Where's the proof pipeline is needed?

I think that the governor's letter regarding the Bradwood Landing Draft Environmental Impact Statement is carefully reasoned and positive ('Governor calls gas pipeline review plan 'flawed,'' News-Times, Dec. 19, 2007).

I strongly support his call for increased scientific evidence before a final decision is made by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

I agree also that a clear need for imported liquid natural gas must be demonstrated before the Bradwood terminal is built. 'Need' is currently assessed in terms of potential 'shippers,' or gas buyers, with the gas being shipped south to California.

Even in these terms, it is clear that the Bradwood facility is not needed.

But, more importantly, long-term effects on the environment must be included in need assessments, including global warming.

We must turn from reliance on non-renewable, carbon-emitting energy sources, such as oil and liquid natural gas, and toward renewables, such as solar, wind, water and conservation.

Oregon can be a leader in this movement, but building LNG facilities will serve as an impediment. I deeply hope that our governor will use his powers to prohibit construction of LNG facilities unless there is a preponderance of evidence showing benefits for Oregonians, both now and in the future.

Allen Neuringer