John Locatelli's blog on China reminded me that coal is in the news--specifically, coal on its way to China from Washington shores. Or not. Whether this should happen has been the subject of hearings in our state and a decision is due soon. An even bigger issue might be the global effect of millions of tons of coal being burned in China, which could/should be a separate discussion. Dexter's recent blog reminded me that some people don't believe global warming is real, or that we have a role in contributing to it. So let's set that issue aside for now, and just consider coal in our state.
Coal is a big part of our local history, with old mines not far from Enumclaw, and neighboring coal communities having contributed to our town's development. In a very different way, coal is part of my own history. The coal man came every week through the housing project where I lived as a little girl and dumped coal into the bins in front of our units. Some bins had lids, others were open and had just three sides. The latter, to the minds of preschoolers, were like little 3-sided houses, and my friends and I played in them. Our moms were probably exasperated when we came in with blackened hands, faces, shoes, clothes, but I don't think anybody worried about the coal dust at that time. Coal in a bucket sat by the stove in the living room the winter of 1949-50, and I'm certainly glad we had it to keep us warm. (Does anybody remember the several feet of snow in Seattle that January?!) At my grandma's house in Utah, the bucket, or just big chunks of coal, sat by the kitchen stove, and coal kept the stovetop hot for morning mush and coffee and the oven hot for bread and raisin cake later in the day. That's how it was. We burned coal for our daily needs because that was what we had.
That-was-then-this-is-now. Over the years, our family has used other energy sources for heat and cooking: wood, oil, hydro-electric, natural gas, and recently, solar. Coal still figures in our daily use, since 30 percent of PSE's electricity comes from coal. But natural gas is replacing coal in many areas as fracking makes the gas cheaper to access. The good news is, natural gas is definitely cleaner (the bad news is, well, fracking....another story). And as we use less and less coal in our own country, coal companies are looking to China.
In December advocates and protesters spoke up at hearings held to determine whether or not to have coal ports on our shores for the trainloads coming from Montana and Wyoming. Public comment is still being taken through January 21, so you might want to look at some of the questions that have come up, get the facts, and then voice your opinion. Questions such as....
What will be the cost to Washington taxpayers?
How many jobs would be added in our state?
Would any jobs be lost or any businesses be adversely affected?
What has been the experience of other towns/states?
How many trains are we talking about?
Where would street traffic be affected?
How would current rail traffic be affected?
In what ways would property values be affected?
Would there be significant impact on human health from coal dust?
Will fish and seafood in our waterways and the sound be safe?
My own view is that these questions should be seriously considered and satisfactorily answered before we invest a lot of tax-payer money and commit our citizens to a situation that would be difficult to undo once unforeseen (or foreseen) problems surfaced. As you look into it, whatever your conclusions, you can give input online at
http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment
or mail a statement to
GPT/BNSF Custer Spur EIS Co-Lead Agencies
c/o CH2M Hill
1100 112th Ave NE, Suite 400
Bellevue, WA 98004
It appears the number would be about 18 a day. But the impact on traffic would be affected by the length, about a mile and a half each, and the speed of these trains. In cities, they would be limited to about 10-15 mph. Have you ever had to stop for a train in Puyallup, or Sumner, or Auburn, or Kent? Look what happens now on the Seattle waterfront when traffic is stopped for a train. Imagine how long you would have to wait for one of these behemoths. "Increased numbers of coal trains running through Seattle, to about 18 each day, could increase street traffic delays by one to three hours each day by 2026, according to a study commissioned by the Seattle Department of Transportation released Monday." Puget Sound Business Journal. Nov 5, 2012. Imagine breathing the coal dust from these open cars while you wait. (Coal trains will lose 3% of their loads as coal dust between Powder River Basin and Bellingham. That's a whole trainload of coal going into the air every six days.) There are many sacrifices people and businesses would have to make, and very few gains, just to support the interests of Peabody Coal Company in St. Louis.
The coal being mined is sub-par which translates to needing to burn twice as much for the same result as what the US used in the past. Keep in mind that their air current will be blowing back to us over the ocean depositing unburned heavy metals into the waters and risking our off shore habitats and wildlife never mind what happens when it makes land fall and we inhale. There is noise pollution to consider as each train crossing has 15 whistle blows, I believe, at a 110 decibel (a dangerous level) disturbing sleep and interrupting work conversations. What happens if a coal train derails? And worse, what if it happens in a waterway spilling coal into the Sound, Columbia or our Puyallup? What about response times of emergency services if stuck at a train crossing? Coal will take priority on the BNSF displacing agriculture which relies on rail to move product quickly and less expensively and it will push more trucks on the road because of freight displacement and not just of ag products. Check with your city to see if they are submitting a Coal Train EIS Scoping Letter. Sumner is.
It may be all a moot point if Obama gets his way and regulates coal out of existence and all our energy costs skyrocket.
Taxpayers could spend all this money to build ports and then have China turn to Indonesia or Australia. The major cost of coal is transportation and there is no way to compete with China's neighbors. And China has huge coal resources of its own that it can leverage to keep prices at rock bottom. China is also making a gradual shift to other energy sources. We could spend millions in taxpayer money on a coal port only to see it sit idle. That's what Portland did. "The Port and investors spent $25 million building a coal export terminal. The project imploded just two years later after Asian markets proved unstable, unreliable, and not-so-hungry. After a five-month investigation in 1984, the Oregonian reported, 'Port and Pacific Coal officials heedlessly plunged ahead despite clear warnings that they might never move a solitary lump of coal.' And they never did." Gambling on Coal and Losing--the history of West Coast coal terminals. Sightline Daily, 9/12/12 Los Angeles followed Portland's example. The facility closed just six years after it opened owing to unfavorable market conditions. When the facility shut down, the City of Los Angeles had to write off $19 million of capital expense and forfeit $94 million in expected revenue. Then the city was sued for failing to consider alternative uses of the site and taxpayers shelled out $28 million to settle the suit.
You know, I don't really see myself as a Chicken Little. Or a Turkey-Lurkey, just getting in line. I think I am more investigative. Maybe CL didn't have research skills, but if only he had asked a few questions....If only Portland and LA had....I hope a lot more questions will be asked (and answered) in Washington. I feel a little worried, listening to Coal Country Music, including "Paradise" by John Prine: "Mr. Peabody's coal train just hauled it away...."
Regarding ranchers--I have seen reports of Montana ranchers having their land condemned by eminent domain, some hurt by new rail lines cutting through their property, others by the degradation of their land and water supplies because of the mining. Apparently the future of cattle ranching and agriculture in these areas is at risk.