Kalama Manufacturing and Marine Export Facility Second Supplemental EIS
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Are you nuts? Some scientists feel that we have less than 10 years to reduce our greenhouse gas levels. I think they are wrong. We need to immediately reduce our greenhouse gases. We're killing our home and everything in it so no this plant is not a ...↓good idea! Put your heads together and figure out something different to do!
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been both inaccurate and inadequate.
This ne...↓w Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility. Improvements include addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will actually be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public to the contrary. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low-ball estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia and the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis still confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading. It relies upon speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of the COVID pandemic to see evidence of the incredible uncertainty and volatility within energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades.
Furthermore, the SEIS provides far too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this proposed "voluntary" mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions which will occur overseas.
The mitigation framework is too vague to support an Ecology conclusion that this projects impacts will be mitigated. The urgency of climate change demands that all unavoidable impacts be addressed with mitigation as the last and poorest option as we continue to more beyond the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and the faint hope of theoretical emission reductions.
Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. While the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project: that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
This is in opposition to the NWIW methanol refinery for Kalama, WA.
There are several reasons that many cities have turned down the Methanol refinery.
It will take a huge amount of electric power and water to run the refinery. And they want to push ...↓too large amounts through an existing pipeline that is not large enough.
There will also be tons of methanol on ships crossing the Columbia River and oceans on the way to China. There is the potential of leakage, which is likely to kill the fish and pollute our waters.
Kalama would have a huge plume from the refinery obstructing many peoples views. They built their homes where they are for the beautiful views of the Columbia River.
The refinery creates many opportunities for pipeline eruptions, ship leaks, leakage from their own tanks, pollution from the plume. Even the DOH admits that "methanol is a toxin" and is dangerous.
If the refinery goes in, it will ruin this lovely town. More people and animals will get cancers and other diseases. Our soil and air and water will become polluted. The quality of life in Kalama will change for the worse.
Notice that at this pre refinery time, the eagles have returned. That's because our air quality is good, but they will once again leave if the refinery comes in.
We all want good paying jobs for Kalama, but we want safe and healthy jobs. I know that better and safer use can be made of the land that is set aside for the refinery.
Connie Dean
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
According to a report in Bloomberg, millions of abandoned gas wells around the country are actively leaking methane! Where is the money to monitor this? Are there federal regulations about it? Gas companies declare bankruptcy, and tax payers are l...↓eft to pay for plugging these wells which can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per well! And plugging it with concrete is not a permanent solution because the concrete degrades with the extreme pressure of the Earth. So for every well dug, you are dooming future generations to deal with our mess of leaking methane?!
How does this factor into your EIS?
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Please update your calculations to include the emissions suggested by this report from Bloomberg:
Gas companies are abandoning their wells, leaving them to leak methane forever.
Just one orphaned site in California could have emitted 30 tons of methane...↓ and there are millions more like it.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2020-09-17/abandoned-gas-wells-are-left-to-spew-methane-for-eternity?utm_source=url_link&fbclid=IwAR2IZicvXTRm0jluzdnPfdE4m1iQ8b6ZXU4cArXgPekpcImnX9CNsHHER0M
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
This proposed methanol plant would be a tragic mistake not only for Kalama and the State of Washington, but for the entire Pacific Northwest. It would become a huge polluter, not only alongside the banks of the Columbia, emitting massive amounts of a...↓ir pollution, but also in terms of using fracked natural gas to supply its ginormous energy needs. The gas would need to be piped in from hundreds of miles away with every small methane leak resulting in pollution times worse than regular CO emissions.
NWIW originally claimed that the methanol produced from this plant would not be used for making fuel, but they were apparently lying when they said that, just as they are lying when they claim that this would be a great project, providing local jobs while also being "good" for the environment. The first SEIS was fraught with inconsistencies and incomplete information, just as this second one is. I urge you to please be a champion for the ecology of Washington, as well as the Pacific Northwest, and once and for all reject this toxic project! As the recent fires have shown us, there is nothing more basic to life than clean air and water...when that is suddenly gone, all people and living things suffer. Protecting the ecology of this region is the main responsibility here, not enabling dishonest companies to make money while polluting our precious natural resources. Thanks so much for taking the time to hear all of us out on this important topic.
Theresa Schumacher
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
I strongly object to the proposal to build such a huge gas project at Kalama. As a resident just a few mile upstream from this proposed plant, and as a Native American, whose family is indigenous to this area, I am concerned about the surrounding hab...↓itats, water quality of the Columbia River, which is the life blood of our tribe, and the huge contamination resulting from the transport, fracking, and use of this product. Please do not allow this to happen.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Its time to change our system of fuel.
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been ...↓inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
Thank you for your work to protect Washingtons environment and acknowledgement that previous environmental analysis of Northwest Innovation Works (NWIW) Methanol refinery proposal in Kalama, Washington have been inaccurate and inadequate.
This new Dra...↓ft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement represents some important improvements in evaluating the true climate impacts of this facility, including addressing the likelihood that methanol produced by this facility will be used as transportation fuel, despite deliberate efforts by NWIW to mislead your agency and the public otherwise. And while the SEIS has made some necessary adjustments in the methane leakage rates, the rates continue to be low estimates given the widespread underreporting of leaks. However, even with the unreasonable assumptions about the single-sourcing of gas from British Columbia, as well as the unrealistically low leakage estimates for that source, the analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would be enormously polluting.
Despite these marginal improvements, the evaluation of potential mitigation and displacement contained in this analysis is misleading and concerning in its reliance on speculative and unenforceable assumptions. One can simply look to the impacts of this pandemic to see evidence of incredible uncertainty and volatility in energy market dynamics. It is dangerous to presume this analysis can accurately predict global fuel markets, technology developments, consumer behavior, or regulations for the coming four decades. Furthermore, the SEIS provides too little detail on the actual mitigation that would be accomplished within the voluntary mitigation framework, nor does this mitigation address the full impacts of NWIWs emissions that will occur overseas. The mitigation framework is too vague for Ecology to conclude that this projects impacts will be mitigated, and the urgency of climate change demands that mitigation should be the last option (after all other impacts are reduced) in order to address unavoidable impacts, not simply to maintain the status quo as we continue to build out the fossil fuel industry.
Even with all of its flaws, this analysis confirms that NWIWs proposed facility would become one of the greatest sources of climate pollution in Washington. It is simply unacceptable for Washington to build an unequivocally and enormously polluting facility based on speculative analysis and a faint hope of theoretical emission reductions. Ecology should dismiss the speculative basis that this project could displace even more polluting facilities, and instead should base its permitting decision on what is reasonably foreseeable and indeed, assured, about this project--that it would cause millions of tons of greenhouse gas pollution each year, for 40 years, and is profoundly inconsistent with achieving Washingtons climate goals.
The evidence in this draft SEIS demonstrates that Washington should deny NWIWs proposal to build and operate this dangerous methanol refinery in Kalama. We cannot keep building fossil fuel export infrastructure and expect to address the dangers of climate change.
Please keep our communities safe and keep Washington on track to meet our goals for reducing climate pollution.
↓
No attachments
[
Previous Page
/
Next Page
]