From the March 26, 2011 Seattle Times article:
We have what I can only deem one set of policies undermining another. Governor Christine Gregoire just signed a deal in March that would close two major Washington Sate coal-fired power plants by 2025.
By comparison, SSA Marine plans to have its Bellingham terminal ready to export 24 million tons of coal per year by 2015.
My issue is not so much the increased traffic of uncovered train cars which will blanket surrounding communities with coal dust, particularly near the end of the line in Bellingham, and contribute to derailments (Power companies and shippers in the Powder River Basin, source of the coal, have fought extensively against taking responsibility for the impacts of coal dust - "Railroads, Utilities Clash Over Dust From Coal Trains" Josh Voorhees. New York Times. January 25, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/25/25greenwire-railroads-utilities-clash-over-dust-from-coal-55265.html).
It's not even so much that impacts to local herring have not been fully studied, although this particular species of herring, by virtue of its offset reproduction schedule, provides a vital food supply for salmon and orca populations ("Cherry Point herring - Protecting a native Puget Sound resource." Conservation Northwest http://www.conservationnw.org/wildlife-habitat/cherry-point-herring).
It's that we can't seem to see we are running backwards against progress toward a clean energy future. I understand that the project has the potential to provide 400 jobs (perhaps 3,600 during construction). It's a hard proposition to turn down, especially in hard economic times.
And perhaps no amount of regulation on our side will affect in any way the coal-burning habits of Asian countries. But to actually aid them in that pursuit, when they are on the brink of deciding their own energy futures, seems to me downright irresponsible. And why, if we are looking for energy independence, should we link up our economy with their future dependence on coal?
Consider also that once the infrastructure is in place, no form of incentive will undo the decision. These facilities are not built with downsizing in mind. Another terminal, proposed by Millenium Bulk Logistics to export 5 million tons of coal a year from the Columbia River, was stalled only when internal documents revealed intentions to expand to 60 million tons once permits were granted. Let's insure that these plans do not become reality on our coast.
"Coal quandary as state plans to send dirty fuel overseas"
 |
| Photo credit: Steve Ringman / The Seattle Times |
We have what I can only deem one set of policies undermining another. Governor Christine Gregoire just signed a deal in March that would close two major Washington Sate coal-fired power plants by 2025.
By comparison, SSA Marine plans to have its Bellingham terminal ready to export 24 million tons of coal per year by 2015.
My issue is not so much the increased traffic of uncovered train cars which will blanket surrounding communities with coal dust, particularly near the end of the line in Bellingham, and contribute to derailments (Power companies and shippers in the Powder River Basin, source of the coal, have fought extensively against taking responsibility for the impacts of coal dust - "Railroads, Utilities Clash Over Dust From Coal Trains" Josh Voorhees. New York Times. January 25, 2010 http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2010/01/25/25greenwire-railroads-utilities-clash-over-dust-from-coal-55265.html).
It's not even so much that impacts to local herring have not been fully studied, although this particular species of herring, by virtue of its offset reproduction schedule, provides a vital food supply for salmon and orca populations ("Cherry Point herring - Protecting a native Puget Sound resource." Conservation Northwest http://www.conservationnw.org/wildlife-habitat/cherry-point-herring).
It's that we can't seem to see we are running backwards against progress toward a clean energy future. I understand that the project has the potential to provide 400 jobs (perhaps 3,600 during construction). It's a hard proposition to turn down, especially in hard economic times.
And perhaps no amount of regulation on our side will affect in any way the coal-burning habits of Asian countries. But to actually aid them in that pursuit, when they are on the brink of deciding their own energy futures, seems to me downright irresponsible. And why, if we are looking for energy independence, should we link up our economy with their future dependence on coal?
Consider also that once the infrastructure is in place, no form of incentive will undo the decision. These facilities are not built with downsizing in mind. Another terminal, proposed by Millenium Bulk Logistics to export 5 million tons of coal a year from the Columbia River, was stalled only when internal documents revealed intentions to expand to 60 million tons once permits were granted. Let's insure that these plans do not become reality on our coast.
No comments:
Post a Comment