LNG and the Columbia River Keepers

Last week I was Board Host for a debate-format panel discussion at the City Club of Portland. The topic was a proposed LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) terminal on the Columbia River, a few miles upstream from Astoria.

As Board Host I got to ask the first question, and I asked one that was almost certainly inappropriate coming from the person in that role. A good Board Host question is thoughtful, balanced, and invites the audience into the conversation. It may explore ambiguities in the presentation, or draw attention to an aspect of the topic not covered by the speakers, or press on an apparent contradiction. It really shouldn't be an attack from one side or the other.

My question was partisan enough to be seen as an attack. I told the River Keepers' speaker that as far as I could tell, if LNG was kept out of Oregon, and my family ended up cold and shivering in the dark because of it, his organization would consider that a success.

This question from me, particularly in my role as Board Host, upset several of the more fluttery members of the audience.

One audience member - quivering like a drenched cat with poorly directed outrage - characterized it as "shameful". Yes, it was a lousy board host question, but that's not what got people upset. The upset ones universally were deeply in the tank for (i.e. on the side of) the Riverkeepers. Their upset-ness stemmed from that emotional attachment to one side of the debate, and my obvious disdain for "their" side.

Being in the minority is a test of one's courage. Being in the majority is a test of one's tolerance. So far I'm holding up my end pretty well, and the side of intolerant outrage is the side that could appropriately feel shame.

And my question was essentially unanswerable. The commercial firm that wants to build the LNG plant will happily jump through whatever safety, environmental, or regulatory hoops are put up, because they want to profitably supply energy in LNG form to the region. This is inherently a position of accommodation and compromise.

The eco-fanatics will happily add, move, and change the hoops to ensure that the firm cannot meet them, because they only care about their vision for the river (and restricting commercial uses of it), not about Oregon's energy needs. Theirs is inherently a position of extremism and non-compromise.

And that's as it should be for the River Keepers. They aren't the "balanced energy plan for Oregon" keepers - they are the RIVER keepers. That's their thing. If they backed off of that to be "moderate" they'd be betraying their purpose. (They can't admit that, generally.)

It's for the rest of us to be the ones with moderation and perspective, to listen to both sides and discount at least some of the eco-hysteria and the capitalist puffery and find a workable answer.

And that is a point that many of our more committed leftist City Club members don't want to hear. I made them hear it and they didn't much like it.

Tough.