Plea to delay LNG terminal a fishy tale
Environmental lobby groups have claimed with religious zeal that the Earth might somehow be doomed if urgent action is not taken within five years to combat so-called global warming.
Now the WWF's Eric Bohm wants local government departments to 'reflect' on California's decision to veto the construction of a liquefied natural gas terminal in California 'even if it means a very temporary delay in capping CLP Power's emissions' ('Follow Arnie's lead on LNG site', May 26).
Why the delay in starting something that can allegedly help combat apparent global armageddon? Some fish need a place to spawn!
Some might dismiss this as a wacky contradiction from a well-meaning 'green'. I believe it is representational of a viscous philosophy that demands humans sacrifice their own needs, to those of bugs, weeds, dirt, water - and fish. Think about it. Environmentalists cry that we must take urgent action to 'save the planet'. Now they want us to delay development of something that will allegedly reduce greenhouse emissions - all so a few aquatic creatures can breed.
The rational alternative to the environmentalist philosophy of sacrifice is the idea that humans must reshape their environment to survive and prosper. It means that if we need an LNG terminal for future development and progress, then it should be built. Who should operate it is another matter entirely.
Simon Patkin, Quarry Bay
