From Stark
Laura Ruderman, 1st Congressional District candidate, has emailed a statement clarifying her position on SSA Marine’s Gateway Pacific Terminal coal shipping pier proposed for Cherry Point.
Ruderman’s statement:
“Let me be very clear that I do not support a coal port. What I have stated support for is moving forward with the 2-4 year environmental review of the building of a multi-use port at Cherry Point. This has been in the comp plan for the county for more than 25 years.
“The whole point of this review is to determine the effect of a port on the environment around Cherry Point. I know that these reviews work. My mother and stepfather live on the Maury Island portion of Vashon. They were very involved with fighting the proposed gravel mine there. Ultimately, by working through the established process, they were able to prove that the gravel mine could not pass the requisite environmental tests.
“Like you, I am opposed to coal being the major export. If the project can pass muster and be built, we are talking about at least 5-6 years before anything is shipped. The commodities markets are fickle, and I am hopeful that as we move through this process, we can find a different commodity to be the major export.
“Should I be elected, I will work hard to make sure that the environmental process is fair and that we find something other than coal to be the major export.”
End statement
Ruderman sent the statement in response to this post yesterday.
And that grain train driving thru Bellingham, yesterday?
“Farming looks mighty easy when your plow is a pencil and you’re a thousand miles from the corn field.”
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Rubie – Are you saying that you are a reporter? and that it is not the job of a reporter to expose the lies in a major project such as this proposed coal terminal?
I would think that would be exactly the job of a good reporter. What good is a reporter that reports the lies and never questions them?
There is so much to question about this project and no one is asking the right questions.
First of all, I’d like to know why the local environmental groups refuse to discuss the inherent lies in this terminal project? Why have ReSources and the Sierra Club backed off? I know that they say that they have decided to work through the system, but at the same time, they are refusing to hold SSA to the BAT and BAP standards that are necessary to protect the community nearest the coal terminal.
There is no way in this world to prevent coal dust from open coal piles from polluting the air, water, and ground, outside of the terminal property. It has never been done and there is no technology which would prevent pollution from open coal piles, mainly because the coal dust isn’t released from the standing piles, but during the moving of the coal piles. Surfactants are illegal for industrial use in the state of WA and wouldn’t really work anyway, because they only coat the surface and like I said the standing coal is not the problem.
My next question is, “Was the Chinese trade rep lying when he said that the Chinese market for sub-bituminous coal was extremely time-limited? If he was being factual, why is there such a rush to build coal terminals in Oregon and WA?
You said that SSA did not have a lock on the grain to be shipped from the NW, but like I said, they weren’t talking about the grain that is now being produced, they were promising to get the Agricultural restrictions on growing grain and soy beans removed on the condition that the farmers ship via the SSA terminal.
Now, about the trucks, they were talking trains, and only trains, because if they start talking trucks, they would have to include the truck traffic and the need for improved freeway interchanges and even and extra lane on the freeway in their EIP. If the citizens of Bellingham don’t like the trains, they won’t like a caravan of trucks, any better.
Craig Cole did start out telling the Republicans that there would be trucks and truck jobs, but he quickly backed off when I pointed out that SSA would be responsible for the needed road improvements. Of course, he didn’t even have any idea of what might be carried in the trucks at that time.
I’ve been asked time and again why the Republicans are supporting this project. The reason is that they believe ALL the lies that Craig Cole has told, all of them.
Not all lies are told,
and not all that are told are lies so
no,
it’s not the reporter’s job to uncover defects in any reporting they do
especially on a proposed project without specifics.
Don’t expect any normal paper to dissect the particulars behind a sales job
but Whatcom Watch did a fine job debunking the myths advanced by SSA about their ‘clean’ terminal technology.
Math is your best friend when vetting railroad capacities and one needn’t be too swift to calculate the traffic it takes to a single terminal site attempting to fill huge ships with 54 million tons of any product by rail in 365 short days.
Is there enough unused capacity and arable land for grain growers in the NW to support a new grain terminal?
Math says no when looking at all the present and actual uses of farmland in a suitable climate.
Can NW farmers make more money by selling to China – the world’s largest grain producer?
Maybe but the idea of grain leaving through GPT is a ruse to deflect factual criticism of the coal dump itself.
There are specialized grains being marketed right now from NW farmers but they are not bulk-suitable and won’t be available to add to SSA’s elevators which do not exist on any site plan.
We agree more than we disagree which is nice for a change.
To be or not to be that is the question, the question of building this new terminal deserves a civil and reasonable discussion from all sides on whether it should be built or not but just watching the debate herein between two opponents of the terminal between themselves demonstrates how much a civil debate is penalized when a discussion is being had only by those with a narrow point of focus.
In the meantime there is a permit process now beginning that hopefully within it all points of view can be heard in some form of civil proceeding whereas in the final conclusion all reasonable/rational differences are mitigated so as progress can be forthcoming.
“They afterwards took me to a dancing saloon where I saw the only rational method of art criticism I have ever come across. Over the piano was printed a notice- ‘Please do not shoot the pianist. He is doing his best.’” Oscar Wilde
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Sam made a good point. Once you get a terminal in there, it will be impossible to keep the poll out. Any politician who says they are for a grain port but against a coal port is lying to you. Seems to me Kelli Linville said something like that, as well as Laura Ruderman.
If you are against a coal port you have to be against a grain port too. As I keep saying, the grain terminal is just a red herring.
Whoops. That should be “impossible to keep the coal out.”
There was a second part to my question, too, and it’s genuine, because I don’t know: Can anyone actually stop this terminal from being constructed based on the type of product it would export? One answer may be: Yes, if it harms the environment, and it can be shown that it does so.
So a second question would be, if the developer can show there are effective environmental mitigation measures that comply with state requirements/law, is there any way the terminal could be stopped from being constructed because of the type of product they would export?
To be clear, this is not a “for” or “against” post. This is a genuine question, because I don’t know.
But I am always iffy on a person running for Congress saying they’ll work to ensure that a private business will run a certain way during an election. How can they possibly do that? And should they?
Sam points out that Congress has no obvious involvement in the Gateway Pacific process. But Rep. Rick Larsen helped to make it an issue by going out of his way to endorse the project when it was fresh out of the wrapper.
Sam’s question about mitigation is also on target. When CBI proposed a massive oil rig construction facility on the same property 30+ years ago, they needed shoreline amendments that shifted a lot of the burden of proof to them on environmental issues. This time, as near as I can tell, the issue is a major development permit for property already zoned for what they want to do. If coal has unique environmental side-effects that cannot be mitigated, the project could be blocked on that basis. But if they can offer a credible mitigation plan for coal shipments, it will be harder to turn this down.
As I understand it, they will need to perform studies on possible impacts on the herring population resulting from construction of this terminal, with and/or without coal, and the results of those studies could also pose a problem.
Perhaps we’ll get more clarity on this after the meeting on Tuesday evening.
It is too early to talk about what standards SSA is being held to. They have yet to complete their permit application! The scoping meeting for the EIS has yet to be scheduled! On Tuesday, we get the “pre-scoping meeting.”
John and Sam, the key word in all of this is mitigation, this project as with any project has it negative and plus factors, if the negative factors can be reasonably mitigated, the ability of projects to get built tend to increase.
You know, isn’t that what a permit process is all about?
I also am looking forward to Tuesday and hoping all those there come with open minds and a civil attitude. If not they will be the losers.
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
Oh, BTW the odds of open minds and civil in Bham is about zero and none!
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!