If you visit the Morrow Pacific coal export project website and examine the so-called “Myth vs. Fact” page, it would be easy to accept the message contained in the corporate rationalization rhetoric. Coal is here to stay. By not benefitting from coal exportation, Oregon would be wasting an opportunity for job growth.
Furthermore, they assert that the environmental impact of the coal exported (.01 percent of the world’s coal consumption) would only be a drop in the bucket compared to the total pollution already produced by coal consumption. The subtext of whether or not Oregon is complicit in any portion of that pollution is unimportant so long as there is sufficient economic benefit.
These are practical points. Oregon exporting coal to Asia won’t make any difference at all to the amount of pollution that Asia produces from coal (pollution that makes its way across the Pacific to the West Coast). Not exporting the coal from this state would only drive potential consumers to other exporters. These other exporters would most likely have lower prices due to more lax environmental protection policies.
These very same environmental policies are actually causing problems for the Morrow Pacific project right now. The project was issued a Department of Environmental Quality permit, but the permit has been challenged by the Sierra Club, Columbia Riverkeepers, and Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility in order to protect people from the pollutants spread by the mere transport of the coal. An independent study found that the annual transport of the proposed eight million tons of coal would exceed clean air standards for particulate matter by 1,000 percent and nitrogen oxide by 700 percent. These pollutants would most immediately impact the Columbia River Gorge surrounding the proposed facility, but would then spread quickly through the water and air currents that the gorge is known for.
Barring environmental concerns, one would also have to take into account the demand for coal in terms of profitability. Once these coal transport facilities are created, the demand for expensive American coal would need to be consistent for the project to ensure job security for the workers (50 potential permanent jobs) and future profitability. The problem with this is that China, the world’s largest consumer of coal, typically gets its coal for lower prices internally or from other nations. America has been known as a swing exporter—selling when prices are high, holding when low—and yet past attempts at West Coast coal exports failed in the 1980s and ‘90s.
The crux of the matter is whether or not creating a couple thousand very temporary construction jobs, 50 permanent jobs (depending on the coal market) and a bit of extra money for a corporate entity is worth polluting the Columbia River, including its air and wildlife. Having a constant stream of coal trains and barges using Oregon to wipe their shoes? Taking greater responsibility for Asia’s air pollution (that will end up here) and global climate change? I just don’t see it.
