Not quite sure about the Steel bridge route. Wouldn't it come down the Gorge, follow the Banfield and then take a left and head through Milwaukee, OC, Salem and points south?

I can just see the traffic back up at SE 11th and 12th at Clinton, just to name one spot.

Environmental disasters and exports to China don't look much like "energy security" to me.

With deregulation, you don't have to make promises. All you need are some sketchy claims and an American flag to wrap them in. Rare is the outcome that's actually reviewed.

Legislation will always be bought and paid for by industry, but why can't it be accountable? It needs to have clauses that trigger when the vision doesn't match reality. We should lobby Congress to audit everything like that—there's probably good money in it. ;)

I'm with you on that Teresa.

The National Wildlife Federation is currently preparing a fisheries impact report about the coal export plans.

Let's connect.

I share much of your concerns (spills, dust, road delays at crossings) about the shipment of coal through Oregon. But are not there also Oregon jobs, including investments in upgrading our rail transport system, that could flow from exporting more coal?

And your view of the China dynamics do not seem sufficiently nuanced to me. First, whether we export Montana/Wyoming coal through Oregon, or Washington, ports will probably not make any difference as to the amount of coal China burns. They have other coal sources and could get Montana/Wyoming coal by other routes. The question is whether Montana/Wyoming coal is higher or lower in toxic mercury (and other pollutants) than alternative coal sources. I skimmed the linked article and did not see that asserted. Maybe I missed it.

Second, do you really want to keep the Chinese people impoverished? I can only wonder at your reluctance to support Chinese jobs and profits, as in saying “energy from coal exports will be used to power overseas job and overseas profits” as if per se that was bad (I can’t tell if you would support such jobs and profits if Chinese labor relations and pollution controls were better, and yes, both should be better). Further, roughly half of China’s 1.3 billion, or 650 million, people live in poverty well beyond anything we have in the US. China needs energy to improve their lives. There are for China, it seems to me, no easy energy choices on how to do that.

Third, even if we could stop Montana/Wyoming coal from going to China, that would not be enough. We should, as Berkeley Economics Professor Brad DeLong says (here): “beg the rulers of China and India to understand their long-term interest: The welfare of their countries over the next four generations depends on rapidly controlling global warming. Their own personal survival—unless they want mobs descending on their homes when they are in retirement, dragging them and their descendants out into the street, and carrying their heads on pikes—depends on rapidly controlling global warming. And because one of either China or India is going to be the globe’s dominant superpower in a century, pleasing that future superpower now is in every country’s interest. So we need to beg the rulers of China and India to recognize their personal and their countries’ long-term interest, and to use their power as future global superpowers to help us get this climate-control party started.”

I'm starting to think we need a coal fired plant in Portland or maybe the Dalles. Our great environmental groups don't seem to mind when a foreign utility wants to stick a 500 ft wind turbine in my front yard why should we give a rip about the Columbia River Gorge?

Check it out. Another coal train derailment yesterday - this one with one person killed. The more coal trains, the greater the immediate and long-term risks to human health.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/northbrook/ct-met-train-derailment-overpass-20120705,0,4983947.story

As long as there is a market for coal in China it will be bought from someone. If not from American mines then from Australian mines that produce dirtier coal than ours. The idea that shipping the coal in American trains, from American ports, mined by American workers is somehow adding to the climate problem is totally bogus. As for toxicity risk. There are much more dangerous chemicals and enviro hazards being shipped on trains than coal. So that argument doesn't hold at all. When the Chinese stop buying coal, then the coal will no longer be shipped. In the meantime let it be American coal, cleaner than from Australian and with money going to American workers.

Hi -

City Club of Eugene is hosting the Sierra Club and Beyond Toxics to discuss this matter at the Eugene Hilton at noon on Friday, July 6. The Port of Coos Bay initially agreed to come as well, but then declined when the Sierra Club sued them for trying to charge over $20,000 for public records. UP and KinderMorgan also declined to appear. Taken as a whole, it's hard not to conclude that the pro camp doesn't want this discussed in a public forum because they want it decided in Washington DC as a federal issue. The more it is discussed (and the City Club of Eugene is committed to public discourse), the more it is likely that objections from the states and communities along the way will impact that federal process.

Another interesting tidbit - BNSF and UP, the two rail carriers shipping Powder Basin coal, initially attempted to require shippers to load and spray the coal to such a degree as to reduce coal dust by 85%. (Coal dust in excess can cause derailments.) The shippers challenged these restrictions and it appears that no such requirements are now in effect.

Marty

With my apologies to all readers for any inexactitude I furthered with my initial estimate of how much coal was spilled from the 30 cars that derailed, I have edited the post to be both more conservative and less sure-sounding.

If anyone finds a good source for counting the pounds of coal spilled, please do share and I'll correct to reflect the best data.

The point, after all is not the impact of this train, but the thousands of trains coming down the tracks.

We aren't in the same economic position as Seattle, Jefferson. They have major corporations, a major R1 university, and an unemployment rate of 6.6% (ours is 8%). Their resolution doesn't provide much room for compromise--if you support that resolution, you're basically against shipping. I'd hope that Portland would at least talk to some other communities who'd be more heavily impacted before we take that step.

This won't just affect our local shipping economy, it will affect Montana, North Dakota, and many states in the region.

I'm no fan of coal burning plants, but also recognize that the Chinese will find an alternative and our principled stand will gain us nothing on the greenhouse warming front and lose whatever leverage we may have on the Chinese to use cleaner coal or to clean up their smokestacks.

I thought there were ways to cover these cars to minimize or eliminate any dust (opposed by the companies, but so what, if they want to ship, they need to cover).

On derailments, ANY increased reliance on rail transportation translates into more derailments, that's just a given. You can't compare X number of derailments vs. zero, but to some reasonable baseline. Not sure what that is, but I'm sure zero is a misleading base.

I'm not sure I buy the premise that the Chinese will just do whatever they want (though I understand the argument of constructive engagement).

There's significant evidence the Chinese are looking to shift from coal to gas. That's not a long-term solution, but usually an improvement.

I think we need to use all the tools we can use to encourage that shift - including increasing the cost of coal - and a further shift to renewables.

Clearly, the market is interested in coal right now - but if we increase the cost of coal by making it harder to ship, we increase the incentives to find better solutions.

Moreover, Australia knows better than most countries the burdens of the climate crisis. They've just implemented a carbon tax as of July 1st.

So, yes -- we can't solve the climate crisis alone. But we should do our part to push the world away from coal.

And we have a lot of leverage over China (just as they have a lot of leverage over us) - far beyond just this.

Finally, North Dakota has an unemployment rate of 3%. Yes, that's not a typo.

The global environmental problem is aggravated by China, and next India, building billion-watt coal burning power plants. As I understand it, Powder River coal represents a small portion of their needs, and our exports policy won't affect their strategy, so these exports have little impact on global warming. But if someone else sells them coal cheaper, or their needs go down, we will quickly be cut off, so let's not put our retirement savings into this boondoggle like it's a safe investment.

Second, the reason they,re buying this coal is that it represents cheap energy, which is a huge competitive advantage. Why on earth would we ship an American competitive resource to another nation so they can undercut us more? Like shipping raw logs so they can sell us cheap plywood. Plus, all the profits go to the coal barons and we get nothing as a nation for ripping up our land and giving away the unreplaceable energy buried there. This is not an anti-China question; it's a pro-American question.

Finally, does the city or state have any say in what the railroads do to them? I have a feeling Congress will say real people can't stand in the way of corporate people. But I think it is time for communities to assert the right not to have their air, water, and land, and right to live in peace and quiet taken from them without compensation.

This afternoon the Oregonian's Nick Budnick reports that the Federal Railroad Administration has been called in to investigate the accident and that BNSF spokesperson Gus Melonas attests that less than 900 tons of coal was spilled in the 30 car-derailment.

The post above has been corrected to reflect these new details.

Coal burners are some of the worst polluters of our air no matter where they are on the planet, so why do we want to export anything that is killing us to another country, Sorry money is not an answer it is a thing.

Jim Klahr

I'm happy to see Steve Novick is not buying into any of this righteousness stuff about coal. He opposes Jefferson Smith's position: http://www.wweek.com/portland/blog-28873-steve_novick_wont_support_portland_coal_ban.html

It's easy to be against coal. I sure am. Coal is a nonrenewable resource that is doing severe damage to our atmosphere - with its emissions and acid rain, not to mention the carbon use in transporting it.

Obviously, we shouldn't enable transport through our community - not through North Portland, not anywhere. And certainly not to enable China to continue its proliferation of coal plants to power its growth, when their emissions return right back to us in the form of acid rain.

But I think we have to go further than a 'city resolution' or 'agreeing we need a state health study.'

The federal government governs our railroads. They have the ultimate power to make this happen or not. We need to push hard on our federal congressional delegation to slow the process, ensure enough environmental impact is assessed, and allow the city and its residents to jump feet-first into the NEPA process. We need to make sure all the impacts, including the ones on real people and real neighborhoods, are being considered.

This isn't a technical matter. This is about what kind of future we are choosing for our city and what Portland's role in the world will be.

North Portland is getting run over around the future of Hayden Island as well. For some reason, there's a sudden rush to close a deal allowing the Portland development rights on a portion of the island without nearly enough of a transparent and inclusive process. Even the advisory committee assembled has lost trust in the city, the Port and the process because the draft agreement is loose, unspecific, and shows little commitment to preserving quality of life for residents and essential habitat for wildlife. If we are to be a region with 'nature in the city,' how can we so blatantly run over nature? If we are so dedicated to job creation in our region, why not take the time to make sure we are citing facilities in the most economically advantageous location? If any other neighborhood in Portland were told a $100 million bridge was going to be built in their backyard to accommodate over 500 trucks a day, would the City Council be rushing to decision so quickly?

I hope my opponent for Mayor will join me in pressing our City Council to slow down and comprehensively study the situation so that a solution can be developed that all parties can live with - even the wildlife for whom we are also supposed to defend.

Important data from a BNSF railroad document: http://www.beyondtoxics.org/work/healthy-air-oregon/coal-trains-and-safety/