������Ƶ

Hawaii Gas wants island residents to bet on liquid natural gas, a dirty fossil fuel deceptively sold as “clean.” The utility’s main pitch (“Hawaii Gas Promises To Save Us $1.3 Billion,” Jan. 19) is that Hawaiians could save billions of dollars on their energy bills over the next 20 years.

It’s a gamble, as Civil Beat has pointed out, quoting an industry analyst who said Hawaiians could actually lose $1.7 billion on the deal if LNG prices rise (“Analyst: LNG would likely save Hawaii billions,” Jan. 25). But Hawaii Gas’s narrow focus on energy bills overlooks costs to the coast and climate.

In Hawaii, ocean warming associated with climate change has already caused mass coral bleaching, harming an essential ecosystem that Hawaii depends upon. In Paris, the United States and other nations committed to quickly transitioning away from fossil fuels, a process that starts now.

Supporters of natural gas call it a “bridge fuel” to a clean-energy future, noting that it produces fewer carbon dioxide emissions than oil or coal. But they’re not telling the whole story.

The reality is that natural gas is still a fossil fuel. Natural gas production leaks methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s more than 100 times worse than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere. The extreme methods for extracting natural gas also destroy habitat, pollute water and make people sick.

The mainland natural gas boom is driven by fracking, or the high-pressure injection of water and toxic chemicals into the ground to fracture rock and release more natural gas. It’s a dirty practice that pollutes drinking water, damages the land and causes earthquakes. Families living near fracking sites have high rates of birth defects, and fracking kills fish and wildlife.

That trail of harm is not welcome in Hawaii, where LNG will require a massive investment in new infrastructure on the shore and more polluting ships on the water.

Just as the country is waking up to the complex realities of LNG and moving past the self-serving fairy tales told by its proponents, Hawaii Gas would have all island residents place a big bet on this rickety bridge fuel. The proposal makes no sense, which is why its boosters are focused so strongly on the possibility of an economic windfall. They’re essentially trying to buy the public’s support for their dangerous and shortsighted scheme.

The reality is that natural gas is still a fossil fuel, the production of which leaks methane, a potent greenhouse gas that’s more than 100 times worse than carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere.

Hawaii is a clean-energy leader that passed a landmark law requiring the state to convert to 100 percent renewable energy sources by 2045. Building this LNG “bridge” in the meantime would be a waste of time, energy and resources that are desperately needed to meet the clean-energy mandate and address climate change in a meaningful way.

Why would Hawaii spend hundreds of millions of dollars to construct offshore docking facilities for huge LNG tankers, a pipeline system to bring this volatile fuel onshore, and convert Oahu’s power plant to run on natural gas? Hawaii Gov. David Ige strongly opposes the LNG proposal and has called it a pointless diversion from building a clean-energy future.

Even today, wind and photovoltaic solar energy sources are competitive with natural gas, all running at around 13 cents per kilowatt-hour. Yet the true costs of natural gas to our climate, water, and wildlife are actually much higher than its price reflects — and it’s only a matter of time before the cost of natural gas reflects its full impacts.

For Hawaii to switch to LNG now is a sucker’s bet, one being pushed by a fossil fuel industry desperate to retain its dominant position in a world that’s waking up to the realities of climate change, ocean acidification, habitat degradation and people’s demand for clean energy and a livable future.

Don’t bet on this bridge. It’s just not as solid as it’s being sold. Bet on Hawaii as a clean-energy leader that won’t be diverted by short-term thinking and risky energy schemes.