Tag: environment
By John Stark
State Sen. Doug Ericksen, R-42nd, has announced “New Energy Fridays” to focus his legislative committe’s attention on energy issues one day each week.
Here’s the press release from Ericksen’s office:
OLYMPIA…Sen. Doug Ericksen, Majority Coalition Caucus chairman of the Senate Energy and Telecommunications Committee, today announced the committee will spend each of its Friday meetings on fresh ideas in the field of energy.
“Energy policy is directly linked to job creation, our environment and the economy. I get it, and that’s why I’m devoting each Friday this session to examining exciting new energy policies and technologies,” said Ericksen, R-Ferndale.
“While we examine what works and what doesn’t in the world of energy, our emphasis will remain squarely on three goals: reducing energy costs, encouraging new technologies and creating energy-sector jobs.”
Ericksen said he’s taking a collaborative approach and encourages anyone with an interest in energy technology to follow the committee on television through TVW or online at www.tvw.org. He also asked people share their ideas for topics the committee should consider.
“It’s important to me that we keep an open mind and consider ideas from all areas of the spectrum, with a focus on an idea’s merit rather than its political pedigree,” Ericksen continued. “Too often government tries to get into the business of picking winners and losers. I want to see a level playing field in energy policy where all technologies are put in a position to succeed.
“We’ll be looking at fresh approaches but by no means will we be turning our back on proven energy sources. Above all, Washington has to maintain its low power costs and reliable energy grid. These are competitive advantages that help drive our state’s high quality of life and attract businesses to our region.”
End press release
By John Stark
Coal use in Asia will rise rapidly in the years ahead, even if the Chinese economy slumps and western governments succeed in enacting carbon tax measures, the International Energy Agency says in a new report.
Writing in his Dot Earth blog in the New York Times, Andrew Revkin sums things up bluntly:
“Anyone making the case that some magical application of a carbon price, in the United States or elsewhere, can ride to the rescue of the climate system is missing the primacy of real-time energy needs over long-term climate concerns,” Revkin writes.
Revkin is no climate-change denier. He goes on to suggest steps that could be taken to minimize the damage to the environment. But those steps are likely to be unpopular in some circles. As he sees it, attention should be focused on making coal-burning as efficient as possible, so that developing economies get the maximum amount of electric power for every ton of coal they burn.
Richard K. Morse, director of research on coal an d carbon markets at Stanford University’s Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, made the same exact point in an article in Foreign Affairs last August.
The full article is behind a paywall so I can’t link it all for you, but here is a key excerpt:
“Given how dominant coal is, one of the most promising ways to fight global warming is to make it emit less carbon dioxide, a solution that is less elusive than commonly thought. Merely installing the best available technologies in coal plants in the developing world could slash the volume of carbon dioxide released by billions of tons per year, doing more to reduce emissions on an annual basis than all the world’s wind, solar and geothermal power combined do today.”
Many months ago, I discussed Morse’s article with Eric dePlace of Sightline Institute, who has focused on environmental issues surrounding SSA Marine’s proposed Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export facility at Cherry Point.
“I agree with part of it,” dePlace said.
It is important to talk about ways to help the developing world produce energy more efficiently, and that could mean more efficient use of coal in the near-term. Coal-burning isn’t going to stop in the next 10 years, dePlace agrees.
But he is wary of energy policies that would lock Asian economies into long-term reliance on coal.
“Even the most efficient coal plant is not very efficient,” dePlace said, adding that money invested in retrofitting older, dirtier coal plants would be better-spent elsewhere.
“Getting a 40 percent reduction in coal emissions is not nearly adequate to the task,” dePlace said. “We need, as a world, to transition off coal in the next few decades … I’m far from convinced that investing in and thereby extending the life of existing coal plants would be the smartest thing to do with investors’ money.”
In his Foreign Affairs article, Morse says alternative forms of energy are much-preferred — and the Chinese are moving actively to develop them — but in some places, no alternatives are available.
“Critics may argue that financing any kind of coal is bad environmental policy,” Morse writes. “The calculus, however, is more complicated, and it depends on counterfactuals. In places where financing coal power would crowd out cleaner sources of energy, development banks should refrain from doing so. But much of the developing world, constrained by tight budgets and limited alternatives for large-scale power generation, faces a choice not between coal and renewable energy but between inefficient coal plants and efficient ones … Indulging in quixotic visions of a coal-free world is an incoherent and inadequate response to the problem of global warming.”
Does any of this have any bearing on the debate over Gateway Pacific? That is likely one of the issues that regulatory agencies will have to grapple with soon, as they make key decisions on the scope of the environmental impact statement.
For opponents of Gateway Pacific, it’s a no-brainer: Burning coal contributes to climate change, and Gateway Pacific would contribute to burning coal. Therefore, that issue must be a part of the environmental impact statement process, and in the likely event that there is no way to mitigate for the damage caused by burning the coal, the project should be denied.
But the IEA report and the arguments from people like Morse and Revkin raise some doubts. If China and India can’t get Powder River Basin coal from West Coast ports, will they burn less coal? Is there any way to get a solid answer to that question?
And if the answer is, “No, they will not burn any less coal,” does it follow that cashing in on the inevitable is good public policy for the county, the state and the region? Does it mean that the scope of the environmental impact statement and the required mitigation should be limited to more localized concerns, such as railroad impacts?
Eric dePlace recently produced this report on the PR firms involved in promoting Gateway Pacific. (The Seattle P-I-s Joel Connelly reports here on dePlace’s report, and gets reaction comments from some of the PR people involved.) Read a collection of dePlace’s reports on coal exports here.
By John Stark
On Crosscut, retired Western Washington University journalism professor Floyd McKay provides an excellent summary of the Gateway Pacific Terminal scoping meetings, and a look ahead at what might happen next.
Among other things, McKay suggests that the county, Ecology and Army Corps of Engineers staffers who are reviewing the scoping testimony will likely refer key decisions to their bosses, and governor-elect Jay Inslee may be in the loop.
By John Stark
The Friday, Dec. 7 accident at the Westshore Terminal coal pier in British Columbia got just a short mention in Saturday’s newspaper and the Friday online edition. I’m sure many of you wanted more.
Here’s an update from The Maritime Executive, noting that one of the berths at the terminal, just north of the U.S. border, remains out of commission as of Monday, Dec. 10. The report says there is still no explanation for the accident, in which a coal ship apparently crashed through the conveyer belt that carries coal to the loading equipment and spilled about 30 tons of coal into the sea.
Here’s a report and aerial photo from Metro Vancouver. This report indicates that the collision and spill have stirred up some serious misgivings about plans to expand the terminal.
Here’s a lengthy report about opposition to coal exports in British Columbia. It appeared in the Maple Ridge News before last week’s mishap.
Expansion of the Canadian coal terminal could be significant to Bellingham and Whatcom County, since U.S. coal exported through Westshore would likely use BNSF Railway Co. tracks through western Washington and Bellingham to get there — as some coal trains are already doing. This report also details plans to expand coal export capacity in Canada, and it appears as though those plans were not slated for extensive regulatory review at the time this report was written.
Some proponents of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project proposed for Whatcom County’s Cherry Point have argued that if a local terminal is not built, the coal will still be shipped through Bellingham en route to potentially-expandable Canadian terminals and Chinese steam plants.
But opponents contend that the potential increase in coal train traffic through Bellingham to Canada is nowhere near the 18 trains per day (loaded and empty) that would be generated by Gateway Pacific at full capacity.
Here’s a link to the Communitywise Bellingham report on that issue.
In any event, Westshore also handles Canadian coal that gets to the terminal via Canadian rail lines. Here’s one example–the coal sources in this deal appear to be Canadian. (report from NASDAQ)
By John Stark
After the uproar over the use or misuse of the public comment period at the Nov. 29 environmental impact statement scoping meeting in Ferndale, as well as at the Dec. 4 meeting in Spokane, the regulatory agencies have announced a different approach.
This week, at the Wed. Dec. 12 meeting in Vancouver, Wash. and the Thursday, Dec. 13 meeting in Seattle, a lottery system will be in place to decide who gets one of the limited number of two-minute speaking opportunities before a live microphone. No need to show up hours early to get a chance.
Read the details here in a joint press release from Whatcom County, Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Details on the meetings themselves:
Vancouver: Wednesday, Dec. 12, 2012; 4 to 7 p.m.; Clark College, Gaiser Student Center, 1933 Fort Vancouver Way; meeting room capacity is 800.
Seattle: Thursday, Dec. 13, 2012; 4 to 7 p.m.; Washington State Convention Center, 800 Convention Place, Ballroom 6F. Capacity is 3,500.
In an email last week, Whatcom County Planning Manager Tyler Schroeder reiterated that the three agencies aren’t giving any extra credit for comments spoken into a microphone. Mailed and emailed comments get the same consideration:
“Yes, the agencies will be giving the the same significance to oral
comments as written comments. All comments, regardless of how
submitted, are transcribed and posted on the website for review. There
are many avenues for people to submit comments and thousands of people
are commenting on line, either via the website, or by email: http://www.eisgatewaypacificwa.gov/get-involved/comment . We will be reviewing all comments received during the 120-day comment period.”
The comment period ends Jan. 21, 2012.
By John Stark
Today, the Bellingham City Council will discuss a proposed letter to regulatory agencies outlining the economic and environmental impacts of the Gateway Pacific Terminal project that should be studied as part of the environmental impact statement process.
The full council will discuss the letter at a 2 p.m. Monday, Dec. 10 committee session in council chambers at City Hall, 210 Lottie St.
Read the full text of the five-page letter here.
The council is not scheduled to take final action on the letter. Instead, they will give city staffers direction on the next draft of the letter. The regulatory agencies — Whatcom County, Washington Department of Ecology and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers — is accepting comments on the environmental impact statement scope until Jan. 21. 2013.
Have you sent yours in yet? Here’s a handy link.
By John Stark
A BNSF Railway Co. coal train with a brake problem stalled in Mount Vernon today, blocking several crossings for over 45 minutes.
The Skagit Valley Herald reports.
By John Stark
Randel Perry, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ point man for environmental review of the Gateway Pacific Terminal, has shared his thoughts on the brouhaha over access to the microphone at recent “scoping meetings” to get public comment on what issues need study.
David Stalheim shared an email message from Perry that was sent to him and a number of other people. (An email like this from a public official discussing public business is legally subject to disclosure.)
Perry, who was at last week’s Ferndale scoping meeting, wrote:
“I also had discussions with a few people at the meeting about this issue. The concern expressed was that the project proponents had ‘stacked the deck’ for verbal comment. It’s interesting that we did not hear this complaint at the previous three meetings where project opponents used the same tactic to secure a majority of the verbal comment opportunities.
One of the people I talked to provided an interesting viewpoint. She was disappointed that ‘those people’ had dominated the public testimony and felt that we had not provided an adequate forum for public debate on the issue. It was her opinion that we should allocate a 50/50 split on the numbers between the pro and con factions to facilitate a balanced discussion on the issue and to ensure that we (co-leads) were not swayed in out permit decision by unbalanced input.
It was evident that her perception was based on what she believed the meetings were for as opposed to what we are trying to achieve. I explained to her the nature of scoping meetings, the types of constructive comments we were looking for (impacts, alternatives, etc.), and that all comments, regardless of how they are submitted or how often they are repeated, held equal weight.
I also explained that it was not the agencies’ job at scoping meetings to provide a public forum for debate or to facilitate a discussion on whether or not permits should be issued. Debates can be organized by other entities and the public will have future opportunities to express their opinions to the agencies on permit issuance.
I emphasized the fact that we had discussed various methods for allocating numbers and felt that the “first come, first serve” approach was the fairest. The problem has been the actions of other organizations who use our process to further their agenda and we have no control over this.
I think the solution to this is further outreach and public education. Maybe we need a stronger message up front, before the verbal comments session begins.” (end Perry email)
By John Stark
Opponents and supporters of the Gateway Pacific Terminal coal export pier packed a meeting in Spokane on Tuesday night to offer their comments and viewpoints on the environmental impact scoping process.
Spokane could potentially get a really big increase in rail traffic if Gateway Pacific and other export terminals are built, because much or all of that coal would likely be routed through the city.
The Spokane Spokesman-Review reports.
Backers of the terminal acknowledged they paid some people to hold some of the limited number of speaking slots in Spokane. Those slots are given to the first people waiting in line when doors open.
SSA Marine, the company proposing the terminal, did the same thing at the Nov. 29 meeting in Ferndale, SSA spokesman Craig Cole said in an email:
“The long lines and mid-day meetings make it impossible for working people, busy parents, elderly, and the disabled to get a slot to speak. An elderly supporter at Ferndale testified he had stood in line at Bellingham and never got a chance to speak, although he did catch pneumonia instead. We have had many supporters complain that they were being shut out of the process and asked for help in allowing their voices to be heard, especially in greater Whatcom County (the center of which is Ferndale) where support levels are in the majority and the venue is accessible. After we realized that our supporters were being prevented from testifying at earlier meetings, we took a page from the opposition strategy for the Ferndale meeting and had people hold spots in line for supporters wishing to speak. Some were paid temporary event set-up staff (who also handed out t-shirts and other materials and put up signs) and some were volunteers, just like opposition groups are doing.” (end Cole statement)
Another SSA spokesman, Gary Smith, emailed me a video clip in which a man in a tie-dyed shirt is talking to anti-terminal people getting off a bus in Spokane, and informing them he has people holding four places in line for tribal representatives.
Some will see a difference between paying people to stand in line, and having zealous volunteers ready to do it for free.
Former Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike, in a phone chat earlier today, feels that way.
“If you really can’t get folks that you claim are supporting you to show up and help out … then I think that shows something,” Pike said.
Pike also acknowledged that terminal opponents were holding places for other people in line at the Bellingham meeting at Squalicum High School on Oct. 27.
“I was in line and there were people ahead of me holding places for other people,” Pike said.
Pike also observed that the purpose of these meetings is to gather input on the issues that need to be included in the environmental impact statement. While public testimony in front of a microphone is a valuable part of that process, Pike doubts that many issues are in danger of being overlooked at this point, with written comments being submitted by the thousands.
“They probably have 99.9 percent of potential comments already entered,” Pike said.
At this point, opponents and backers of the terminal seem to agree that the process of allocating a limited number of open-mike opportunities has been aggravating.
“Speaking for myself only, I think the method of distributing speaker numbers has been frustrating to people on all sides,” Cole said. “It creates a competitive race to get in line early, and if you snooze, you lose. Without being critical of the agencies that are doing their best to facilitate input, it seems like a lottery system or something like that would be more orderly and equitable.”
Cole also reports that the public agencies, SSA spokesmen and project opponents are talking about what can be done to address the situation at this point.
Stay tuned.
By John Stark
“Climate change will contribute to food and water scarcity, will increase the spread of disease, and may spur or exacerbate mass migration.” Sierra Club? Nope. The Pentagon.
The Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review issued in 2010 has an extensive section on how this nation’s armed forces need to respond — and already are responding — to climate change. The report accepts the broad scientific concensus that climate change is both real and dangerous.
Read the report here, beginning on Page 84 of the main text, which is page 107 of the PDF.
Okay, I know this report is already more than two years old, but it was new to me. In the last few days, many people have told me that mainstream media never report anything about climate change, so I decided to take the heroic step of breaking the embargo.
Some highlights:
“Climate-related changes are already being observed in every region of the world, including the U.S. and its coastal waters. Among these physical changes are increases in heavy downpours, rising temperatures and sea level, rapidly-retreating glaciers … Climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, and the further weakening of fragile governments.”
“…extreme weather events may lead to increased demands for defense support to civil authorities for humanitarian assistance or disaster response both within the United States and overseas.”
The report also suggests that U.S. military involvement in disaster relief in foreign countries , in cooperation with the local military, can be “a non-threatening way of building trust, sharing best practices on installations management and operations, and developing response capacity.”
“In 2008 the National Intelligence Council judged that more than 30 U.S. military installations were already facing elevated levels of risk from rising sea levels.”
The Defense Department also says it is doing its part to use alternative energy sources while helping to develop new ones: “The Environmental Security and Technology Certification Program uses military installations as a test bed to demonstrate and create a market for innovative energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies coming out of the private sector and DoD and Department of Energy laboratories.”
There is much more about DoD efforts in this regard, including a photo of a large solar power array at Fort Carson, Colo.
The report also mentions the “vision of deploying a ‘green’ carrier strike group using biofuel and nuclear power by 2016.”
By John Stark
At last week’s Gateway Pacific Terminal meeting in Ferndale, nearly all of the support for the Cherry Point coal export facility seemed to be based on its potential to create both jobs and tax revenue.
Supporters tend to portray Gateway Pacific as the only local project now on the table that could provide industrial jobs with decent wages, plus the millions of dollars in new tax revenues that heavy industries provide. More than one speaker mentioned the other G-P: the Georgia-Pacific pulp and paper mill on the Bellingham waterfront that subtracted hundreds of jobs when it closed down in stages during the first decade of this century.
Other pulp mills in the region, such as Kimberly-Clark in Everett, have also closed. (The Everett Herald observed that a town that once proudly called itself “The City of Smokestacks” no longer has any.) Alcoa Intalco Works still makes aluminum at Cherry Point, but similar smelters around the Northwest have been shut down for years.
We have heard so much about the decline of industry in this country that we tend to think of U.S. industrial prowess in the past tense. We all know that U.S. manufacturing simply can’t compete against low-wage workers in China. It’s hopeless.
But what if what we all know is wrong? In the current issue of Atlantic Monthly, Charles Fishman digs up some encouraging news: Major U.S. companies are discovering that in many cases, it is cheaper to manufacture products in the United States, despite the wage differential. Fishman’s example is General Electric, an old-line pillar of U.S. industry that is ramping up appliance production in Louisville, Ky. at a giant manufacturing complex that had become a near-ghost town until recently. Appliances once built in China are now rolling off the line in the Bluegrass State again. And make no mistake: Patriotism has nothing to do with it. Fishman describes in vivid detail how GE is saving money and making its products more price-competitive by bringing jobs home.
In the same issue of The Atlantic, James Fallows describes the same phenomenon from his own vantage point in China. He describes the pitfalls for U.S. firms trying to manufacture in China, and the competitive edge that many smaller firms achieve by keeping designing and manufacturing side by side in this country.
But China does enjoy another competitive advantage: cheap energy. In this country, the cost of environmental controls add to the cost of energy used for manufacturing. China, with fewer environmental constraints, gets an economic edge.
It’s an edge that the U.S. could blunt with one fell swoop, says economist Jeff Rubin. In his book “Why Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller,” Rubin says the U.S. could impose a countervailing tariff — a carbon tax, if you will — to make Chinese manufacturers pay the true global cost of their carbon emissions. That would shift more jobs back to North America, argues Rubin, a former chief economist at big Canadian bank CIBC. It’s also an idea that appeals to both labor unions and environmental activists.
Larry Horowitz, who alerted me to Rubin’s book, provides a link to this excerpt from the Montreal Gazette.
What does all this have to do with the local debate over Gateway Pacific? Maybe it’s a bit of a reach, but I can’t help but wonder if this project would look different to some people if the overall outlook for industrial jobs did not seem so bleak.
Is Whatcom County well-situated to benefit from the shift of manufacturing back to this country–assuming that this shift lives up to the expectations that Fishman’s article creates? Maybe not. This county’s industries have generally been extractive and resource-based: Coal, lumber, paper pulp, seafood processing, aluminum, petroleum.
GE’s Louisville plant enjoys a strategic, central location for access to retail markets. Whatcom County’s location is the opposite of central. What do you think?
By John Stark
A coal terminal in Seward, Alaska is laying off some workers because managers say there has been a drop in demand for its coal in Asia and elsewhere.
In this report from the Seward Phoenix, Usibelli Coal Mine vice president Robert Brown says he expects the slowdown to be temporary. Usibelli oversees the coal terminal operation, according to the report.
By John Stark
Many Gateway Pacific Terminal opponents seem to be furious that backers of the project — in their words — “hijacked” the Thursday, Nov. 29 Ferndale scoping meeting.
GPT backers did show up in force in an obviously well-organized effort to dominate the public testimony at the meeting. This strikes some opponents of GPT as unfair and underhanded. I just got off the phone with a person who assured me that every green-shirted supporter of GPT at Thursday’s meeting had been paid by SSA Marine to be there.
I have fired off an email to Gateway Pacific spokesman Craig Cole to see what he has to say about that.
Let me volunteer three observations:
–1. Thursday was a scoping meeting. It was a not a town hall affair intended to gauge the level of public support or opposition for the project. It was part of a process to gauge what specific issues should be studied as part of the permitting process. Some opponents and some backers of the project seemed to understand this. Some did not.
In any event, both supporters and opponents have until Jan. 21, 2013 to send in scoping comments to the regulatory agencies. Agency personnel insist that written comments get the same weight as those spoken into a microphone, even though written comments may offer far less emotional satisfaction to the commenter.
Here’s where to send written comments:
By email: comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov.
By mail: GPT/Custer Spur EIS, 1100 112th Ave. NE, Suite 400, Bellevue, WA 98004.
–2. Lots of people in Whatcom County are supportive of Gateway Pacific. You might not like that, but it is awfully hard to deny.
–3. Demeaning the character or the intelligence of those people is a dubious political strategy. It strikes me as morally dubious too.
My personal belief is that the industrial civilization that provides the power to run this blog is going to have to undergo some dramatic changes in the near future if we want to avoid any of several possible collapse scenarios.
But as of now, the progressives who show up at public meetings to try to promote those changes are, in effect, asking other people to make some significant short-term financial sacrifices for the good of the cause. Those other people — longshoremen, construction workers, coal miners, etc. — are not enthusiastic about this.
Is there any way of addressing the concerns of these working people, while also addressing the real need to move as rapidly as possible to a sustainable energy system? Is riding roughshod over union labor the only practical course of action? I don’t pretend to have answers to those questions.
P.S. Update: I just got an email from a union carpenter who says she is opposed to GPT. I’m sure there are others like her out there. I hope you’ll comment here, or contact me directly if you prefer.
By John Stark
Based on Facebook posts I’m seeing, Gateway Pacific Terminal foes are hyperventilating over the fact that those who support the big coal pier are already lining up outside the Ferndale Events Center on Barrett Road to potentially claim all the available public speaking spots at the environmental scoping meeting that starts at 3 p.m. today, Nov. 29.
Update at 12:50: Here’s a photo posted to FB by terminal backers.
Looks like the union and business people backing the project leanred their lesson on Oct. 27, when environmentalists showed up to stand in the rain for more than two hours outside Squalicum High School for the scoping meeting there.
Maybe both sides can console themselves with the fact that both written and oral testimony on scoping issues is being accepted by regulatory agencies, and the agencies promise that comments into a microphone get no extra weight.
By email: comments@eisgatewaypacificwa.gov.
By mail: GPT/Custer Spur EIS, 1100 112th Ave. NE, Suite 400, Bellevue, WA 98004.
Comments are being accepted through Jan. 21, 2013.
By John Stark
The General Accounting Office has issued a report saying that while significant changes are ahead for U.S. coal-fired electricity generation, coal will remain a major source of electricity in the decades ahead — unless there is a major government crackdown on greenhouse gas emissions.
Read the report here. Or at least, read the one-page summary of the 54-page report, conveniently placed at the beginning.
Excerpt:
“According to stakeholders and three long-term forecasts GAO reviewed, coal is generally expected to remain a key fuel source for U.S. electricity generation in the future, but coal’s share as a source of electricity may continue to decline. For example, in its forecast based on current policies, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that the amount of electricity generated using coal is expected to remain relatively constant through 2035, but it forecasts that the share of coal-fueled electricity generation will decline from 42 percent in 2011 to 38 percent in 2035.”
But wait:
“EIA forecasts that two hypothetical future policies that reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the electricity sector by 46 percent and 76 percent would result in coal’s share of U.S. electricity generation falling to 16 and 4 percent in 2035, respectively.”
GAO did the report at the request of Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-West Virginia, chairman of the Senate committee on commerce, science and transportation.
Connect
Connect with us on the following social media platforms.