those of coal, the dirtiest of fossil fuels.
