Leave the Coal in the Ground

There is a new player in the mix for the tussle over the Gateway Pacific coal terminal (GPT) at Cherry Point. The Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports (ANJE) recently appeared on the scene with a colorful website (http://createnwjobs.com) and appealing television advertising. This is a propaganda campaign.

The first sentence on the website is, “We have a choice: Support new shipping terminals and thousands of new family-wage jobs in the Northwest ... or watch them go elsewhere.” ANJE makes the statement as though it is the only alternative we have, but there are many alternative possibilities. For example, we could develop renewable energy resources in Bellingham and create significant numbers of jobs in the sustainable energy industry.

It is unlikely that “thousands of new family-wage jobs” will be created. From the website of a similar operation as the one planned at Cherry Point, “Westshore [the Tsawwassen coal terminal] employs a team of over 250 employees. Bulk ports the world over are moving toward greater equipment automation, where remotely-operated machines … are becoming the norm.”

So, even being generous at three-times the size for the GPT, that amounts to perhaps 1,000 employees when the construction is completed and the terminal is operational. In all likelihood, the owners will be looking to automate operations rather than hire more people to run the plant. And is anyone talking about the toxic effects of working in coal 40 hours a week?

Particularly irksome is the claim on the ANJE website that, “Some critics have presented coal exports as a false choice between the environment and the economy.” The proponents of the GPT are setting up the strawman dichotomy to distract us from the facts: their claims of significant employment and positive economic effects are inflated (see Coal-Free Bellingham research).

Not frequently discussed is that coal has a dual existence. In the ground, it is relatively harmless and can act as a filtration system. When it is extracted from the earth and exposed to the two most common substances above-ground, water and air, it releases toxic sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid.

But most important in this argument is that we would be fools to sell coal to China or anyone at all because every lump of coal burned increases the CO2 level in the atmosphere, which further exacerbates global warming, which will melt the glaciers and ice caps more rapidly, which will put the piers at Cherry Point under water sooner rather than later. The evidence is now irrefutable (for example, read Bill McGibben’s latest offering at Rolling Stone titled “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math”).

Do we have so little regard for future generations that we would destroy the planet for short-term economic benefits? We must leave the coal in the ground.