The whole "all energy production is bad" theme of most environmental groups is pretty self-destructive. It feeds into the worst form of NIMBYism that results in people not wanting wind turbines because they "obstruct their view". Jeez, give me a break! Where does it end with NIMBY? How about we go NIMBY on wasteful consumption!

I'll tell you want I don't want in my backyard - wasteful inefficient cars that blare their horn right in front of my apartment at all hours of the night and present the quickest way to the emergency room for pedestrians and bikers.

But in terms of production, I think the real problem is that the local community does not reap the benefits of the energy production. I think each community should try to become as self sufficient in energy production as possible so if Virginia wants to have offshore drill and risk ruining their beaches instead of finding alternatives, let them decide that and reap the benefits or consequences of their decisions. But let it be done locally, not nationally.

In Japan, NIMBYism is responded to with local grants and benefits.  For example, some of the nuclear power plants have adjacent public swimming pools, heated with steam from the reactor next door.

They're very popular.

As to the cars under your window, I promise, I'd never do that to you, PeakGuy!

I thought the effort to put LNG terminal permitting under FERC rather than the local communities was a step in the right direction (ie anti-NIMBY).  The final law looks like a step in the right direction but I'm fuzzy as to the real effects.  Here in California, the Long Beach terminal looks a lot worst than the Channel platform proposal.  We'll probably need both.

unless the nimby-motivated locals produce valuable resources themselves, such as the wild salmon that would not be brought into our small harbor if an LNG plant were sited here