This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on September 9, 2010 1:45 PM. The previous post in this blog was Mudpit Oswego. The next post in this blog is More security theater insanity at the airport. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Thursday, September 9, 2010

Port paving over Hayden Island to ship coal to China

So now we see what they're doing. We've been wondering, Why is the Port of Portland (and its handmaidens on the City Council) so hellbent on paving over scarce wildlife habitat on the west end of Hayden Island? They say they want a shipping terminal there, but in this economy, what's there to ship?

Today we see the answer: They'll be using that terminal to ship coal from Montana and Wyoming to China.

Then the Chinese can burn it, and the mercury from the coal emissions will be rained down on the Pacific Northwest. Great.

I thought Mayor Creepy recently stood up and declared himself the leader of a "coal-free Oregon." Like everything else he says, that appears to have been a bit of a joke.

Comments (19)

Yep. Adams explicitly knows that coal exports are one of the main potential reasons for developing the area.

And Jack, here's a report you might want to peruse.

One thing that's not widely known: West Hayden Island isn't actually in the city limits of Portland. It'd likely be annexed in some fashion. There might even be a bridge built, according to the glorious Port of Portland website dedicated to the "public process" of this project.

We can recycle the aerosol mercury from China, to replace the mercury from the broken bulbs in our unnecessary UV drinking water treatment. We get to inhale mercury AND drink it. An earth-friendly win- win-win for Sam, Randy, and China.

OK, I'm going to admit it. I'm naive. Despite my comments, I really give people the benefit of the doubt. I know that Obamanomics would fail and I know its a failure. But I give Obama the benefit of the doubt--he believes in his economic policies. Bush was the same way--right or wrong, at least he believed he was right.

Single Use Sam Adams, however, has lost my benefit of the doubt.

I know him better than most Portlanders and I am now convinced that he will say anything to get his way. I have seen him pull "facts" right out of his a-s. Almost literally. Watch him when he talks. You think he is rearranging his wallet, but he is fishing out a "fact" that the Oregonian slurps up and republishes without even a cursory fact check.

Now that you've brought up the coal ... Just wait. Right now Sam's magic wallet is producing some factoid that will make everything OK. "Did you know that Wyoming coal is cleaner than Chinese coal? That means we are adding to our export economy AND helping the environment. Triple bottom line, baby."

The shear hypocrisy of Sam coal free energy most sustainable city in the world Adams aside, I'm not sure the Columbia River and its ports can handle the size of vessels that they'll want to use.

Enough to give me a case of coalitis!

China is burning through coal supplies at a phenominal rate. If we don't ship coal to china some other state will. And if China doesn't burn it, we'll burn it ourselves as the supply of oil runs out.

In the last century we grew our population to 7 billion people by the use of fossil fuel. As that fuel runs out, we'll be burning every bit of it that we can economically get out of the ground. If that is how it goes, then maybe it is a good idea to profit off of the coal trade while we transition to something else locally.

Somewhat related: why won't the Sierra Club quit guilting their fellow countrymen with whiny "Beyond Coal" campaigns and instead focus maximum fire power from their death star lasers onto China, the fastest growing worldwide consumers of coal? Answer: SC would fail miserably as China usually does what China wants to. Just ask Google.

Population growth is at the heart of the problem. At least China is doing something about it. The lowest cost kilowatt will always be consumed by the less developed economies. Carbon taxes will make the U.S.A. even less competitive (and Goldman Sachs investors even richer), and will do nothing to reduce global warming. Air pollution is pollution no matter where it occurs.

Atomic energy is the only low carbon solution that will meet peak energy demands, but Jack is well versed in the environmental objections which surround nuclear power.

Maybe the City of Portland can pass a law that requires you to buy an expensive permit to procreate?

What's absolutely funny is that Mayor Adams can whine and complain all he wants about the "coal-free Portland" (when in fact Portland gets so much more power from coal than even Seattle does - Seattle gets virtually NONE of its power from coal while about a quarter of Portland's power is coal generated)...if the Port of Portland is forced to say "no" to this terminal, there's always Vancouver, Kalama, Longview, Grays Harbor, Tacoma, Seattle, and Bellingham (just in Washington state)...plus Coos Bay has been trying for at least two decades to get a coal export facility built. (Unlike containers or automobiles, a bulk commodity like coal really doesn't care about having a high speed rail route, although the line to Coos Bay is a bit more windy and longer).

I'm sure Rainier or St. Helens also would not object to such a plan; or how about Troutdale using a part of the old Reynolds property right on the Columbia?

Sam Adams can pound sand to all of those - he has absolutely no say in the matter.

Oregon will get very little short-term benefit from becoming a staging area for massive coal shipments out the Columbia -- BUT, will be left with the long-term toxic legacy of residual coal wastes and the public health damage to the terminal workers, their families, and the local environment (think cumulative effects, too) -- and all of those persistent costs, long after the coal terminal is superceded and abandoned.

Sam Adams -
Puppet, Hypocrite.

Put it all together---the Port is filling West Hayden Island with contaminated dredge materials from the Portland Harbor Superfund Site so that they can pave over hundreds of acres of wildlife habitat on West Hayden Island so that they can potentially ship coal to China which will then return to Oregon on the trade winds in the form of toxic air pollution.... all the while assuring the community that the project will be "green" and a "win" for the environment." None of these toxic possibilities were discussed during the $400,000, two year long public review process that just concluded---instead the Port and the City provided the community with a series of infomercials on "green ports" and how they recycle and use energy efficient lightbulbs. This project stinks from start to finish.

Here's what is irking me.... so we Portlanders get hit on our water bills for the clean-up of the superfund mess because lord forbid those businesses responsible for the mess should be accountable for cleaning it up. Now we have another governmental entity taking the mess and siting right back in our city instead of proper disposal to create more pollution that we the taxpayers will bear the cost for. Oh this project stinks and there should be lawsuits from here to kingdom come. Where the hell is 1000 Friends of OR or whoever replaced them?

LucsAdvo: . . Where the hell is 1000 Friends of OR or whoever replaced them?

Where is the Coalition For A Livable Future?

The Coalition for a Livable Future unites over 100 diverse organizations and hundreds of individuals to promote healthy and sustainable communities. By connecting issues, people and organizations, CLF empowers communities to take action together to shape the big decisions affecting the Portland region’s future. . .

Why has that organization and many others been so very silent about critical matters in our city and region?

. . . and while I am at it what about that organization Physicians for Social Responsibility?

Is there not a social responsibility regarding the health of a community?

Are these organizations not political? and why not when their names suggest more than a casual interest in our community's health and welfare?

Who sits on the Boards of these organizations?

Who funds some of the environmental organizations?

These are all questions that we need to be asking in these dire times.
These times are not normal, we need more involvement from these organizations.

Where is Physicians for Social Responsibility whose national program fights coal and it's effects? Where is Oregon Environmental Council? Andrea are you listening? Where are Oregon Wild and Environment Oregon? Putting together wine and cheese trays for their next fund raiser?

Makes me truly ill to see him play our local Sierra Club for saps.

Drew Olsen,
Sounds like you also are upset with these organizations who are so silent?

I did notice the Audubon Society is involved in saving West Hayden Island.

Members of various groups may think that paying dues is their part in being an environmentalist and that the organization is taking care of matters. Not enough to just pay dues. Individuals need to become more active if for some reason the groups won't or can't. There needs to be more involvement than that and pressures need to be applied politically.
Maybe Jack can assist here, does it have to do with being a 501(c)(3)? How about a 501(c)(4)?

The following groups are actively opposing industrial development on West Hayden Island:

Audubon Society of Portland
Willamette Riverkeeper
Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (LCREP)
Columbia Riverkeeper
Oregon League of Conservation Voters (Multnomah Chapter)
Coalition for a Livable Future
Hayden Island Livability Project
Friends of West Hayden Island
Hayden Island Neighborhood Network (HiNoon)
Oregon Council of Trout Unlimited
Urban Greenspaces Institute
Sauvie Island Conservancy

Check out Audubon's "Save West Hayden" Facebook Page if you are interested in keeping up to date on this effort

Clicky Web Analytics