The American Prospect recently reported that Rahm Emanuel is using his role as U.S. ambassador to Japan to boost a major gas export project in Alaska. The Biden administration is also supporting this project despite its pledge to rein in planet-warming emissions. There are claims that LNG (liquefied natural gas) is safe. Others call it a massive carbon bomb on the environment.
British Columbia’s provincial government routinely boasts that the liquefied natural gas industry has an enviable record of public safety. “LNG is safe, on land and in transit as a result of detailed industry standards, strict regulations, and a commitment to risk management,” reads one government website.
However, new studies and past incidents raise questions about LNG's location standards and safety.
And the U.S. Congressional Research Service noted in 2004 that there have always been public concerns about the siting of LNG terminals because “LNG is a hazardous liquid transported and stored in enormous quantities, often near populated areas.”
There was also a recent and nasty explosion at an LNG facility in Washington State, combined with alarming British research on what scientists call “vapour cloud explosions” or the release of flammable gases into the atmosphere, has raised new doubts about the adequacy of safety regulations for siting LNG export terminals in North America.
"Claiming that a project like this could possibly be in the public interest isn't just out of step with the Biden administration's stated commitment to climate action—it's out of step with reality," said Andrea Feniger, chapter director of Sierra Club Alaska.
Read the articles below for more information.
REPORTS
U.S. Congressional Research Service Report (2004)
RELATED ARTICLES
Rahm Emanuel’s Gas Pipeline (The American Prospect, 5-17-23)
Rahm Emanuel Slammed for 'Trying to Light the Fuse of a Massive Carbon Bomb' (Common Dreams, 5-17-23)
How Safe Is LNG? Not as Safe as the BC Government Has Claimed (The Tyee, 4-28-17)