LNG and the Columbia: bad news
April 8th, 2008
Plans to approve land-use charges needed for a proposed liquefied natural gas plant on the Columbia River won approval this week from Clatsop County commissioners.
Incidentally, that ballot initiative idea that may get on Clatsop ballots probably won’t do much good. It would only prevent pipeline from less than a mile of land, and so it could be worked around.
Will Kulongoski get more aggressive, please? Come on buddy, use your powers. Connecticut’s governor is raising holy hell over FERC siting in his state. Why can’t you? Stop being such an annoyingly even-keeled and compromising politician. You’re reminding me of Obama.
Speaking of Obama… we can thank him and his Republican buddies for this LNG mess. Clinton and the entire Oregon Democratic delegation voted against giving FERC such siting powers. Obama voted with the Republicans.
Meanwhile, where are major environmental orgs like Portland Audubon and 1000 Friends on this issue? It’s one thing to put something on your Web site about it (well, Audubon actually has nothing on this issue at all); it’s another thing to actively get people engaged. I keep getting email about possible development of a golf course from these orgs, but, uh, isn’t this whole LNG pipeline and terminals thing far more important? Could it have something to do with the fact that Northwest Natural figures prominently for these organizations?
Related posts: Senate Bill 505 grants more "property rights" to Measure 37 claimants, The curious case of the Clackamas claimant, Measure 37 is back...



2 Comments Add your own
1. dhtuisgjkzdfghjksd | May 28th, 2008 at 11:01 am
the lng is gay
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed