Washington does not need to help feed China's coal habit
Two proposed coal terminals in Washington are drawing opposition for their potential impact on global greenhouse gases, Puget Sound's health and disruptions by daily coal trains in local towns and cities.
In the literary world it is called foreshadowing. Those little hints and bits that suggest what might come next. The corporate bumbling surrounding creation of two giant coal terminals in Washington has that feel.
Massive coal-export operations proposed for Longview and Cherry Point, north of Bellingham, emit the gritty aura of trouble to come.
Down south on the Columbia River, plans by Millennium Bulk Terminals went into hibernation after the Longview Daily News discovered the company hopes to export 80 million tons of coal annually through its proposed terminal. Reporter Erik Olson uncovered corporate email chatter about a number 15 times larger than was on the company's county application.
Up north, where SSA Marine proposes a massive terminal, KING-TV reported the company started to gouge out roads without proper permits or relevant environmental reviews. The exclamation point on the corporate presumption was news of a multiyear deal to ship at least 24 million tons of coal.
Turning Washington into a dumping ground for coal bound for China from the Powder River Basin of Montana and Wyoming hardly feels like an economic opportunity. The idea seems strained on so many levels.
Opponents of the Gateway Pacific Terminal Project proposed for Cherry Point cover, well, the waterfront.
Shipping really, really cheap coal to China to feed power plants is seen as compounding troubles with global warming and climate change. Why enable a nasty habit that harms the planet, as this country, and state, moves away from that behavior?
Economists point out that a reliable source of cheap, low-sulfur coal offers no incentive for China to change its ways and look for environmentally friendly ways to make electricity.
Dr. Thomas M. Power, of the University of Montana, wrote a compelling essay published by Sightline Institute, "The Greenhouse Gas Impact of Exporting Coal from the West Coast." As he reinforced in a telephone interview, "price matters," and to argue that economic and environmental costs are not important to the Chinese is laughable.
Long-standing environmental concerns about a bulk-commodity terminal at Cherry Point date to 1999, when plans were in the works for an 8.2-million-ton cargo facility. Port and pier infrastructure were seen as a threat to sensitive eelgrass and herring populations.
Now expansion plans look to a 54-million-ton capacity. Efforts stalled this week to revise an environmental agreement between shipping interests and groups concerned about the health of Puget Sound.
The proposed coal terminals sound alarms about global climate change, economic impacts and environmental hazards. Big topics. The daily presence of two-mile-long trains full of coal trundling through towns and cities raises pollution and traffic questions very close to home. Perhaps eight to 10 trains a day would head north to Cherry Point, then return empty.
Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike is worried about the grit and grime of the loads, and blocked streets at grade-level crossings, especially with no alternate routes for emergency traffic. In a conversation Wednesday, Pike raised these same points for Seattle. Traffic tie-ups are an issue in Marysville, as well.
Pike, a transportation expert before he was mayor, has been underwhelmed by the candor of the corporate folks behind the Gateway Pacific Terminal project. I go back to my opening point about past performance predicting future behavior.
Coal dust casts a pall, of sorts. Burlington Northern Santa Fe is having an absolute hissy fit about coal dust and its degrading effect on its own rail facilities. Indeed, it made a federal case of it. So how will BNSF act to protect others?
Coal terminals are a false economy for the planet and local communities. If the coal is routed through Canada, as threatened, so be it.
