As I was reading the entertainment section of the Evansville Courier & Press today, I noticed a blurb about Pierce Brosnan protesting a natural gas facility that is proposed for a location near Malibu. Other celebrities are also protesting the fact that utilities are investing billions of dollars to liquefy and ship natural gas over oceans. BHP Billiton, an Australian company, is proposing the terminal near Malibu. Apparently, Pierce Brosnan has a beach-front property in Malibu.

I was not really surprised that Pierce Brosnan would take this position, as I believe his wife is into the environment and he seems to be a great advocate for many causes. However, you have to wonder whether some of the other celebrities mentioned in the story (e.g. Halle Berry and Cindy Crawford) ever complain about the destruction to the environment or reliance on fossil fuels when it is far removed from Malibu. What happens when less attractive and/or less touristy places are affected by our addiction to oil and other fossil fuels? I honestly don't know which celebrities are really into alternative energy issues, but it seems like too many jump on the bandwagon only when it affects their own backyard. Otherwise, they are probably not the poster-children for alternative energy. I agree that Malibu is probably a terrible spot for a natural gas facility given its natural beauty. However, if we are going to continue with our huge consumption of fossil fuels as probably most celebrities do with all of their traveling, use of luxury items, filming of movies, etc., then we may have to accept that there is a big price to pay. We can't have our cake and eat it, too. In other words, if we want cheap coal power, we are going to have tons of coal pollution to deal with. If we are going to consume oil like crazy, then we have to deal with the destruction to the environment caused by drilling, refining and burning oil. Likewise, if we want to use the comparatively clean natural gas, then we have to deal with the fact that this has to be transported via pipelines or in liquid form by ships, sometimes in beautiful places like Alaska or perhaps, Malibu. If we want to protect one area only, then we seem to be missing the bigger picture, which is that no place is really safe from the effects of fossil fuel use when our reliance only seems to get greater each year that goes by. If we want changes on a smaller scale, then we have to reach for changes on a far grander scale. We must conserve more fossil fuels and truly focus on alternative energy as the way of the future. At least all of these celebrities in California can look to their own governor as a real leader on the alternative energy front. Other governors around the country are clinging to fossil fuel use as some sort of security blanket, which seems rather ironic, since there can be no long term security where there is such reliance on energy sources that are of a finite supply.