The best of EcoWatch, right in your inbox. Sign up for our email newsletter!
Feds Greenlight LNG Exports From Controversial Jordan Cove Project in Oregon
Though the decision was anticipated and remains conditional, the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) approval of the Jordan Cove liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal at Coos Bay, OR is already drawing the ire of environmental groups across the country.
The Jordan Cove project includes building an export terminal that would be supplied by the proposed 235-mile-long Pacific Connector pipeline, crossing public and private land in southern Oregon to connect to existing pipelines from British Columbia to California. The DOE says the project is subject to federal environmental and regulatory reviews, but organizations like the Sierra Club and Rouge Riverkeeper hope it doesn't get to that point.
The groups are publicly reminding citizens and legislators that the State of Oregon can reject the terminal and pipeline under laws like the Clean Water, Coastal Zone Management and Clean Air acts.
"Private property would be taken via eminent domain, rivers and streams would be harmed and forests would be clear-cut for the construction of a 235-mile pipeline to an export terminal in Coos Bay," Rouge Riverkeeper writes in a petition. "Southern Oregon deserves better and Governor Kitzhaber needs to hear from you."
Environmental groups say Oregon's coastal bays have long been the focus of foreign energy companies and federal entities here as a potential gas export gateway. They fear that final approval only encourage more fracking, which consistently compromises the health of people around the nation
“DOE did not attempt to address the myriad environmental issues with the project," Susan Jane Brown, a staff attorney with the Western Environmental Law Center, said in a Sierra Club statement. "We believe it is clear that the LNG terminal and pipeline will harm our natural resources and that the projects should not proceed.”
Wenonah Hauter, executive director of Food & Water Watch, believes the "dirty truth" is that accelerating exports will only encourage more fracking for more profit. Final approval of the $7.5 billion project would mean the U.S. can export gas to countries it does not have a free-trade agreement with, according to The Oregonian. The DOE has approved all seven export applications it has received and reviewed. Those include projects like Dominion Cove in Busby, MD and Freeport LNG, near Houston, TX.
“Fossil fuels should not be used as a geopolitical bargaining chip, nor should giant oil and gas corporations write our foreign policy," Hauter said. "That’s why earlier this month, over 200 organizations called on the Obama administration to reject fast tracking natural gas overseas. “The hypocrisy of the call for exports is highlighted by the fact that it will take years for our export facilities to be able to process the volumes of gas proposed for overseas sales.
"Ultimately, approving and building infrastructure is a lengthy, expensive process, and the limited oil and gas reserves available under U.S. soil will not support the money and energy needed to ship it overseas."
Nathan Matthews, a Sierra Club attorney, says that the environment and health of Oregonians would be sacrificed if the project gets final approval. An environmental impact statement from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission could come in April or May
"The economic study the DOE itself commissioned clearly states that LNG export will transfer wealth from wage earners to fossil fuel executives. LNG export is nothing by a giveaway to the dirty fuel industry, at the expense of everyday Americans.”
Visit EcoWatch’s FRACKING page for more related news on this topic.
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
Extreme weather events supercharged by climate change in 2012 led to nearly 1,000 more deaths, more than 20,000 additional hospitalizations, and cost the U.S. healthcare system $10 billion, a new report finds.
A Bay Area conservation group struck a deal to buy and to protect the world's largest remaining privately owned sequoia forest for $15.6 million. Now it needs to raise the money, according to CNN.
The Rugby World Cup starts Friday in Japan where Pacific Island teams from Samoa, Fiji and Tonga will face off against teams from industrialized nations. However, a new report from a UK-based NGO says that when the teams gather for the opening ceremony on Friday night and listen to the theme song "World In Union," the hypocrisy of climate injustice will take center stage.
By Wudan Yan
In June, New York Times journalist Andy Newman wrote an article titled, "If seeing the world helps ruin it, should we stay home?" In it, he raised the question of whether or not travel by plane, boat, or car—all of which contribute to climate change, rising sea levels, and melting glaciers—might pose a moral challenge to the responsibility that each of us has to not exacerbate the already catastrophic consequences of climate change. The premise of Newman's piece rests on his assertion that traveling "somewhere far away… is the biggest single action a private citizen can take to worsen climate change."
On Monday, Sept. 23, the Climate Group will kick off its 11th annual Climate Week NYC, a chance for governments, non-profits, businesses, communities and individuals to share possible solutions to the climate crisis while world leaders gather in the city for the UN Climate Action Summit.
By Pam Radtke Russell in New Orleans
Local TV weather forecasters have become foot soldiers in the war against climate misinformation. Over the past decade, a growing number of meteorologists and weathercasters have begun addressing the climate crisis either as part of their weather forecasts, or in separate, independent news reports to help their viewers understand what is happening and why it is important.