http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/12/13/roughly-3500-people-crowd-convention-center-to-shout-about-coal Comments On: Roughly 3,500 People Crowd Convention Center to Shout About Coal by Cienna Madrid en-us Copyright 2013 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Sat, 18 May 2013 00:00:01 -0700 Sat, 18 May 2013 13:45:00 -0700 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss hello, your website is really good. We do appreciate your give good results
garcina cambogia
Posted by roger1122]]> Sat, 27 Apr 2013 03:43:51 -0700 The Stranger events photographers singapore

Posted by Victor1122]]> Sat, 27 Apr 2013 01:27:10 -0700 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Tue, 18 Dec 2012 02:43:17 -0800 The Stranger
https://www.warresisters.org/sites/defau…

It maintains more than 800 offshore bases and 12 aircraft carriers, 3 or 4 of which are deployed on a given day. Much of this adventurism is to establish and defend a global carbon-based energy system that is warming our planet past a disastrous tipping point. Most of current expenditure and suffering that results from sustaining this dirty finite system can be avoided if renewable energy projects were developed to replace this 20th century anachronistic system that relatively few people gain profit from.

Military spending is a terrible job creator:

http://www.ciponline.org/research/entry/…

Millions of people could be employed building and maintaining proven solar, wind, geothermal, tidal and wave power stations and a new energy grid based on these clean, more localized power projects if Congress could be convinced to direct discretionary spending in a meaningful way towards these projects. The money is already there, but it is currently being spent on wars over oil, gas and pipelines.

Such an endeavor could quickly (in five short years the US mobilized and produced enough ships planes and other materiel, including atomic bombs, to win a global war on two fronts) provide us with sustainable energy and make us more secure. Other nations are already ahead of the curve on this.

It's time that Congress begins doing what is good for We, the People and our planet, rather than what business lobbyists pay them to do for them.

Posted by Dave Evans]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 19:19:00 -0800 The Stranger
The argument that "they're gonna do what they wanna do anyway, so you're just making yourself feel better" is so hopeless and stupid, and I just don't buy it. Maybe they will do what they want to do anyway. But that doesn't suddenly mean it's okay, and it definitely doesn't mean that we should sit by and be okay with it.

If nothing we do -- say, banning plastic bags -- actually makes any difference, then why fight it? If the coal can go to Canada anyway, why not just go there? If China is just going to get coal from somewhere else, then why not get it there? Something about this doesn't pass the smell test.
Posted by doesurmindglow]]> Sun, 16 Dec 2012 12:52:31 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 14:20:41 -0800 The Stranger
Again, I'm perfectly willing to accept the conclusion it's a minor issue, and I'll agree it doesn't particularly motivate me personally to oppose coal trains. I'd just like to have a scientific review before we make that conclusion, which luckily our SEPA process does provide for. I think it's actually much more likely the more serious problem is diesel emissions, which present a number of well-documented health concerns. It's only responsible that both should have thorough review before we decide to significantly increase the traffic.

All that being said, I don't agree any victory would be merely symbolic. Blocking a port in Bellingham would alleviate many of the local environmental concerns (ie. the risk of increased diesel pollution and the damage to the marine environment at the terminal site). It's possible they'll just build a port somewhere else, but it is likely to be smaller and at greater expense -- there simply aren't that many undeveloped deepwater port facilities available. The Bellingham port is already much more expensive to site and build than simply providing coal export capacity in Tacoma, Seattle, and Vancouver, all of whom have rejected coal exports long before this fight began.

That means there's less coal available to burn, and what is available is more expensive, which is a victory quantifiable in terms of energy economics. Just slowing exports down also is also likely to have strategic value, from a climate perspective: it allows more time for the rapid advancement of conservation and renewable technologies to continue and the emergence of an environmental movement in China to overcome government resistance, and, probably most importantly to U.S. taxpayers, more time to move legislation for the government price the coal it's selling at market va….

So in short, there is real environmental value to blocking a coal port, because the location of the port itself is an environmental problem to its local environment. But beyond that, blocking it is likely to affect the economics, even if the coal does get to Asia somehow else.
Posted by doesurmindglow]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 11:39:47 -0800 The Stranger incomplete photo evidence, or rather not accept it without further proof, as in the case of the first photo. Admittedly, it looks genuine, but that is such an unusual thing that further explanation is needed.

I'm not saying that there are no legitimate environmental concerns (although both the matter of scale involved, and the near certainty that China will get this coal, whether rrom Bellingham or another port, means that any victory will be symbolic but will not help the environment at all), but this bit about the dust billowing over Seattle's waterfront and fiving everyone cancer is just too much. I would like a scientific study too, but we CAN take existing problems in towns on coal train routes into account. And to put it simply, I can find no evidence that that's ever been a problem.

Most of that coal dust load loss happens during loading, unloading,and within the first few miles of leaving the mines. They already know that much.

Remember, science tries to find out why things are. If there's no unusual incidence of cancer along coal train routes, they aren't likely to spend money studying why not. Also, keep in mind that people complain about pollution they can see. If towns were being coated with dust, they would be opposed everywhere. I will again cite my own eyewitness testimony in saying that that isn't the case.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 06:08:14 -0800 The Stranger
While acknowledging that, I also think it's completely ridiculous to pretend there is NO coal dust problem, or to jump to the conclusion that it must be negligible, without adequate scientific review. I'm afraid you're making this leap to negligibility with very little evidence. There is evidence of a coal dust issue -- the railroad estimates it loses something like 1-3% of its load to dust emissions in transit. Is it significant? Could it hurt people? I don't know. Let's study it.

Those emissions are pretty clearly what's pictured in the photo. But it now seems that you'll dispute whatever photo evidence of this problem exists, so there's really no point in going any further with this. I'll concede for now that your anecdotal account is probably superior to any observations of anyone else, ever, documented or otherwise. I'm not interested in arguing with someone who has no interest in seriously exploring the evidence that's out there, as I personally care about coal dust very little, especially from trains.

So with that said, I'm not saying it's the biggest problem. I am saying they should be required to study it. Especially at the port, which in the case of the Westshore terminal in BC, emits something like 700 tons of coal dust per year. And THEN we have the recent accident -- and surely you'll agree more traffic would mean more accidents, as that's just reality. More opportunities for accidents usually mean more accidents.

Last time I checked, Seattle is on Puget Sound, as would be the port, and has a sizable fishing industry dependent on the ecological health of that sound. I don't at all believe we could disregard marine pollution and accidents at the port as something that "will not affect Seattle and therefore off topic," again with no scientific review. They're both in the same marine environment.
Posted by doesurmindglow]]> Sat, 15 Dec 2012 00:26:13 -0800 The Stranger
The first link has no information, even when you click back to the page with the text. Is the train rolling or is it still? Was it windy that day? Is the image processed in any way? Photographs do lie sometimes.

So, we haven't put anything to rest at all.

I live about a mile from where coal trains that originate from the powderhorn basin pass every day. They never billow dust like that, and we're a lot closer to the mines than Seattle. I've seen thousands at this point, and I'm going to say that my witnessing trumps your one photograph.

As I've said before, coal trains passing through communities is nothing new. It's been happening for centuries. If they were really that bad, wouldn't there be stacks of documentation supporting that?

Something else I've said before - there are other good reasons for opposing the trains. Stick with those. This is bordering on teabagger-style thinking.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:31:20 -0800 The Stranger
God knows we can't have that.

Fucking hypocrite.
Posted by doesurmindglow]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:52:57 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:48:52 -0800 The Stranger http://daily.sightline.org/2012/07/19/co…

And here's some more blowing off a terminal far, far beyond the mines, in BC:
http://www.vancouversun.com/Unexpected+w…

Here's some more going in the water just last week in BC, after a single-hulled carrier plowed through the trestle that loads the coal onto the ships:
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ship+cr…

So now that we put that to rest, let's move onto the fact that the proposed terminal more than triples the amount of coal train traffic. Even if you believe coal trains we have aren't a problem now (which I'd argue they very much are), tripling their volume is more than enough to make them a problem.

At the very least we need the agencies in charge here to STUDY THIS, which is most of what the people who spoke were demanding yesterday. Even if you agreed with building coal terminals and so on, you shouldn't have a problem with taking a good look at what the impacts would be.
Posted by doesurmindglow]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 17:31:24 -0800 The Stranger
Posted by Cheesehead NW]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 15:10:11 -0800 The Stranger
For fuck's sake, that's not a legitimate link. That information is just pulled together to suggest correlation, without offering any proof that coal trains have ever caused any such health problems anywhere.

Coal dust causes lung problems - that's not news. But is coal dust drifting off trains in amounts sufficient to cause these problems for those who live along the tracks? Probably not - coal has been hauled by trains through residential areas for centuries now, with black lung only happening to coal miners and others who actually work with the stuff.

Of course, your comment history strongly suggests that you're just a shill, not a legitimate slogger. So I wouldn't expect a legitimate link from you.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 14:00:05 -0800 The Stranger www.seattlelung.com
Posted by historyteacher]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 13:37:50 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Mister G]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:51:23 -0800 The Stranger
... didn't think so.
Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:17:41 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Will in Seattle]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 11:16:06 -0800 The Stranger
So since coal trains run through Seattle already on a daily basis, you have actual science to back this up, right? Or is this 'science' based on your gut feeling?
Posted by Sugartit]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:24:48 -0800 The Stranger
So thank you New Left!
Posted by Sugartit]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 08:12:57 -0800 The Stranger
Seattle is a white-collar town now, and it means that anything concerning labor (unions), is being subsumed by the yuppie libertarian engineering scum that overflows from the Eastside through the rest of town.

You might have issue with the coal trains on the basis of environmentalism, but the continued survival of 'labor' in this town depends upon the continued growth or sustained business of 'labor' industries.
Posted by caltrop_head]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:54:52 -0800 The Stranger
The Sierra Club could make their case on it's own merits. Why they, along with the mayor and a city council member outright lie and exaggerate just hurts their case. Microscopic dust? Please. Lower in the coal load? Do you make this shit up? Your PR is just as bad as any corporation would belch up.

Then there is the ICC. Good luck with that.
Posted by hmmmmm]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:50:53 -0800 The Stranger
You might not want to quantify that, since the answer is highly unlikely to support the environmental panic some are trying to whip up, but I sure would. I have yet to see any research that coal dust from trains is any kind of environmental or health risk, and I've been looking. I find that stuff to be worth addressing, but I don't find lying about such risks to be any kind of good thing. Besides being detrimental to the cause it's supposed to support, it also undercuts actual environmental concerns in other jurisdictions by creating doubt whenever they are raised - call it "the boy who cried wolf" syndrome.

You people have good reasons for opposing coal trains already, so just rely on those. That shouldn't be too much to ask.
Posted by Matt from Denver]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:48:26 -0800 The Stranger
How many of these anti-coal loons realize that coals trains already roll through Seattle everyday. No dust! Fucking amazing!

Now, if you can prove they will slow down cars, you might be able to sell me on this but either way, this coal will be shipped to China, and the Chinese can continue their astonishing path to prosperity no matter what spoiled rich white Seattleites say.
Posted by Carbon emissions = prosperity]]> Fri, 14 Dec 2012 07:31:09 -0800 The Stranger