In our globalized world trade system, if the environment destroyers are stopped from doing bad things in one place, they can always find another place that's willing to do their dirty work. Days after Oregon refused permission for a coal export facility, the Port of Vancouver, in BC, has agreed to do the dirty deed instead:
Port Metro Vancouver has approved a controversial $15-million coal-loading facility at Fraser Surrey Docks despite concerns for human health and the environment.
They claim there will be no significant adverse environmental or health effects. But of course they never consulted public health experts while drawing up the plan.
Dr. Paul Van Buynder, chief medical health officer for the Fraser Health Authority, said he and other regional health experts were not consulted. "They're saying they're comfortable there's no human health risk, but that was all done without any input from health itself and those people who are legislated to be responsible for the health of the Lower Mainland."
And Laura Benson, coal campaigner for Dogwood Initiative, protested that the project was approved despite overwhelming public opposition, and described the port's consultation process as " an insult to British Columbians living along the coal route who are worried about breathing in toxic coal dust and diesel fumes."
What health studies were done address only the footprint of the dock area itself, and not dust and other pollution the project will cause along the entire route that the 125-car trains of thermal coal coming from the U.S. take on their way into Canada each day. The coal export facility is expected to handle 4-8 million tonnes of thermal coal annually from Wyoming and Montana.
BC doesn't burn coal itself, but its ports are becoming a major outlet for US thermal coal to Asian markets, where it's used as a cheap and dirty way of firing power plants:
Many parts of the world, including B.C., have stopped burning coal to create electricity because it’s widely recognized as the dirtiest form of energy on the planet — plus there are readily available alternatives to create electricity, such as hydro and wind power....
Over the past several years, Port Metro Vancouver has quietly allowed more and more U.S. thermal coal to be shipped through Westshore Terminals in Delta, now up to 10 million metric tonnes in 2013. The port is currently considering a proposal from Fraser Surrey Docks to handle even more U.S. coal — up to 8 million metric tonnes per year. The coal would arrive by train from the U.S. through the communities of White Rock, Ocean Park, Crescent Beach, Panorama Ridge and North Delta, then be transferred onto barges at Fraser Surrey Docks. Lafarge would then send barges down the lower Fraser River to the west coast of Texada Island where coal would be loaded onto ships bound for Asian power plants. If approved, the project would require an additional 160 to 320 train deliveries and between 320 and 640 more barge movements every year.
That's the one that's just been approved.
This is only one of two major coal export facilities the Port of Vancouver has now approved. Another one is an expansion planned for North Vancouver that will have nearly the same capacity once it's completed despite overwhelming public opposition:
Approval would make Metro Vancouver the biggest exporter of coal in North America. When burned these coal exports would produce more GHG pollution than all the bitumen shipped through the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline. This is madness.
And
this little factoid doesn't bode well for how well Vancouver will be able to keep the coal facility to their plan to protect air quality by spraying water and binding agents on the heaps of coal to keep down the dust:
Fraser Surrey Docks and Metro Vancouver are in a legal battle over whether the region has the authority to regulate air quality and emissions on federal port lands. Fraser Surrey Docks is fighting a $1,000 ticket it got from Metro Vancouver last fall for "discharging an air contaminant during dock operations."
In other words, they've been fighting the city for almost a year to keep from paying a $1000 dollar fine for "discharging an air contaminant during dock operations."