Plan to export gas pumped from fracking in Canada has some wondering whether it’s the problem or solution in reducing carbon emissions

Portland’s claim to lead US cities in combating climate change is under threat from plans to build a $500m terminal to export gas pumped from fracking in Canada.



Amid fears that Portland’s progressive, environmentally conscious image could be badly dented, the city is divided over whether exporting natural gas is part of the problem or the solution, in reducing carbon emissions.

Portland’s Planning and Sustainability Commission (PSC) last week narrowly approved the application by a Canadian company, Pembina, to build one of the largest industrial facilities in the city. Supporters argued that the export of propane gas would help reduce dependence by China and other countries on dirtier fossil fuels, particularly coal.

Opponents, however, are gearing up for a final vote in the city council later this month with warnings that the terminal, which would ship gas from fracking in Canada’s sedimentary basin, will only add to the pollution of the atmosphere.

The dispute comes amid warnings from environmental groups that in the coming years fuel shipments from the expansion of coal, oil and gas export facilities across the Pacific Northwest – in Oregon and Washington state in the US and British Columbia in Canada – will dwarf those of the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and fly in the face of claims by governments in the region to be environmentally friendly.

“It concerns me that some people may say, how can you call yourself green when you’re starting to look like Houston with the export of fuels?” said André Baugh, the chair of Portland’s PSC who voted in favour of the new terminal.

“We’ve worked very hard to be a green city, to be a leader in a lot of areas around the environment. There is a potential impact of this on our reputation. But there’s a broader perspective. It is hypocrisy for us to stand in the way of other people trying to reduce their greenhouse gases.”

The PSC held a public hearing last week, at which opponents raised a series of objections to the terminal which would handle propane gas, delivered by train to Portland, to be shipped on by sea, mostly to south-east Asia. Some expressed concerns about safety, others about Pembina’s separate involvement in extraction from the Alberta tar sands. But the weight of protest focused on the impact on climate change.

The Audubon Society of Portland has warned that if the terminal ran to capacity it would contribute to the release of 60 million metric tons of carbon dioxide each year – 0.01% of global emissions from a single export facility.

“If approved, the city will become a major player in expanding fossil fuel export infrastructure that will help sustain the fossil fuel export industry for decades to come,” the society said.

Backers of the terminal say that while propane is a pollutant, it is far less dirty than alternatives and will serve as a “bridge fuel” to lessen dependence in China and elsewhere on coal and wood.

But a member of the PSC who voted against the terminal, Chris Smith, said studies showed that propane exports would help drive up the use of fossil fuels, not displace coal.

“You can argue that without propane those other fuels would grow even faster but they’re still growing,” he said. “I think the bridge fuel argument is at best dubious and at any event it has to be temporary. The intended life of this terminal is 50 years. If we’re still using the bridge fuel in 10 years, it’s not a bridge fuel any more.”

Baugh said that with emerging economies continuing to expand, it is not reasonable to expect them to meet growing energy needs solely through renewable sources.

“In the global scheme of how much China and India consume of the other fossil fuels, this is very small,” he said. “But at least it’s a step and I think denying them that step and saying you have to jump all the way over to solar and wind, I think that’s hypocritical.

“We’re not a producer. We’re a cog in the wheel of something that’s produced in Canada and that’s going to arrive in countries offshore for a variety of uses. Replacing coal, replacing oil, being used in production of plastics.”

Baugh said the argument hinged on how to regard natural gas. Portland is drawing up regulations to bar the export of coal and oil through the city but the proposals so far say nothing about propane.

“There’s a lot of people reading into it, that because we’ve said no to oil and we’ve said no to coal, that the logical step is to say no to liquefied natural gas,” he said.

“I’m not real sure that logic works because there’s a lot of discussion. The United States government says that natural gas and propane are fuels we want to transfer to and get out of oil and coal. That’s also the policy of Portland. We’re pushing our electrical suppliers to utilise natural gas instead of coal.”

The PSC has sought to mitigate the impact on climate change by adding a carbon tax to exports from the terminal that would raise about $6m a year, to be used in part for environmental projects. The Audubon Society called the proposed carbon tax “greenwashing”.

Portland’s mayor, Charlie Hales, backed the terminal when it was announced in September, saying it was “great news” because it would create hundreds of construction jobs and bring in $12m a year in tax revenue.

“We welcome this investment and these jobs in Portland. The city is committed to growing our economy on the land we already have, and holding industry to very high environmental and public safety standards. This proposal meets these goals,” he said at the time.

But as the debate has heated up, Hales has declined to discuss his position ahead of the council meeting, at which he has a vote, other than to say he has faith in the decision-making process.

Echoing a wider debate

The dispute over the Portland terminal echoes a wider debate in the region about the expansion of coal, oil and gas export facilities. A Seattle-based environmental thinktank, the Sightline Institute, issued a report last year warning of proposals for a dramatic increase in the transfer of fossil fuels through the Pacific Northwest.

“Since 2012, British Columbia, Oregon, and Washington have seen new active proposals for four new coal terminals, three expansions of existing terminals, two new oil pipelines, 11 oil-by-rail facilities, and six new natural gas pipelines,” it said.

“If all of the coal export terminals, oil-by-rail facilities, oil pipelines, and natural gas pipelines planned for the Pacific Northwest are completed and fully utilized, the region could export fossil fuels carrying five times as much climate-warming carbon as Keystone XL.”

Portland council’s decision on the propane terminal may be decided by its impact on the city’s image.

In December, the Obama administration named Portland a “climate action champion” for its leadership in reducing greenhouse gases and fighting climate change. Earlier this year, the city was among nine worldwide, including London and Buenos Aires, to receive a global award for environmental policy.

In 1993, Portland became the first US city to establish a climate-action plan. It aims to reduce carbon emissions by 40% by 2030, and 80% by 2050, through measures including the expansion of public transport, increased use of renewable energy and a ban on plastic carrier bags.

Nicholas Caleb, a Concordia University professor, lawyer and former candidate for city council who was an early opponent of the terminal, said that its construction could make Portland’s claim to be at the forefront of environmental policy unsustainable.

“We can’t be a climate leader while we profit off of large-scale fossil-fuel projects,” he said.

Chris Smith told the PSC meeting the city’s reputation was at risk and that “we’re going to get soot on the brand” by building the terminal.

“We have an economic strategy of exporting urban-innovation knowhow and sustainable development knowhow, and I think we’ll be less credible in those areas,” he said.

Baugh acknowledged the problem.

“I do truly understand people’s concern that, how can you say you’re green and at the same time export a fossil fuel?” he said. “Part of our economy, and one of the reasons people move here, is because of our reputation. Being environmentally conscious is part of it.

“We are going to continue the debate as to how the export of fossil fuels through Portland fits with our climate action plan. We’re going to come back and have a discussion about that and talk about how we view that as a city.”