Business: Environmental Activism

Steven Pearlstein
Washington Post Columnist
Wednesday, November 2, 2005 11:00 AM

Washington Post business columnist Steven Pearlstein was online to discuss today's column , an examination of environmentalists and their continued unwillingness to get behind liquefied natural gas projects.

A transcript follows.

About Pearlstein: Steven Pearlstein writes about business and the economy for The Washington Post. His journalism career includes editing roles at The Post and Inc. magazine. He was founding publisher and editor of The Boston Observer, a monthly journal of liberal opinion. He got his start in journalism reporting for two New Hampshire newspapers -- the Concord Monitor and the Foster's Daily Democrat. Pearlstein has also worked as a television news reporter and a congressional staffer.

His column archive is online here .

____________________

Hardin, MT: If the environmentalists do not like LNG, what is their solution?

Steven Pearlstein: Their solution is conservation and renewables, and if you ask them, they have the data that shows how easily it can all be done, without any substantial cost to the government or the economy or any significant curtailment of consumer choice. My question: If that were so, how come it hasn't happened. Are we all that irrational and ignorant of our own self-interest?

_______________________

Cove Point, MD: Trade-offs are necessary in any policy setting. You may want to talk to your WP Outdoor Sports reporter, Angus Phillips, regarding some of the trade-offs he has seen re: Cove Point LNG.

"Meantime, whether it's a Code Orange day or merely Code Yellow, fishermen will apparently have one less good place to go as another piece of the pie is carved out to protect Big Oil."

Cove Point Is About to Run Out of Gas

By Angus Phillips

Sunday, June 1, 2003; Page E03

washingtonpost.com: Cove Point Gas Plant Gets a Boost (October 30, 2005)

Steven Pearlstein: You know, one thing people like me have to admit is that the costs and benefits of adding energy infrastructure tend to be very asymetric. For the people living nearby, or who like to fish nearby, the losses are real, concentrated and significant, while the gains are spread out among every consumer of energy in the relevant market, who barely know that they benefit or by how much. So that's why the politics tends to favor the antis, and why real leaders are necessary to speak up for the unknowing majority who benefit.

_______________________

Maryland: It seems like environmentals won't be happy until humans have died off (from the cold?)and trees and animals retake the planet. Do environmentalists have families to feed and homes to heat?

Steven Pearlstein: They used to like the idea of eating brown rice and vegetables by the wood stove. Now, I guess, the wood stove is environmentally incorrect.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: You are brave to take on what has become a dominant and uncompromising political lobby: the national environmental establishment. NIMBYism and lack of realism on energy has hurt our economy and threatens to do more harm. What can be done to ensure a more flexible, more plentiful energy supply in the future?

Steven Pearlstein: One of the problems is that the environmental movement is not a monolith. There are lots of different groups with different priorities, which is why making a grand bargain is very hard. The people who care about climate change, for example, might be willing to trade oil drilling in Alaska for better auto mileage standards, but the wildlife types wouldn't hear of it. Because of this, as well as the varying levels of self-righteousness and extremism between and within organizations, its hard to develop an overall environmental position. Obviously, the business community has similar problems. But somehow the Republicans, who carry most of the water for business interests, manage to sort that out better than the Dems do for environmentalists. I mean, what does it say to you that the environmental community was luke warm about Al Gore in 2000? These are people with no feet on the ground.

_______________________

Parkville, MD: Mr. Pearlstein:

In you article you write that environmentalists would like to build a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to the lower 48, but that "the pipeline would require a $20 billion investment that even Big Oil is unwilling to make."

Well, I seem to recall that the U.S. government has invested upwards of $200 billion of the American people's dollars in the president's current "Iraqi Beautification Project." If the government's willing to throw that much money away on military adventurism overseas, then I think the American people would forgive W if he tossed a few of those dollars our way, too, especially if it had a positive effect on our home heating bill sometime down the road. Or is there a rule in Senate appropriations procedures that specifically prohibits the government from spending money in Alaska for useful projects that serve more than 50 people at a time?

(p.s. I also recall that Big Oil is -a) awash in profits from the recent oil price spikes, and -b)recently got huge tax concessions from a business-friendly Republican Congress. Maybe it's time they returned some of that love?)

Steven Pearlstein: The Alaskan gas pipeline idea has been around since the Carter administration, when Congress and the Canadian Parliament both passed authorizing legislation which,in the eyes of some, makes this project already pre-approved. Back then it would have cost a couple of billion. I can't myself figure out whether the oil giants are holding back now because they truly fear a steep drop in gas prices, or because if they hold out longer, they can forced the government to provide more guarantees, tax breaks and other subsidies. The industry's preferred solution at this point is to run the gas along the existing oil pipeline to the south Alaskan coast, liquify it, and ship it to California, which they say is more economical. As for the pipeline, at this point, I have no problem with the government assuming some of the risk, as long as it gets to enjoy some of the upside if things turn out well.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: Thanks for taking my question/comment.

Do you find it interesting that as the Post's Business Columnist you are commenting on the stance of environmental organizations?

Regarding your comment about the need "to recapture the political center:" as that center, at least in this country, seems to continue to move to the theoretical Right, an environmental organization should -not- engage in "trade-offs and compromises". In fact, a better solution would be for those organizations to better understand the politics and "business" of business (and "the economy") and deal with the policy-makers in their own terms while forcing "the center" back to the Left. Today's policy-makers seem too tied to (reliant on?) their beliefs and increasingly unwilling to change those "beliefs". Any organization's attempts to change those beliefs would prove futile in today's political environment. In fact, until the environmental organizations begin stressing the interrelationships of business, the economy, the environment, and sustainment of our "way of life" and making that their impetus for policy change (and working with other like-minded groups), we will continue to diverge into the split personality and reactionary world you write about.

Thanks, Robert

Steven Pearlstein: For some reason, even some of the more realistic and successful people in the environmental movement just hate the idea of tradeoffs or logrolling. It just offends them, morally I guess. Frankly, I don't get it. If I can get the thing I most want, by giving in on something the other side most wants (but isn't the thing I hate the most), why not make a deal -- particularly if you can structure it to mitigate some of the worst effects of the thing you oppose. But instead, the enviros cling to the belief that if the media would just do its job, the public would see how right they are and rise up and elect the right people to do the right thing. This is always the stance of people who are out of power, which in the current instance describes the environmental movement to a tee. Not only do they have no friends in the White House and among the majority party in Congress, but even the federal appeals courts have turned badly against them. You might think they'd take this opportunity to prioritize and try to use what political capital and sway they have to win a few victories. But they insist there are no victories to win with this evil crowd, and the best strategy is just to oppose, denouce, ridicule and wait for a change in the political winds.

_______________________

Arnold, Maryland: I am Mary P. Marsh, president of Maryland Conservation Council and signatory to the conservation easement on the Cove Point LNG property in Lusby, Maryland.

We have been fortunate to work with local energy companies (Columbia Natural Gas, Williams and Dominion Cove Point LNG) when addressing important issues on the expansion of the Cove Point LNG facility. One difference with Cove Point and the other problematic sites has been the type of companies seeking to build the terminals. Large oil companies tend to have this attitude that they can roll over local concerns and will not make the early effort to meet AND change the project (or even drop) to meet the needs of the local community. MCC tried to require the inclusion of environmental participation early in the prefiling process for LNG projects in the FERC rulemaking process recently.

LNG facilites are site specific. Each site has different needs and concerns. The process for siting a LNG importation terminal needs to address any inadequacies during the planning stage such as public safety, resource protection and it needs to require bad siting choices to be rejected EARLY when the investment is minimal.

Citizens have real concerns and need to be able to utilize the NEPA process to ensure that there are adequate buffers, that security concerns are addressed, and that the risk to our environment (wildlife, open spaces) is minimized. In some cases there have been bad choices in siting some LNG facilities:

1.Heavily populated areas (Everett and Weaver's Cove in Boston),

2.Busy seaports that require shipping channel closure for LNG transports (Long Beach in California), and

3.Environmental risks at rocky shorelines, sensitive natural areas and fishing regions (Harpswell in Maine).

In addition there are specific processes (using seawater) in the LNG gasification process that are harmful to local fisheries.

In 2004 the Cove Point LNG facility with requirements to protect the environment and public safety imported 1/3 of all LNG coming into the United States. Cove Point is an example of how we can meet the nation's energy needs while protecting the environment and public safety, BUT the it requires the LNG companies to come to the table early with an open mind, willing to work out the problems.

Steven Pearlstein: That's a very useful explanation of how things can and should work, Mary. And to support that process, there are actually government officials, civil servants, that understand all that and try very hard to protect the public interest, in its broadest sense. But if environmentalists enter into these things with the idea that every LNG terminal is a "time bomb", a sitting duck target for terrorists, an environmental nightmare, you can't really have a discussion about how to minimize the downside from a project that would help meet our energy needs.

_______________________

Arlington, Va.: You say the "enviros" are both in danger of becoming even more irrelevant and yet are all powerful in stopping projects. The government and corporate interests are the ones running the show. If they are rushing to build cleaner plants, which benefits us all, how is that causing a supply/demand problem? And, when it comes to the consumer being irrational, look at the number of SUVs.

Steven Pearlstein: Enviros are not all powerful in stopping projects. As I said, several have already been licensed, in most cases over their objections. But here is a real opportunity for the enviros to make a grand bargain: we'll not only not oppose LNG projects that meet reasonable environmental criteria, we'll actually come out and support them. And offer that in exchange for something you want the support of the public utilities and energy companies. What would be so bad about that?

_______________________

Maryland: Are you aware of any credible, comprehensive reports on LNG's history relative to the issues often cited by those who oppose (or support, for that matter) LNG siting plans? Issues like environmental impacts, safety, and the like? We've heard the arguments on both sides but I've yet to see reference to any reports that give a solid factual background on the key issues.

Steven Pearlstein: There are all sorts of reports, and I can't claim to have read very many of them. What I do know is that we've had six of these facilities operating in this country for years with, as far as I know, no serious environmental damage or harm to nearby residents. Yes, I believe one person was killed in an explosion somewhere (it may not have been in this country). But perfection shouldn't be the standard here. And yet that is often the standard -- no harm, no risk-- that environemental opponents use to scare the public away from these types of projects.

_______________________

Richmond, Va.: Please, enough with the "they" when referring to environmentalists as though we all think alike. Just like industrialists or developers or republicans or democrats there are a variety of views on all of these issues. Your generalizations add little to the debate and give the simple minded the ability to engage in us versus them conflicts rather than reasoned debate on complex issues.

Steven Pearlstein: I've already acknowledged that this morning. But some generalizations are appropriate in virtually all public policy debates. And one generalization I would make is that refusal to engage in reasoned debate on complex issues is a charge that sticks to environmental opponents in many of these energy infrastructure projects.

_______________________

Falls Church, Va.: Just a simple question. What qualifications do you have to address the natural gas issues from environmental point of view. Please be specific.

Steven Pearlstein: None, as I think you mean qualifications. But then no newspaper columnist has qualification to give his or her opinion about any subject.

_______________________

Denver, CO: why do you portray environmentalists as brown-rice eating, veggie loving extremists? Can't you and your readers realize that there are as many different types of environmentalists as there are Republicans? I proudly call myself an environmentalist because I care about the land, water, and air FOR HUMAN USE, as well as wildlife. We can't spoil our own nest, people. Time to wake up and realize what's good for the planet is good for humans, good for business, good for everyone!

Steven Pearlstein: No disagreement here on any of that. I think of myself as an environmentalist as well. And there are lots of things energy companies do or want to do that I think are just too risky or too damaging. But in this case, I think adding some LNG terminals is a good thing, including for the environment. And it would be better if the environmental movement were engaged in the process of helping to site them in the best places, rather than joining the NIMBYs to oppose virtually all of those that have been proposed.

_______________________

Taos, New Mexico: The USA, other countries, and the global natural gas industry are rapidly developing a massive LNG infrastructure that now includes 60 existing, proposed or potential LNG terminals on the North American continent (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2005a, 2005b, 2005c; The Center for LNG, 2005). This effort includes a tanker fleet and export and import terminals to transport gas in much the same way the oil industry currently moves oil around the globe.

This infrastructure is intended to meet several decades of future USA demands.

Siting of LNG facilities must consider multiple impacts on the environment, public health, economic, social and cultural aspects of the area influenced by the facilities, and the impacts of the infrastructure components necessary to support the LNG facility, among other factors.

LNG facilities in many places can be collocated in existing industrial areas, and with existing ports and petroleum facilities, such as offshore oil platforms. Nonetheless, there will be demands to build new facilities in environments where existing port and petroleum infrastructure is limited or absent. In these cases, some sites will be inappropriate for LNG development when balanced against a suite of other values of the site. For each site, there needs to be special attention to disruptions of local culture as well as a suite of other potential environmental impacts to determine whether LNG development will be viable.

Construction and operation of LNG facilities could result in extensive negative impacts to the offshore and onshore environment; devaluation of land use and property values in a large area around the facility, as well as in the areas impacted by the infrastructure requirements needed to support the facility; degradation of the quality of life of community members in the impacted area; and other impacts. Infrastructure items include navigational ship channels, local service pipelines, connections to inland gas transportation pipelines, roads, rail lines; loading, unloading and transfer facilities and gas storage containers, among other features. Operating LNG facilities in areas associated with estuary and ocean environments could produce harmful impacts on aquatic organisms and subsistence and commercial fishing operations. Clearly, there is a long list of factors to be considered and well studied for LNG siting, construction and operations impacts evaluation in non-industrial areas.

- Excerpt from William M. Brown testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Natural Gas Conference, Washington, D.C., January 7, 2005.

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2005a, Industries - Liquefied Natural Gas. -Available online at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng.asp

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, 2005b, Existing, and Proposed LNG Terminals - Map showing 40 constructed, approved and proposed LNG sites in the United States, Canada and Mexico as of October 7, 2005. -Available online at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/exist-prop-lng.pdf

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of Energy Projects, 2005c, Potential North American LNG Terminals - Map showing 20 potential LNG sites in the United States, Canada and Mexico as of October 7, 2005. -Available online at: http://www.ferc.gov/industries/lng/indus-act/horizon-lng.pdf

The Center for LNG, 2005, Information Source, Research, Best Practices, Issue Discussion, and Public Policy. -Available online at: http://www.lngfacts.org/

Steven Pearlstein: Nobody -- nobody -- ever argued that there weren't many serious risks to be considered before licensing such a facility. We have a rather elaborate process for evaluating those risks, and requiring energy companies to deal with them. So what's your point?

_______________________

Arlington, VA: A writer from Washington wrote, "You are brave to take on what has become a dominant and uncompromising political lobby: the national environmental establishment. NIMBYism and lack of realism on energy has hurt our economy and threatens to do more harm."

To the contrary, the national environmental establishment is not at all dominant these days, if it were, we would not have had a failed oilman in the White House right now, and we would have enacted policies that make our vehicles and economy much more productive and efficient. Mr. Pearlstein, your article focuses on the Sierra Club's opposition to LNG, but is there any evidence that their opposition will actually keep any LNG facilities from being built? That would be the sign of a dominant political force.

Steven Pearlstein: Actually, there is evidence. A number of projects have been rejected because of community opposition that received the support of environmental groups, and carried with it the "bad for the environment" label. And when this happens, elected politicians tend to come out against them (see Massachusetts, Maine, California and now Long Island as examples).

_______________________

Denver, CO: "The industry's preferred solution at this point is to run the gas along the existing oil pipeline to the south Alaskan coast, liquefy it, and ship it to California, which they say is more economical." Read: will cost us less money and contribute to our already overflowing profits at the expense of the American people. C'mon Steve, these guys are playing us for fools. They could AFFORD to do things right, but that would make a tiny dent in their billions.

Steven Pearlstein: Its not a question of whether they could afford it -- at this point, they could afford to buy the entire continent of Africa. But its a free country and they don't chose to make the investment because, on a risk adjusted basis, they don't think it will meet their hurdle rates, which are probably 20 percent or higher return on investment. Of course, we could probably pay for the thing ourselves, as a government project, with the proceeds of a windfall profits tax. That might be a good idea, and it would certainly make the rest of us feel good. But it could also impact on the willingness of oil companies to invest in new capacity. So you have to balance those things out. At this point, I think some additional taxes on oil companies -- preferably in the removal of certain tax breaks--would be in order, since the prices are so high they don't need most of these incentives.

_______________________

Warrenton, Va.: Dear Steven,

I'm amazed to find anything so intelligent as your article in the Post. I guess it pays to keep pushing back into the business section.

To me this is one of the most untold stories in the country right now. During the 1970s and 1980s, Congress actually BANNED burning natural gas in utility boilers because it was too precious a resource to waste on electricity. Then supplies bulged for awhile after the 1980s deregulation and environmentalists got a wonderful idea - solar and conservation aren't getting us anywhere, we don't even allow people to think about nuclear power, so let's solve air pollution and acid rain and greenhouse gases by substituting natural gas for coal. The utilities - and now the merchant energy companies - are desperate to build anything that doesn't run into environmental opposition, so they've switched to gas as fast as they can. Over 90 percent of the new power plants built since 1990 burn natural gas.

So what happens? Natural gas use for electricity - backed by price-fixing in the public service commissions and state mandates for "preferred transport rates" for utilities means electric use begins to crowd out everything else. The fertilizer industry has been devastated. The plastics industry is running short of everything. Goodyear just announced they're cutting U.S. tire production 30 percent because they can't find synthetic rubber, which also relies on gas. Natural gas has been the principle feedstock for dozens of major industries and now they're losing all their supplies to the utilities. In the chemistry industry alone, 100 plants have closed and more than 100,000 people are out of work. Dow has announced it's going to move its "center of gravity" to Europe and the Middle East, where gas is plentiful.

There's plenty of gas in the world, it's true, but it's not in North America. Both the U.S. and Canada have topped out and Canada is now diverting supplies to the tar sands operation in Alberta. The "energy crisis" is upon us in spades, yet environmentalists continue to live in their dream world. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to share it with them. Until the press wakes up as to what's going on, we'll be "desindustrializing" faster than anybody can keep score.

Keep up the good work.

William Tucker

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks, William. And you raise a very good point that I didn't get a chance to deal with in the column this morning. You might also want to read Holman Jenkins column on the op-ed page of today's Wall Street Journal, in which he also points out how much gas there is here in the U.S. that is off limits to drilling-- in particular off shore.

_______________________

Washington, DC: With LNG don't we risk becoming dependent on another source of foreign energy?

Steven Pearlstein: Energy independence is a silly idea. We are always going to be dependent on others for some of our energy needs as long as petroleum products are a big part of the mix. So what? Why is energy any different than all sorts of other things we import?

_______________________

Arlington, VA: Hi,

Your article reminded me the discussions by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus in "The Death of Environmentalism."

I believe enviros should be pragmatic in some sense to broaden political supports, but also should be radical to let people know we need drastic changes to overcome current and future environmental problems.

So, some NGOs can be pragmatic enough to cooperate with business people. However, we definitely need more radical ones to advocate ideal society.

I want to ask your observations. Thanks.

Yuta

Steven Pearlstein: I have no problem in theory with what you say. In practice, it often comes down to environmentalists wanting to impose their preferred lifestyle and values and tradeoffs on the rest of us. Some of that is okay with me -- mileage standards for cars, for example. But in other instances, I think the enviros refuse to trade off environmental values with any others, like big economic costs.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Hi Steve. It's Dave Hamilton of the Sierra Club.

Just thought I'd join you as long as the focus of your column was the Club. I have two points so far:

Major energy efficiency measures have been defeated in Congress time and again because of opposition from companies that want to sell more energy -- not less -- regardless of the benefits that would accrue to consumers, the economy, and the environment. I once posed the question to a Senate staffer of how can Congress ignore energy solutions that make economic sense for almost everybody in the country EXCEPT the energy companies. He simply said that "your lobby isn't big enough." It is why Exxon-Mobil gives 91% of their PAC money to Republicans.

Second, what kind of energy bill did the Republican leadership actually come up with? One that won't begin to solve our energy problems, but one that will shovel even more money to energy companies. With the nation's biggest energy concern being gasoline prices in the run up to the bill, they ADMITTEDLY passed something that would do nothing to insulate consumers from gasoline price and supply shocks. So, one may claim enviros don't have their feet on the ground, but we must acknowledge that sensible decisions are not being made in Washington, either. A supply increase is not the answer to every energy question.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks, David. On the energy bill, I'd say that is Exhibit A for what I am complaining about. Environmentalists got almost nothing from that bill. And I think if they had been willing to prioritize and compromise and logroll, they could have got some important things by creating a group of centrist legislators who would vow to vote against the entire bill unless there were some more environmentally friendly provisions -- but would vow to stick together and support the bill (and hold their noses about some things) if those provisions were included. And you guys in the environmental lobby didn't do that-- or as far as I am aware, even try. McCain and Lieberman gave it a try but I don't sense the environmental movement really took that opportunity and ran with it by offering to give up on some other things.

As a general proposition, I don't agree that you can't beat the big oil companies ever. Maybe you can't beat them even half the time right now. But you can accomplish some of your top priorities if you are willing to deal. The environmental movement still has a lot of credibility with the broad population. And that is particularly true if you can be seen as willing to make compromises to deal with higher energy costs.

_______________________

Winthrop, MA: Every LNG ship is a floating bomb, if you know what your are doing. 15 men, and a few hundred pounds of explosives and you have a mini-nuke equivalent.

Steven Pearlstein: Here we go....

_______________________

Taos, New Mexico: Steve -- Your column says: "There are already six such facilities in the United States, including one at Cove Point in Calvert County, and the industry estimates that it will need as many as a dozen more. Fourteen proposals have already received federal approval, 20 have been proposed, and probably 10 more are in the works."

The FERC maps show 60 (that's sixty) existing, proposed and potential LNG site for North America as of October 2005. I think this puts a lot of unnecessary stress on far too many communities. Perhaps there is a better way to get at optimum LNG plant siting than targeting so many possible places on our coastlines.

That's my point.

Thanks -- Bill Brown

Steven Pearlstein: Nobody is going to build 60 such facilities. Not needed.

_______________________

Metairie, LA: Your article fails to mention the most important part of the debate regarding LNG terminals: open-loop vs. closed-loop systems. The oil/gas industry in conjunction with the Bush administration only proposes open-loop systems which use sea water to raise the temperature of the LNG. The state of Louisiana is willing to build an LNG terminal using a closed-loop system. This uses gas to heat the LNG to the air temperature. This method will not kill the fish and seafood vital to Louisiana industry. This system costs a little bit more money, but is easily justified when compared to the record profits posted by the oil/gas industry.

washingtonpost.com: Today's Column: Enviros Need to Get With a Program

Steven Pearlstein: You are right: open loop seems to pose real environmental problems, particularly in fisheries. One criteria the environmental movement could set as a condition for its support for LNG is no open loops in such areas -- or maybe anywhere.

_______________________

Winthrop, MA: BTW The oil companies had approval to build a Natural Gas Pipeline out of the North Slope for many years, and didn't do it. I personally support NG drilling in already utilized oil fields, even though for heating there are alternatives. Of course transport ships should be required to only use off shore terminals. I live on the Harbor entrance in Boston, and I see the massive military escort needed to get a LNG tanker into Boston while only moderately risking my and several 100k other people's lives. The Bush Administration forced Boston to accept tankers before they had the required fire fighting ships, and security in place, so I KNOW it's impossible to trust the Bush Administration or industry to handle LNG safely.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks for that.

_______________________

Washington, DC: Are you saying that LNG terminals are safe and environmentalists are wrong to insist that they be sited away from people? Do you disagree with the safety experts that have pushed for exclusion zones for LNG tankers? You are holding up only a few examples of projects that are opposed as if all projects are the same.

Steven Pearlstein: A mile wide exclusion zone sounds like a good idea, from what I know. Which is why, when somebody proposes to put a terminal in the middle of Long Island Sound or out in Boston Harbor, our first instincts shouldn't be to say no.

_______________________

Arlington, VA: At the end of your column you note that some environmentalists have agreed to support "controversial" wind farm projects. My memory is that some prominent environmentalists have opposed these projects. I can understand concerns about fossil fuels and nuclear energy but how can wind farm projects be "controversial"?

Steven Pearlstein: Some individual environmentalists (e.g. Robert Kennedy Jr., I believe) oppose the Cape Cod wind farm, but most environmental groups, to their credit, have been somewhat supportive, as long as certain environmental criteria are met.

_______________________

Boston, MA: Are you a Gas industry Lobbyist? You seem to be parroting their talking points, and totally discounting all objections as extreme. Conservation and alternative fuels aren't extreme ideas, sorry but their not. Your statement that any serious environmentalist has suggested that conversion to alternative and renewable fuels is cost free is just not true and you know it.

Steven Pearlstein: If you have read what I've written about oil companies, you wouldn't be saying that.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: How are the environmentalists different from any other group advocating a point of view? From gay rights? Pro life/choice? Pro/anti gun? Pro/anti evolution?

I mean different in the sense that they are uncompromising in their views/beliefs regardless of what is (in your view at least) "rational"?

You seem quick to denounce and ridicule them as an "evil crowd." That is not only unproductive and immature, but really affects your credibility on this issue. That is just my opinion.

BTW, I don't think environmentalists are right all of the time, but neither do I think that they demand the degree of criticism (and tone) of your article.

Steven Pearlstein: Of course they are not evil. Misguided sometimes, politically stupid, but not evil.And since I have sympathy with them, I feel the obligation to tell them when I think they are wrong, rather than doing what some other columnist do and never criticizing their natural allies.

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Past Steven Pearlstein columns are online here .

_______________________

Maryland: There is a basic fact missed in the angry or smug critiques of the environmental movement. The myth is that enviros are nature-loving and people hating. Puh-lease. I've worked for a number of enviro groups and the vast majority have kids and heck they're all actually people, ain't they? What these folks understand which the exploiters don't is the basic fact.

We are a integral part of this planet. When we do things to destroy it, we are essentially destroying ourselves. I'd say the enviros are more pro-human in that regards than the polluters. They're trying to figure out a way to save this rock we live on, not for some animals or trees in and of themselves, but because they know we are connected.

It's true though that the movement made a huge mistake when it created the phrase "the environment" as if it was something outside of us humans. And it is true that the movement needs to learn to compromise more. In fact, I'd say the whole movement should move to a solution-based model instead of an us vs. them scenario (which seems to be plaguing all aspects of this bumpy democracy we're living in right now).

Which brings me to my question: Steven do you think a complete shift to a sustainable economy is possible? Do you think it's desirable, or would you rather stick with the old exploitation model?

Steven Pearlstein: If you mean, would I wnt to keep drilling for gas for a while until better technology comes along to run our factories and heat our homes -- yup, count me among the exploitationists. I'm all for moving to a more "sustainable" economy, as you put it, but we're not there yet.

_______________________

Are You Out of Your Mind?: Mr. Pearlstein, your cynical attitude is no longer cute. It's stupid, and I don't know why you have the ability to spew your ignorance from the Washington Post. I'm an environmentalist, and it isn't about brown rice and earth shoes. It's about the planet we are destroying with a ridiculous dependence on fossil fuels. It's about our grandchildren--I have a few-- whose quality of life will be reduced significantly if we do not change. The reason why renewable energy technologies are at the toddler stage is because of the greed of the oil companies. You should be ashamed for being so ill-informed.

Steven Pearlstein: Ah, there it is in its purest form, folks. We've all been duped and manipulated and out-maneuvered by the greedy, evil oil companies. Its just that simple.

_______________________

Blacksburg, VA: Your column today was very frustrating to me. You implied that just because the Sierra Club complained about the dangers of LNG, they were being unreasonably obstructionist.

Frankly, I'm not thrilled about a potentially explosive plant being installed in the mouth of the densely populated Boston harbor. Do you have evidence that this is safe? If you do, you didn't mention it. Dismissing Sierra Club concerns as being obstructionist without discussing the merits of their claims is worse than unhelpful.

Steven Pearlstein: Okay, the merits of their claims are extreme and fail to take into consideration that we need these facilities and they have to go somewhere. And many of the places they propose are reasonable choices.

_______________________

Bethesda, MD: Hi Steven,

I would just add that I've become utterly disillusioned with the environmental movement and its activists--and I'm someone who LOVES being out in the natural world.

Environmental groups seem never able to tell us what their solutions to tough problems would be--they only tell us why EVERY solution proposed so far is wrong and immoral. How does that contribute to any formulation of practical policy?

Environmental groups seem to believe that solar and wind power and conservation will power our cars--but every knowledgeable observer knows that's impossible, and so we wait for a realistic proposal from environmentalists... in vain. So essentially, unless the environmental movement can make useful contribution to our energy issues--instead of utopian proclamations--they will indeed continue to lose the common-sense center they once held.

Steven Pearlstein: Amen.

_______________________

McLean, VA: New nuclear plant technology is far safer than in the past, and past technology was very safe. Thus, the only issue with nuclear power that environmentalists seem to have is disposal of waste. But we have to solve the waste problem, since we have a lot to dispose of, one way or the other, and adding some more waste doesn't seem to change the nature of the existing problem significantly. Therefore, why in your judgment do environmentalists, who want to reduce greenhouse gas and other emissions, not support the new proposals that are being announced to build nuclear power plants?

Steven Pearlstein: A very, very good question -- and one some thoughtful environmentalists have begun to ask themselves as well.

_______________________

Pennsylvania: Natural gas prices are driving PA industry away. I can't stand to watch it happen.

But the environmentalists of today oppose U.S. energy production, even though we have the strictest environmental standards in the world. They tell us conservation will cure all.

While I do believe we should increase conservation, I'm not foolish enough to think we don't need to increase supplies to lower prices and keep industry alive. The demand for natural gas is inevitable.

Why is it the Sierra Club or any other group would rather import LNG from foreign countries with lax environmental standards, rather than allowing us to produce energy here at home- creating jobs here, for U.S. workers, and adhering to the toughest environmental standards in the world?

Steven Pearlstein: Well, maybe not the toughest in the world, but tough enough to have improved our air and water quality over recent years.

_______________________

Martinez, CA: I'm a former Chairman of the Sierra Club's National Energy Committee. We're struggling with the fuels question. What I find so amazing is the unwillingness of the government to undertake cost-effective efficiency measures. The Bush Administration opposed a cost-effective regulation to make home air conditioners more efficient. (The law required the regs to be cost-effective, and the proposal was).

Natural gas surely makes way more sense than coal. There are good places to put LNG facilities. But those good places don't include environmentally sensitive area. And they don't include ports in highly populated regions.

Paul Craig

Steven Pearlstein: That's fine Paul. And I think you are right to put energy efficiency standards (uincluding cars) at the top of your priority list. So here's the question: why didnt the Sierra Club propose a deal that would have got us the efficiency standards by giving up on Alaskan oil drilling -- which, as it turns out, you lost anyway? Or support for LNG terminals in exchange for stopping the worst kind of drilling and mining on federal lands?

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: "Are we all that irrational and ignorant of our own self-interest?"

Yes.

The assumption of rationality is the central flaw of economic theory.

You can never go wrong by underestimating the intelligence or morality of the American public.

Steven Pearlstein: Well, I'm afraid we'll have to end on that note, which I fear represents the unspoken views of too much of the environmental lobby. And then they wonder why they lose elections....Thanks folks, see you next week. I'll print out some of the unanswered comments below.

_______________________

Alexandria, VA: One needs to have a long historical perspective in thinking about the environment. The future is a very long time (imagine that!), but I have the impression that some environmentalists don't recognize that any more than do aggressive industrialists and economic growth types.

Taking the long view, it is positively sinful to encourage combustion of fossil fuels. Raising the production rate of them is just bringing the day sooner when they will be gone. And once gone, they will be gone forever: no more cheap plastics, no more petrochemical industry etc.

Instead of burning fossil fuels, we need to consider how much more valuable they are as recyclable polymers.

For generating energy, we need to turn to a sustainable nuclear fuel cycle and forget about combustion of fossil fuels.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Maryland : I want clean air and water but I also want a reasonably warm house and a way to get to work every day.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Maryland: The concerns about LNG should not just be environmental but also economic. Does this make us more reliant on foreign fossil fuel? Could an OPEC-like control of pricing occur? Are there differences in the LNG make up? How do we address these differences?

And what if too many facilities are permitted, so that the price of natural gas collapses and it is no longer cost effective to operate these facilities? Do they become ghost facilities?

Steven Pearlstein: Fair questions.

_______________________

Anonymous: With respect to your response to Ms. Walsh's constructive comments, why don't you suggest to your friends in the oil and gas industry, Steven, that they look at the Cove Point situation as a model for how they might work successfully with local citizens in other areas? You seem to be more interested in berating and belittling people for insisting on their right to participate in LNG siting decisions. Opposition to these facilities will be guaranteed if project proponents and regulators view local residents as annoying NIMBYs, rather than as American citizens with legitimate concerns whose views should be respected and addressed.

Steven Pearlstein: Nobody is berating or belittling anyone who wants to have input. Input is good. Blind opposition to all such projects is bad.

_______________________

Washington, DC: You wonder whether gangs of people ever act against self interest? Jared Diamond has written a wonderful book on just that theme -- Collapse. He lists many cultures that no longer exist, in part because of unwisely using up natural and live-giving resources. He asks what the guy was thinking as he chopped down the last tree on Easter Island. We could be there soon.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Silver Spring, MD: Lets acknowledge that part of the reason the environmental lobby is intractable is because the other side is as well. The oil industry continues to push for opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge using high gas prices as a cynical justification - it would take more than 10 years for that gas to reach market and even it would not be enough to significantly offset our dependency on foreign oil. But the oil lobby continues to push it, and environmentalists must continue to push back.

Steven Pearlstein: Thanks.

_______________________

Editor's Note: Washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.