Unfortunately, this common sense step for addressing our energy needs has been met with criticism from the environmentalist group Clean Ocean Action (COA). COA opposes the project on every level. In essence, there is no acceptance of a balance between environmental concerns and the need to produce the energy we need for our economy and our quality of life. Moreover, there is no acceptance that we need short-term answers (such as harvesting natural gas and oil off our shores) until long-term solutions (such as solar energy) become more feasible. This closed-mindedness is what renders environmental groups like COA extreme (not to mention somehow being to the left of the quite liberal Corzine).

COA’s primary criticisms of the project include claims of:

• Safety concerns
• Harm of the environment (the group claims we’d witness an increase in our carbon footprint of 40%)
• Significant damage to marine ecosystems
• Being a potential threat to coastal economies
• Increased dependence on foreign energy
• Increased energy costs through global price wars

However, in looking at the LNG website – as well as researching the Pickens Plan website – I find these criticisms to be either overstated, if not altogether inaccurate. For example:

• Safety is a top priority for LNG and all energy companies are subject to strict regulations in this area. The industry has a record of safety with no major accidents for some 45 years.
• LNG contends that impact on the ecosystem is minimal.
• Natural gas will gradually be replacing oil for our transportation energy needs and is a cleaner alternative to oil and coal. The Pickens Plan points out that the “Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach recently announced that 16,800 old diesel trucks will be replaced, and half of the new vehicles will run on alternatives such as natural gas.” Thus, turning to natural gas, and away from oil, actually is better for the environment.

With respect to COA’s economic arguments, their logic defies the laws of supply and demand. Earlier this year, when oil prices were skyrocketing and the push for drilling was intense, liberals and environmentalists also claimed that increasing supply would have little impact on price. However, these claims were debunked by numerous economists, including Harvard Professor Martin Feldstein and Kevin Hasset, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute.

Additionally, one would expect if America began harvesting more of its natural gas resources, not only would it steer us in the direction of energy independence, but it likely would allow us to potentially export this product and benefit our economy. Not to mention the project will also create jobs.

In sum, this shows just how the extreme environmentalist movement is harming America. The green movement eschews all common sense interim approaches to supplying the nation with its energy needs. Environmental concerns entirely trump economic concerns that affect the quality of life for all Americans.

For more on this, check out both the LNG and Pickens Plan websites.