Hollywood A-listers take on BHP Billiton

Wednesday Sep 20 13:07 AEST

Hollywood's biggest stars are going to war with Australian resources giant BHP Billiton.

A who's who of A-List celebrities, including Tom Hanks, Charlize Theron, Barbra Streisand and Cher, have launched a high-profile campaign in the US to halt BHP Billiton's $US5 billion ($A6.67 billion) plan to build a massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal off the coast of the Los Angeles seaside community of Malibu.

Australian singer and actress Olivia Newton-John, a longtime resident of Malibu, has also joined the fight against the company.

"We want to stop the BHP Billiton LNG terminal now!" a letter signed by the 45 high-profile actors, singers, supermodels and Hollywood executives states.

Leading the A-List campaign is former James Bond, Pierce Brosnan, who gave a keynote address at a fundraiser in Malibu last week.

The function's attendees were asked to donate $US250 ($A330) each.

"This proposed liquefied natural gas terminal is part of a globalised assault taking place on our Earth," Brosnan said.

"We cannot let this project be approved."

The campaign, if successful, would be a blow to BHP Billiton and the Australian economy, with the project potentially worth $A15 billion to Australia in exports.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard deemed the project so important for Australia he flew to Los Angeles in 2004 to lobby California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The BHP Billiton LNG proposal involves the construction of a massive deepwater terminal 23km off the coast of Malibu. The gas would be brought to the terminal by ship from Australia and then piped from the terminal to the US mainland.

Brosnan said the terminal would be 14 stories high and three football fields in length.

Malibu City Council has also launched an aggressive campaign against the LNG project, with council members voting unanimously "to protect and preserve Malibu by strongly opposing the proposed LNG terminals".

The council has allocated $US50,000 ($A66,600) to fight the anti-terminal campaign.

The project could receive US government approval as early as December.

Malibu Council, the celebrities and other environmental groups are heartened by other grassroots campaigns in the US that led to similar proposals being scrubbed.

"Other communities such as Humbolt and Vallejo have successfully stopped LNG facilities from being built," Brosnan said in his address.

"We can, too."

The terminal's opponents claim the project would be an environmental polluter, negatively impact "the health and safety of our families" and would be an attractive terrorist target.

"This floating LNG terminal will emit more than 200 tons of smog-producing pollutants per year, in an area long known for high occurrences of asthma in both children and adults," the letter signed by the celebrities states.

"Additionally, it is estimated that the project as a whole will emit 25,000,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually, further contributing to global warming."

Howard, after his meeting with Schwarzenegger in 2004, backed Australia's LNG safety record.

"We of course can boast a great record of safety and reliability over a period of 15 years we've been supplying LNG to Japan," Howard said at the time.

"No accidents, always delivered on time. Something in the order of 26,000 voyages that can be pointed to without any difficulties."

Howard also downplayed the terminal as a terrorist target, noting the distance the terminal would be located off the coast of Malibu.

Several other companies have proposed rival LNG terminals on the Californian mainland.

"Terrorists always want to inflict maximum misery on people and if they can attack an installation which is closer to a large centre of population, that might be a more attractive target than something that's offshore," Howard said.

Schwarzenegger surprised all sides in the LNG debate a year ago when he said the BHP Billiton proposal "could probably be the most safest one for California".

In January, Australia's Woodside Petroleum announced a rival LNG terminal plan the company billed as safer than the BHP Billiton project.

Woodside's project would not involve a giant terminal built off the coast.

Woodside plans to build special ships that could deliver the natural gas straight into an underwater pipeline 24km off the California coast.

Other celebrities who are supporting the anti-BHP Billiton proposal include Danny DeVito, Rhea Perlman, Sting, Dick Van Dyke, Jane Seymour, Dylan McDermott, Martin Sheen, James Brolin, Kenny G, Ted Danson, Mary Steenburgen, Cindy Crawford, Daryl Hannah and Ed Harris.

©AAP 2006

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=145980
______________________

I'm by no means in support of this project (although natural gas emits about half as much CO2 as coal, so it's the lesser evil, and it would be good for my country's economy).

I just find it interesting that it's those who can afford a genuine protest are the ones more likely to suceed in preventing these kinds of developments in their back yards. I guess BHP will have to more this to Mexico

I'd actually like to see more information before I can make a judgement. Like the company's history at abiding by environmental laws and a more thorough prediction of the impact of this from a relatively unbiased source. But I'd probably be against it.

they're a mining company... including uranium. suffice to say, they're not exactly environmental crusaders.

That's hilarious he used terrorism as an excuse in this

i thought so too

Let's be honest here: the environment is second fiddle, what they really care about is the view and the real estate value.

bingo. plus being seen to care about the environment is good PR.

Absolutely. I love this quote -

"This proposed liquefied natural gas terminal is part of a globalised assault taking place on our Earth," Brosnan said.



What I'd like to know if these Liberal Hollywood Elites who are so concerned about this "globalised assault" drive around in hybrid cars and have solar panels on their mansions. I seriously doubt most, if not all, of them don't.

Celebrities protest against BHP

October 23, 2006 - 11:35AM

Former James Bond actor Pierce Brosnan and other celebrity residents gathered at Surfrider Beach in Malibu, California today to protest a natural gas facility proposed for a site 22 kilometres off the coast.

"We have to use our voices and band together and stop this," said Oscar winner Halle Berry.

The gathering - also attended by Cindy Crawford, Jane Seymour, Dick Van Dyke and Tea Leoni - was intended to raise awareness about how the energy industry has invested billions to liquefy and ship natural gas across oceans.

There are five facilities proposed for California, with three along the Southern California coastline. One of the world's largest energy companies, Australian-based BHP Billiton, is seeking to build the terminal off the coast of Malibu and Oxnard. A decision is expected next year.

BHP officials say the terminals would provide a reliable source of low-polluting energy. Opponents, however, say the terminals fail to meet clean air requirements and would be terrorist targets.

"We invented smog," said actor Ted Danson. "For us to be increasing that is insane."

Brosnan, who hosted the protest, said his opposition to the terminals extends beyond the beach in his backyard. He plans to oppose other proposed terminals, including one in Long Beach and one in Port Hueneme.

"I would certainly put our best efforts into that as well," said Brosnan. "I think this is for the whole California coastline."

Mark Massara, a lawyer and director of the Sierra Club's California Coastal Program, said the recent celebrity interest in the terminals has helped their cause tremendously.

"This is the greatest thing that has happened to our effort," he said. "We have struggled over the last three years."

Following a pancake breakfast, dozens of surfers, including actress Daryl Hannah on her pink board, paddled out to a sign bobbing in the water. The message to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has the power to veto the proposal, had a picture of the proposed terminal with a red line through it and two words: "Terminate it!"

http://www.theage.com.au/news/people/al ... 39749.html

I think I care less about this then what rubbish usually comes forth from hollywood's collective mouth. Seriously folks, you aren't well schooled in much of anything other than how to love yourself, and I don't care when you uninformedly moan and bitch. Perhaps you would prefer oil derricks ruining your view?

If I paid the kind of money for my home that these stars pay I would campaign against it too. They should just come out and say that and not hide behind half-hearted environmental concerns.

what?

hahaha

I swear, some of these entertainers are far more "entertaining" when they're not practicing their crafts.

Or pretend, for that matter to understand the local effect of an LNG station with the exception of their home values.

Another group for the STFU department...

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/11/14/hollyw ... index.html

Study: Movies stink (and they don't mean artistically)

LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Special effects explosions, idling vehicles, teams of workers building monumental sets -- all of it contributes to Hollywood's newly discovered role as an air polluter, a university study has found.

The film and television industry and associated activities make a larger contribution to air pollution in the five-county Los Angeles region than most of the other sectors studied, according to a two-year study released Tuesday by UCLA.

Although Hollywood seems environmentally conscious thanks to celebrities who lend their names to various causes, the industry created more pollution than each of four other sectors -- aerospace manufacturing, apparel, hotels and semiconductor manufacturing -- the study found.

Only petroleum manufacturing belched more emissions.

"People talk of 'the industry,' but we don't think of them as an industry," said Mary Nichols, who heads the school's Institute of the Environment, which released what researchers called a "snapshot" of industry pollution. "We think of the creative side, the movie, the people, the actors -- we don't think of what it takes to produce the product."

Researchers considered the emissions created directly and indirectly by the film and television industry. For example, they factored in both the pollution caused by a diesel generator used to power a movie set, as well as the emissions created by a power plant that provides electricity to a studio lot.

They also interviewed 43 people who worked in a variety of areas within the industry, and reviewed major trade publications to see the level of attention paid to environmental issues. In doing so, researchers found that some studios have recycling programs and green building practices.

"Nevertheless, our overall impression is that these practices are the exception and not the rule, and that more could be done within the industry to foster environmentally friendly approaches," the study said.

Part of Hollywood's problem is that unlike other industries, film and television work is often done by short-term production companies, in some cases making it difficult to apply environmentally friendly practices, the study said.

Researchers also noted environmentally responsible examples within the industry.

The makers of the film "The Day After Tomorrow" paid $200,000 to plant trees and for other steps to offset the estimated 10,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions caused by vehicles, generators and other machinery used in production.

And production teams for "The Matrix Reloaded" and "The Matrix Revolutions" arranged for 97.5 percent of set materials to be recycled, including some 11,000 tons of concrete, steel and lumber.

All the steel was recycled and 37 truckloads of lumber were reused in housing for low-income families in Mexico.

Lisa Day, spokeswoman for Participant Productions, which worked on offsetting carbon emissions from the making of "Syriana" and "An Inconvenient Truth," said she was a little surprised by the study's findings.

"I think the industry as a whole does look at itself," she said. "The studios have done a lot in terms of waste reduction. I think that energy is the new thing the industry is looking at and what impact they have."