On June 15 the Gloucester Daily Times ran a front-page story announcing Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney’s visit to assure local clammers, seafood dealers, representatives from fishing community organizations and local politicians that he is working to secure federal relief to cover the economic impacts of the recent red tide. The cost of the outbreak is estimated to run about $3 million per week. According to the Daily Times, Gov. Romney held the recent “series of weather conditions” responsible for “fuel[ing] the red tide outbreak.” Although there are different kinds of algal blooms (such as red tide) and many factors contribute to their outbreak, it’s widely recognized that global climate changes may be exacerbating the incidents. Greenhouse gas emissions—mostly from fossil fuel exploration, transportation, and consumption—are widely recognized as contributors to climate change. Coastal fishing communities are particularly vulnerable to impacts of climate change, as demonstrated by the recent red tide’s impact on the area’s fishermen and related shore businesses. Local restaurants have reported loss of business due to general concern about local seafood stemming from the red tide announcements. A smaller story running alongside the red tide article quotes Gov. Romney encouraging Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) proposals that could exacerbate global climate change and endanger the future of the very clammers he was there to support. Currently two proposals — one by Texas-based partners Duke Energy Corporation and Excelerate Energy LLC, the other by Neptune LNG LLC—to build transfer stations off the coast of Gloucester have been submitted. Neptune is owned by the Paris-based company Suez SA that operates the LNG facility in Everett, Massachusetts. The Everett facility was the first to be built in the U.S. during the 1970s LNG boom. A fossil fuel, LNG contributes greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, which leads to climate change, which is in turn widely recognized as a contributor to algal blooms such as red tide. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency says “since LNG is 100% methane”—a greenhouse gas—“it can contribute to climate change if accidentally released into the air.” Accidental releases of methane —called fugitive emissions—are common, according to Jim Vallette, research director for Institute for Policy Studies’ Sustainable Energy and Economies Network. “All in all, the total ecological costs of natural gas cancel out its relatively low CO2 emissions,” Vallette said. “Fugitive emissions of methane alone, which is more potent than CO2, are higher during extraction and transportation of natural gas. This makes it problematic for coastal communities. Also, offshore seismic activity associated with the extraction of natural gas has a direct impact on the marine environment.” Famous for its low carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, natural gas has been promoted as the alternative to oil in many uses. Extracted in its gaseous form, LNG is natural gas cooled to –260F° to enable transportation. Once at transfer stations, the fuel is reheated for its next phase of use. According to LNGwatch.com, as much as 30% of the LNG is used for transportation, cooling, and reheating the natural gas. Concerned about the health of oceans and their economies, fishing communities have often joined environmental groups to fight oil and gas exploration and transportation. Although LNG’s contribution to global warming is enough to create alliances between fishermen and environmental groups fighting the 48 proposals (see map at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/exist-prop-lng.pdf) currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), loss of access to fishing grounds makes the siting of these facilities doubly troubling for fishing communities. Citing security issues since September 11, 2001 energy regulators are considering getting LNG facilities away from shore and into offshore areas, often in fishing grounds. Current offshore proposals in Massachusetts call for transfer stations in an area approximately 13 miles off the coast of Gloucester known as Area 125 by fisheries managers and fished by many small-scale, day boats from the north shore of Boston. Gloucester is home to many of those small boat owners concerned about access to their fishing grounds if proposals for LNG facilities go forward. Joined by Massachusetts Lobstermen’s Association, Northeast Seafood Coalition, Gloucester Fishermen’s Wives Association and others, Gloucester’s Mayor John Bell has been a vocal opponent of LNG facilities, due to concerns for the city’s fishing economy. According to the Gloucester Daily Times stories cited earlier, Mayor Bell used Gov. Romney’s press conference on red tide relief for clammers to point out the economic impact of fishing ground closures, stating “the red tide closures are just a preview to what it would be like if two LNG facilities were built.” Concern about access to fishing grounds is rampant among coastal communities around North America facing LNG proposals. Serge Dedina is executive director of Wild Coast, an international conservation team dedicated to preserving endangered species and threatened coastal wild lands of the Californias. He said although proposals for LNG transfer stations in Baja California (some offshore), threaten extremely rich fishing grounds, local fishing communities have not been consulted. “The LNG facility will endanger the very rich lobster fishery and turn the Baja area into an industrial park, increasing ship traffic, oil spills and other threats to this pristine area,” Dedina said. Baja’s lobstermen have something in common with Maine’s as LNG proposals along the coast of Maine are threatening to displace the state’s most famous fishermen. “Siting LNG facilities causes a domino effect of conflict amongst fishermen who’ve traditionally fished in the area,” said Robin Alden, director of Penobscot East Resource Center and former commissioner of Maine’s Department of Marine Resources. According to Alden, displaced fishermen will either have to: move to other areas shifting problems elsewhere; get bigger boats or build more time and fuel into their fishing to cross the area covered by the transfer station (as well as any security zones certain to encompass the area) or, get out of fishing. “Displacement is not a trivial matter, particularly to small-scale fishermen,” says Alden. “All [ocean] bottom is not created equally, so it may not make sense for a lobsterman to fish where another gear is fishing.” Alden is particularly concerned displacement will mostly affect small-scale, day fishermen. Alden and others in Maine have been concerned about numerous proposals for LNG facilities there, including one in Passamaquady Bay (within the Passamaquady nation’s boundaries), bordering New Brunswick, Canada. Maria Recchia has been involved in the fight against the Passamaquady Bay proposal on behalf of the Center for Community-based Resource Management in New Brunswick. Recchia has been dealing with the LNG facility already in place in St. Johns Bay and believes if LNG is absolutely necessary, transfer facilities should be limited to the one in St. Johns instead of putting one in Passamaquady Bay where it affects native people’s rights to their fishing grounds, tourism in the area and destroys a pristine environment. “Our fishermen have to go an hour out of their way, each way, around the existing facility in St. Johns Bay,” Recchia said. “They are also being displaced as they’re about to lose one-third of their lobstering area.” Despite the impending displacement by the facility, the company has refused to compensate fishermen. “Imagine if you were suddenly told you couldn’t work where you did because someone wants to build their business nearby.” The coalition fighting the LNG proposals off Gloucester echoes Alden and Rechhia’s concerns, but their voices are often drowned by the mantra that the U.S. is running out of fuel. According to FERC, natural gas’s popularity as “the economic and environmental fuel of choice,” has increased demand for the fuel and LNG will bridge the gap between supply and demand. FERC estimates that 96% of the world’s natural gas resources are outside North America. As U.S. energy demands increase, imports of LNG are seen as the answer, but some are calling FERC’s numbers into question. Using California to prove their point, the Ratepayers for Affordable, Clean Energy (RACE) have been building a case against LNG sitings. RACE instead advocates for increases in renewable energy. Rory Cox of the San Francisco-based Pacific Environment and a member of RACE, finds the current push for LNG in that state “dubious.” ”We’ve found that there’s a mantra that ‘we’re running out of gas, have to do something fast or we’ll have rolling blackouts’—it’s like the sky is falling” said Cox. “But California’s demand for natural gas has reduced by 20% since 2000 and even if we needed it, the Department of Energy say we can increase our domestic production by 1% a year for 20 years and that’ll meet our demands. But that’s not even the right path. We need to invest in real alternative, renewable fuels.” Cox believes if California stayed with the targets for energy efficiency and moves to alternative fuels as laid out in their Energy Action plan adopted in 2003, the state won’t need LNG. Ironically, in Massachusetts alternative energy plans (such as wind farms, particularly offshore proposals) have met with great resistance. California’s actions, however, bear more weight than Massachusetts’s in the global energy game. “California is the largest energy market in the country and 10th in the world. In other words, from an energy market perspective, we are our own country. What happens here has crucial effects everywhere,” said Cox. “We need to fulfill what the ratepayers need, not what Chevron needs.” |
