May 18, 2006
Statement from Keely and Pierce regarding the BHP LNG Terminal proposal:
We are deeply gratified that Governor Schwarzenegger has taken to heart the concerns of thousands of residents, numerous national, state and local organizations as well as elected officials, and vetoed the BHP Billiton LNG Terminal proposal.
During the last year, as we worked closely with our community and public officials to stop the approval of BHP’s LNG terminal that was to be built off the coast of Oxnard and Malibu, we spoke with hundreds of people from diverse backgrounds. Not one of them told us that they wanted this LNG terminal built. What they did tell us was that California needed to find a better and cleaner way to meet its energy needs.
Through researching BHP’s LNG terminal proposal, we realized that Liquefied Natural Gas is an issue with far reaching, and long-lasting implications for the world we live in. What we do in CA and around the globe will not only affect our children and our children’s children, but generations to come. Given the information we now have about global warming and the compromised nature of our earth, we have a profound responsibility to use caution and tread thoughtfully.
We applaud our Governor’s efforts to reduce global warming and green house gas emissions by vetoing this project. Emerging scientific reports indicate that LNG may represent one step forward, but two steps backward in the fight against global warming.
Lt. Governor John Garamendi and State Controller John Chiang, along with 12 California Coastal Commissioners, demonstrated remarkable courage when they rejected the BHP Billiton LNG Terminal and their comments on record were telling. In sum, they refused to accept a project that would foul our air, degrade our ocean, endanger marine life, and generate greenhouse gases that would contribute to global warming. Equally significant, they called for a more coherent review process for pending LNG terminal proposals that are currently in line to receive approval. But most of all, both our Lt. Gov. and our State Controller asked a basic question: Does California need to build an LNG terminal to meet its energy needs? Their mutual conclusion was that the information they had before them was insufficient to make that decision and they urged the State to pass legislation that would require California to answer that very basic and critical question.
Our heartfelt thanks to all who worked to defeat this project.
- Keely and Pierce
Continue to PierceBrosnan.com >