I'm not opposed to coal. I'm opposed to increased rail traffic in congested western Washington. If it is ten to twenty more trains of tofu, it is the same problem. If you're trying to ship something from east to west, why make a 300 mile detour to the north?

Puget Sound is a major shipping center. It's a big component of our economy. If you find the trains inconvenient, you may find the economic decline that accompanies their disappearance downright distressing.

I think there are some missing questions that should have been asked or clarified in this article. First, the question about whether or not burning our low sulfur coal is better than the Chinese burning their own dirtier coal needs to be looked at more closely. From a GHG perspective the answer to that is: No, because of the additional GHG emitted by transporting the coal 7000 or so miles. And even in terms of sulfur emissions, when you throw high sulfur bunker fuel into the equation, the total sulfur budget involved argues against shipping our coal to China. And then you throw in the diesel particulates emitted in communities all along the 624 mile route through Washington State and from a total pollution budget this project makes less and less sense. That does not say that anything in this article in not true in terms of overall climate change, but this is a complicated issue with many nuances that were not explored in this piece.

Er, not really. Regarding sulphur, Chinese coal is soft and contains 2-4 percent sulphur. So burning 200,000 tons of Chinese coal (the estimated capacity of a cargo ship exporting coal from Washington to China) will produce 4,000 to 8,000 tons of sulphur if a volume equal to that 200,000 ton shipload is burned. If that 200,000 ton shipload is Powder River Basin coal, the sulphur content of that coal is .5 percent, so that shipload burned in China emits 1,000 tons. A ship takes about ten days to get to China, and a big ship will burn about 500 tons a day of residual fuel oil, so a round trip will need 10,000 tons. Residual fuel is about 3 percent sulphur (and this will drop as IMO fuel regulations kick in in coming years) so the voyage element will emit 300 tons. These days trains are burning very low sulphur diesel so this leg won't contribute much if anything to the total. From a total sulphur perspective, then, Chinese coal (4,000 - 8,000 tons) produces 3 - 6 times as much sulphur as shipping PRB coal to China. If a ship is carrying 200,000 tons of coal, the GHG from burning that coal(740,000 tons) compared to the GHG of the transport cost (assuming 10,000 tons fuel oil at sea and 4,000 more for 20 trains on land, which would include the round trip fuel for the ship to come back to Washington from China, totalling just under 50,000 tons) represents less than seven percent additional GHG. And this doesn't factor in the GHG needed to get the coal from the mines in China to Chinese power plants.

Fair enough to assume that the environmental costs of mining are the same in China as this side of the Pacific, although that may or may not be the case, but back of envelope calculations should not include only the burning of the fuel while leaving out the environmental costs of producing the ships, trains, and those fuels, all otherwise unnecessary. See William E. Rees, Sing C. Chew, & Jeff Rubin.

Not sure the ships, trains and fuels are otherwise unnecessary; ships if not delivering from the west coast will be in the trade elsewhere - Indonesia, Australia, etc - so it isn't a zero-sum situation; for trains the equipment will still be built and used, if not to the US west coast then into Canada or to the many US east coast coal plants burning coal. More importantly, while it is true that these essential components of the chain consume resaources themselves, net resource anaylsis or net energy analysis work done over the last 35 years shows that the impacts of these sectors compared to the major fuel carried and burned are small.

We do not need to even consider climate change to conclude that this project is a bad idea for our communities. We can anticipate severe negative impacts on several fronts including our families’ health, our local economy and quality of life. The pollution in our communities from huge increases in train traffic and coal dust pose serious health risks to our families—particularly children whose brains and bodies are still developing. On the economic front, the jobs created at the export terminal must be weighed against the adverse impact it will have on other economic initiatives, such as the waterfront redevelopment in Bellingham. On the quality of life front, the noise all hours of the day and night from the large increase in train traffic—particularly the heavy coal trains that make substantially more noise than other trains— though our towns, along with the traffic other interruptions from the trains are all impacts locals don’t want to see. Yes, let’s not add to climate change. But climate aside, this project is still an overall loser for our communities and does mean “a damn thing” thing for our local environment.

There are a host of legitimate concerns about any big project and this is no exception. That is the purpose of conducting a detailed, independent, fact-based environmental review (paid for by the applicant) which should answer the many questions raised. Hopefully everyone will work through this process and hold their opinions until this critical work is done. In the meantime it is important, where possible, to identify some of the known elements. Today and for several years past coal trains have been going through Bellingham. These trains are a mile and a half long and block crossings for three and a half to four minutes downtown. Several million tons a year of coal are being shipped through Bellingham and to date nobody anywhere along the rail route in Washington has seen or raised concerns about coal dust. This isn't to say that additional trains won't create problems - that's the purpose of the EIS - but at the current volume of 6-8 trains a day coal dust and debris has not been a problem. On the economic front, the waterfront project being developed by the City of Bellingham and the Port of Bellingham has spent several years planning for a development that can coexist well with an active rail line next to it. Everywhere along the coast waterfront projects lie waterside of rail tracks. The impact of the proposed additional coal trains is a proper subject for the EIS. Rail noise - horns, wheel squeal, and rumbling - exists with any train route and surely as this project is examined the notion of building a quiet zone through the city will be explored. In other cities in Washington 50-70 trains a day pass through developments and they appear to work. All of this is not to in any way minimize the level and seriousness of people's concerns. They are real and must be addressed. The way to address such concerns now, before the EIS work begins, is to focus on known facts and be clear about any inaccuracies raised on any side of the debate. All these concerns, again, are properly addressed when the EIS process begins. Until then, possible impacts and outcomes are speculative. Let's deal with the facts today as we know them or can verify them and work together during the EIS to fully examine the impacts and then come up with mitigating actions if possible. Obviously, if health issues or noise issues cannot be dealt with, this project cannot be built, just as if they can be dealt with, then the project should proceed.

@thetruth. Chinese coal on average is 1.1 sulfur and bunker fuel can be 4.5% sulfur. http://chinacomment.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/china-coal-part-i/

Bellingham need not worry about the impact of coal trains along its waterfront. It is economic idiocy to propose running coal trains through the at capacity, fan cleared Cascade Tunnel when the train slots the coal drags would consume can be filled with high value container trains.

And what about the prospect of running mile-long, 7000 ton coal trains along the tortuous track at the base of Chuckanut Drive excites these economic geniuses? It surely can't be the prospect of repeated "straight line" derailments, could it?

If there is to be a port for Powder River Basin coal in the northwest it must be south of Puget Sound for the simple reason that it must be served from the Columbia River Gorge for simple rail operation economics. A train cresting the Rockies just west of Helena, can simply roll downhill to tidewater through the Gorge with just two adverse grades south of Spokane. One routed to Bellingham via Stevens Pass has to climb to 2400 feet of elevation on a 2% grind out of the Columbia Valley then pass through a seven mile long single-track tunnel. It just doesn't make sense when the Gorge route is available.

Longview is a better destination than Bellingham.

When evaluating this article, it is important to understand a few items as background. First and foremost, Professor David Rutledge at Cal Tech would fall into the category of a sometime hobbyist on issues related to energy and climate. It is not his primary area of expertise. His bio on Wikipedia states:

"His research group is currently involved in building circuits and antennas for numerous electronic applications. His work on microwave circuits has been important for various advances in wireless communications and has been useful for applications such as radar, remote sensing, and satellite broadcasting."
Reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rutledge

Rutledge has done some interesting work outside his specialty concerning the size of coal reserves and whether CO2 concentrations as projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change can actually be realized when the coal is eventually mined and burned.

It is Rutledge's view that the size of coal reserves is overstated and consequently that CO2 concentrations will fall below the 450 ppm concentration that the IPCC states is necessary to keep temperature increases below 2C. If one believes his analysis then, there is no moral issue with the exportation of coal.

Rutledge states explicitly on his website the following:

"Projection for long-term world coal production is 60% of the reserves plus cumulative production — projection range has been within a 14% band since 1995. ... It appears that the Cancun commitment to a rise of less than 2?C will be met without any climate policy at all."

Reference: http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

Rutledge likely has identified an important area of study in evaluating the size of economically recoverable reserves of coal. This area of study is important for not just the question of climate but also for issues related to economy and allocation of capital. As Rutledge indicates in his review of the historical record, coal reserves were consistently overstated in England. If one looks at US coal reserves, it is obvious that there has not been a recent assessment as to the size of US coal. Similar results were found by the EnergyWatch group in a 2007 study where they state: "Production profile projections suggest the global peak of coal production to occur around 2025 at 30 percent above current production in the best case."
Reference: http://www.peakoil.net/files/EWG-Coalreport_10_07_2007.pdf

There are two fundamental problems with Rutledge's analysis though. The first problem with Rutledge's analysis is that it relies exclusively on a mathematical tool called Hubbert Linearization. This technique assumes that a resource will be extracted based upon a gaussian-normal distribution. So if one plots a time-series of the coal that is mined that one can project the total economically recoverable resource based upon previous extraction rates. It is an interesting mathematical model of how resources are extracted but that is what it is--a model. It has not been correlated or substantiated by recent geological surveys of coal resources. Many have commented that using this technique to project the recoverable resource is prone to errors since the projected recoverable resource is overly biased by the amount of ore that is mined in the early years. It also fails to account for reasons other than geology that would cause extraction to not follow the assumed gaussian distribution. See analysis by George Mobus at University of Washington-Tacoma here:
http://mobjectivist.blogspot.com/2005/12/hubbert-linearization.html

The second problem with Rutledge's analysis is that he neglects recent research and observations that indicate that the sensitivity of the earth to rising CO2 to be much higher than the IPCC's assessment. The polar ice caps are melting faster than even the most pessimistic projections. Ice loss from Greenland's glaciers is accelerating at a faster rate than anticipated due to higher feedback effects. James Hansen at NASA-Goddard Institute of Space Science now indicates that based upon the latest scientific research that the safe concentration level is 350 ppm (note: we are currently at 385 ppm).

Hansen states:
"If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO2 will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm."
Reference: http://arxiv.org/abs/0804.1126

So Rutledge's conclusions are incorrect in two ways. First, the fact that we are exporting coal may be indicative that we are facing a worldwide resource crunch. Indonesia, India, and Australia may not actually have surplus coal to send to China. If that is the situation, it would be imperative that capital not be invested in coal burning powerplants with 50-80 year lifespans but instead in renewable energy sources. Second, exporting coal is a moral issue since the consequences of burning it and adding to overall CO2 will be the destruction of the economic livelihoods of millions of people as seas rise, fisheries decline, and weather changes precipitously.

@bob ferris: fair point, but even at 1.1 percent sulphur Chinese coal has more than twice the sulphur output than PRB coal. A critical issue is whether or not the plants have scrubbers, which remove the sulphur. It's also more complicated than these back of the envelope estimates, because if Chinese coal is wetter and has a lower btu content than PRB coal it might be necessary to burn twice as much to get the same power output, which further increases the sulphur output. Fair point, too, on sulphur content for residual fuel oil, but it turns out 500 tons a day consumption for a big ship is way too high, it's more like 70 tons a day, meaning that the total sulphur output at 4.6 percent for a round trip of 20 days is only 65 tons. This is no way changes the basic fact that burning Chinese coal is at least twice and maybe 4 to 5 times more from a sulphur standpoint than using PRB coal and the fuel the ships use is insignificant.

There really isn't any reason not to invest in South Africa, even if it does support apartheid. After all, if our pension fund doesn't do it, someone else will. We may as well make the money.

There really isn't any reason not to trade weapons to psychotic dictators in exchange for diamonds, even if they are dripping blood. After all, if we don't sell them guns, someone else will. We may as well make the money.

There's really no reason not to take that job as a guard at Auschwitz, even if it does mean participating in mass murder and genocide. After all, you don't take the job, someone else will. You may as well make the money.

One might also remember that the "Maine" blew up in Havana Harbor from coal dust. It's not a totally mundane material. I'm sure that "adequate", meaning "no precautions" will be taken by the shipper to avoid this catastrophe.

I'm with Wilbur on this one, no point in sending our one last source of energy to our chief economic competitor. Let someone else mine and ship the stuff to them. Then when those countries run out we can trade for "rare earth" minerals or something otherwise essential. Meantime by raising the cost of coal to China we can expect that they'll convert to other energy sources sooner rather than later.

Steve E., I expect the coal will be used to build wealth for their people.

We "developed" nations have got ours, and look for a moment at the remarkable things we've done (you're using one of them now.) It's Asia and Africa's turn. And their growth may very well solve some of our most pressing problems.

Reason thus: Quality of life issues are a middle class concerns, working people don't have the incentives or political clout to change environmental policies, or much of anything else. China's growing middle class, on the other hand, will have increasing influence in environmental policies and decisions. They may even turn their considerable numbers and intelligence towards developing new mind-blowing technologies that promote a safer and sustainable environment. They might even sell them to us.

Link to follow up:
http://crosscut.com/blog/crosscut/20444/Can-little-old-Washington-influence-the-price-of-coal-to-China-/