Environment: LNG plant is result of thoughtful planning

Re: “Big, gray — and safe?” (TNT, 7/3).

Derrick Nunnnally’s article was some well-balanced reporting on the proposed LNG plant, but it’s important to understand why we’re talking about it at all.

Since 2005, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships requires the reduction of sulphur and greenhouse gas emissions from worldwide shipping. To replace standard bunker fuel, LNG has emerged as the most logical candidate and is embraced by the Obama administration. Shippers are converting ships to LNG around the world, including our own TOTE, Crowley and possibly the Washington State Ferries. This is a case of government and industry working together for a common good, not a conspiracy.

I served on the task force that crafted Tacoma’s climate change mitigation plan. I am a lifetime member of the Sierra Club and I have grandchildren. Heroic measures are now required to curb climate change.

As Nunnally’s article points out, the LNG industry has a very good safety record and we have plenty of water. If the plant passes muster with Tacoma’s review and permitting process, and if we have the opportunity to significantly curb global emissions, we should take it. And a side benefit? Well-paying jobs that Tacoma sorely needs.

This story was originally published July 11, 2016 at 11:48 AM with the headline "Environment: LNG plant is result of thoughtful planning."