He's waiting to get a sense of the wind direction, Cienna. I'm telling you, liberals will be hating this spineless guy within three months.

Mr. Peabody's coal train has hauled him away.

As @1 says, it's only the MSM that thinks he's liberal. Like Obama, he's right of center.

I asked him where he is on coal trains. The answer:

http://yt.cl.nr/0I6xkVRWzCY

As much as I might not like the idea, coal trains are a-comin. It just means too much money for the state. And with idiots voting yes on Eyman all the time, the money has to come from somewhere.

@5: Wait until those traffic jams start waiting for the coal trains to pass through downtown. Sucks to drive in Seattle.

And look! Here is some information on how lousy coal jobs are as jobs investment:

http://daily.sightline.org/2012/11/29/th…

But investing in coal makes a LOT of money for the coal company CEOs, which is why we do it.

Maybe it is because it is a dumb question. Should we be against other kinds of trains as well? Does it matter that the natural gas industry paid the Sierra Club to ask that question?

Most of the endorsing organizations are fickle, and more to the point, full of it. They don't really endorse based on positions, endorsements, or contributions, and they don't really bother to consider the whole impact of a given position they support or oppose for those cases where they do care about positions.

This goes equally for NARAL, WCV, and all the rest. They only endorse if you're loaded and have a small army at your disposal.

The only ones that care about positions are the parties. Though they can be a bit fickle and selective too.

Someone once said that staying silent is taking a stance. It may have been Jon Stewart... Not about this, but in general.

The coal trains are NOT a done deal: not only are the environmental consequences dire, but the economic, health, and political impacts of shipping coal are ugly and disruptive to existing institutions in the state, including business interests. State leaders have every reason to oppose the proposal, and they need to hear from citizens that we will back them when they do. Let Inslee know what you think. Show up at the Scoping hearing on the Cherry Point EIS on Dec. 13. Submit your comments scoping the Cherry Point dock EIS today!

This is going to be a huge fight and we're just getting started. Legal pot, marriage for everyone, and no stinkin' coal trains. We can do this.

See PowerPastCoal.org for way more information.

@11 Trains loaded with coal have been rolling through Seattle for years and no one noticed, and no one has been able to get photos or samples of all of that "coal dust" along that line. Why might that be?

The thousands of jobs canard is bullshit, at least in Longview, where the terminal would be on the site of the abandoned Reynolds aluminum mill. The lion's share of the work will be remediating the industrial brown-field (oh, the irony). The terminal will be highly automated and won't add up to more than a few dozen jobs per shift.

Ultimately, what could Inslee do? The coal will be mined and exported. The question is from what port. If a port in Washington or BC, or maybe Oregon, the trains will likely transit through at least some part of Washington. A governor could not stop that. It's interstate commerce, the jurisdiction of which is reserved by the federal government.

"Coal-fired power plants are the largest contributor to the greenhouse emissions that cause climate change"

The trains will still roll through all the way to Canada instead of creating jobs in Washington. It will create construction jobs, maintenance jobs, railroad jobs, longshore jobs, tugboat jobs, and bring in a lot of tax revenue. The coal trains have been running through Seattle for years and years without issue. It only became one when natural gas funneled millions of dollars to the Sierra Club to hurt their competitors. It will be a shame to lose more jobs to foreign competitors because we got brainwashed by coals competition. And I personally think fracking is worse for the environment than coal

@18 - Claiming the plague is worse for you than cholera to convince your discriminating readership is never a good idea. From an environmental and human health point of view, the commercial exploitation of coal should be terminated as soon as possible. It was the case 20 years ago as it is today, independently of who paid off whom and regardless of whether the issues it created was in the mainstream press.

"Each stage in the life cycle of coal—extraction, transport, processing, and combustion—generates a waste stream
and carries multiple hazards for health and the environment. These costs are external to the coal industry and are thus often considered “externalities.”We estimate that the life cycle effects of coal and the waste stream generated are costing the U.S. public a third to over one-half of a trillion dollars annually.Many of these so-called externalities are, moreover, cumulative. Accounting for the damages conservatively doubles to triples the price of electricity from coal per kWh generated, making wind, solar, and other forms of nonfossil fuel power generation, along with investments in efficiency and electricity conservation methods, economically competitive."
Epstein et al, 2011, Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. ISSN 0077-8923
http://solar.gwu.edu/index_files/Resourc…

You know who Gov.-elect Jay Inslee should consult on what to do about the coal trains? How about author Jay Inslee?

hmmmmm @8 and @11, I'm curious. Why have you hidden your activity on Slog? Could it be that you don't want people seeing there's a pattern to your comments?