Can 1 man save the planet?

[pscot]

Jay Inslee, the Governor of Washington has some credibility as a pro-environment politician, but that credibility is about to be tested. If 538 billion tons of coal are allowed to pass through Washington state on its way to China the resulting 1.5 trillion tons of atmospheric CO2 will push the biosphere into fibrillation and collapse. Inslee controls the choke point for this coal. It has to go through Washington. If he fights the coal companies, he could, at the very least, delay by years the burning of this deadly fuel Washington could become the global focal point for resistance to the suicidal course the energy barons are bent on. Inslee has been silent on the issue of the coal ports. He is certainly feeling the heat. The issue is being framed as jobs versus the environment, but that's weak. The real question is whether a few jobs are adequate compensation for the death of the biosphere.

China is building at least one new coal-fired power plant every week and has a seemingly limitless appetite for coal. The Powder River Basin in southeast Montana and northeast Wyoming has a seemingly limitless supply. There (are plans to link) this supply with Asian demand through west coast coal terminals. Two potential sites in Washington state—Gateway Pacific Terminal at Cherry Point (Carrix/SSA Marine, Peabody Energy) and Millennium Bulk Terminal at Longview (Ambre Energy, Arch Coal)—are currently the most active projects, although other sites both in the States and in Canada are under consideration.

Coal mining and coal transport (by both rail and sea) are problematic when conducted at such scale. Local economies, communities, and human health are foremost amongst concerns. The coal industry itself acknowledges that coal markets are traditionally volatile and that coal terminals are financially risky ventures. Strategic questions regarding the wisdom of selling energy resources cheaply to an economic rival have been raised. Additional concerns include those about the coal combustion that occurs once the PRB coal reaches its market.

The Gateway Pacific Terminal, (at the Cherry Point refinery in North Puget Sound) a project of Pacific International Terminals, would be owned by SSA Marine, which is owned by Carrix, partnered with Goldman Sachs. Coal mined from the Powder River Basin by Peabody Energy would be hauled by trains along BNSF rail lines. The coal train corridor extends from mines in Montana and Wyoming through Sandpoint, Idaho to Spokane, down through the Columbia River Gorge, then up along the Puget Sound coast, passing through Longview, Tacoma, Seattle, Edmonds, Everett, Mt. Vernon, Bellingham, Ferndale and all points.....


Transporting coal from the Powder River Basin to proposed west coast terminal sites would require unprecedented levels of regional rail usage. There are concerns not only about dramatically increased rail traffic, but also about negative impacts associated with coal trains specifically, due to train length, weight, content, and polluting capacity. The terminal at Cherry Point would see the addition of approximately 30 miles of coal trains daily to the BNSF rail line that runs along the Puget Sound coast. Washington state's (barely adequate) rail system is already nearing practical capacity; infrastructure would need to be upgraded to accommodate proposed usage. BNSF has been largely silent on the issue of rail improvements ; it remains unclear who would pay, and what kind of physical and economic disruption such upgrades would cause.

http://www.coaltrainfacts.org/key-facts

[cilla4progress]

1. My daughter, a University student in Bellingham,

just had the opportunity to vote for representatives who OPPOSE the coal train.

Happily, her side won!

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. "partnered with Goldman Sachs."

They seem to be involved with so many destructive businesses.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. You say "538 billion tons of coal" and "1.5 trillion tons of CO2" as if it's a calculation

Wouldn't it be better to say "gazillion" or something to acknowledge that's it's hyperbole? The actual figure from the article is 48 million tons per year. Any more coal is bad, but it's about 0.6% of the world annual coal production. This is not a tipping point for coal use.

[pscot]

4. You know where the tipping point for coal use is?

If we send 100 million tons a year to China (2 coal ports, 1 north 1 south) we add 286 million tons of CO2 to atmospheric burden. That's a 5% increase in our annual CO2 emissions. It's our coal. We own whatever effects burning it will produce. We can say "NO" right now. If not now, when? What sort of sign are we waiting for? Read the IPCC report.

[NickB79]

5. If it fuels the construction of hundreds of new coal plants

And each of those plants operates for 30-50 years before closing.....

You see where this leads, right?