Climate and the coal trains

Government is a curious beast. For decades, the feds subsidized tobacco farmers while warning consumers that it would kill them. Coal is the energy analogue: The feds subsidize coal mining on public lands in Wyoming and Montana’s Powder River Basin (to the tune of $29 billion) while trumpeting the hazards of carbon pollution as the primary driver of climate change.

It’s comically tragic or tragically comic.

Consumers learned that tobacco was unhealthy, and domestic demand plummeted. For the past decade, the nation’s appetite for coal has dipped thanks to renewable energy, conservation and cleaner natural gas. Whither industry? No, no. Simply take what you have and market it overseas.

The separated-at-birth comparison ends there — energy is a necessity. National policy demands coherence, and President Barack Obama gave it a stab with his Tuesday speech addressing climate change.

“We don’t have time for a meeting of the flat-earth society,” Obama said. “Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it won’t protect you from the coming storm.” It’s a fitting capsule on the debate to export PRB coal from terminals at Cherry Point near Bellingham and the Millennium Bulk facility at Longview. Supporters have their heads in the sand for not weighing the long-term health and climate fallout. Opponents are similarly naïve if they don’t address the demand for increased rail capacity, coal or no.

As The Herald’s Bill Sheets reports, the number of coal trains headed to British Columbia will continue to rise, although nowhere on the scale of the Gateway/Cherry Point proposal. Gateway spells 18 round trips per day, with an annual export volume of 48 million metric tons. It’s best not to picture the nearly 1,000 mega-cargo ships that will ferry the coal to Asia, or to imagine, “What if?”

On June 17, the Army Corps of Engineers announced that its environmental review would be limited. Social impacts, global warming, and coal dust are too wide-angle for a statutorily limited bureaucracy (Opponents should look on the Corps’ decision as a blessing. Most engineers aren’t exactly skilled at measuring social data.)

Obama’s climate-change speech threw light on an executive style that asks the larger questions. Regarding the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the president underlined the need for no net increase in climate-change gases. “Allowing the Keystone pipeline to be built requires finding that doing so is in our national interest,” Obama said.

And so we have our index: Are Northwest coal-export facilities in the public interest? Tally up the costs, and the answer is no.

More in Opinion

Daydream is over; GOP must work with Democrats on ACA fix

Editorial: The Senate should end its latest ACA repeal effort and continue bipartisan talks.

Editorial cartoons for Monday, Sept. 25

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Editorial cartoons for Sunday, Sept. 24

A sketchy look at the day in politics.… Continue reading

Simoneaux: Job-hunting advice from one who’s done hunting

Past a certain age — say 50 — you’ll need to keep your wits and your humor at the ready.

Saunders: Ask around; you’ll hear praise for Trump on N. Korea

The leader of the nation most vulnerable to Kim’s aggression said he liked Trump’s speech.

Milbank: If he isn’t making us ill, Trump is making some crazy

A new paper discusses the Trump era and what mental health professionals are observing in patients.

Corporate tax reform won’t trickle down to workers

I see Congress is going to tackle tax reform, including cuts to… Continue reading

County Council, Dist. 5: Kelly’s knowledge needed on council

Recently the Herald chose to give a great deal of attention to… Continue reading

Why Snohomish County should shoot for Amazon’s HQ2

Editorial: Not that we have a real shot at it, but because of what else we might attract here.

Most Read