Comments

1
Up to four coal trains a day pass through Vancouver, and the have been doing this for years. Wherer is the coal dust? The Wyoming coal is a cleaner coal than the coal from Australia, which is the other source China is looking at. Since Chinas' emissions wind up on the west coast of America (so I have read) I would rather have China using our coal. I really don't believe this 250,00 pounds of coal dust per train. The biggest problem will be the disruption of traffic with up to (according to the railroads) 10 trains per day. If we sell 150 million tons of coal per year, we could get a lot of our money back and just think of the number of permanent jobs that will be created.
2
Please cite your sources on the incorrect claim that Wyoming coal is 'cleaner' than Australian coal. Wyoming coal is much lower in energy that other forms of coal and so MORE of it often has to be burned to create the same amount of electricity. Any lower amount of other pollutants (like mercury, sulfur dioxide, etc) in Wyoming coal is likely offset by the need to burn significant amounts more of it.

This 'I would rather have China using our coal' is just plain head-in-the-sand ignorance.

And what do you mean by 'we' would sell coal and get 'our' money back? The coal is already owned by the American people, but is sold at below market value to multinational, out-of-state companies like Peabody coal for little more than $1.00 per ton, and then re-sold for huge profits by those same out-of-state coal companies, and billionaires like Warren Buffet, who owns Burlington Northern Railroad. 'We' in Oregon get little economic benefit. A true, comprehensive environmental impact statement would require an economic analysis that looks at the costs, benefits and tradeoffs. For the most part, aside from a relatively small number of jobs, Oregon will bear the economic costs for the profits of Peabody and Warren Buffet.

Perhaps the reason that coal export supporters are so vehemently opposed to an Environmental Impact Statement is that it will not only show environmental harm, but will reveal the true economic costs for the region, while the benefits go elsewhere.
3
WHY DON'T THEY JUST COVER THE COAL CARS? SEEMS SIMPLE ENOUGH TO ME.
4
Thanks for pointing out the obvious solution, Graham. If the main problem was coal dust, that would fix it.

I think the problem is "that whole global warming thing". The US is finally moving away from coal, in favor of [slightly better] natural gas. It is asinine to backstop the coal companies' dying industry by shipping coal overseas.

Plus, has anyone considered the possibility that China might also move away from coal in the not-so-distant future? (Yeah, they are building a coal plant every day, but they also have their own coal...) Who pays to build these terminals? Taxpayers? What can they become when no one wants coal anymore?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.