The document discusses several proposed coal export terminals in the Pacific Northwest, totaling up to 64 million metric tons per annum of coal export capacity. It notes there has been massive public participation opposing the terminals due to concerns about increased coal and oil transport, including fracked oil from North Dakota and tar sands oil from Alberta. The document questions whether a "Thin Green Line" of resistance can help the region win the fight against the proposals.
1 of 31
Download to read offline
More Related Content
The thin green line
1. The Thin Green Line
Resistance and Solutions
rallen@lairdnorton.org
11. Grays Harbor (Rail America) ¨C 5 MTPA
Coos Bay (Mitsui, Metro Ports) ¨C 10 MTPA
St. Helens (Kinder Morgan) ¨C 15 ¨C 30 MTPA
Port of Morrow (Ambe)- 9 MTPA
Targeted coal campaign across the country targeting the #1 offender ¨C coal.
Post Loss at the federal level ¨C Climate movement landed on fossil fuel infrastructure resistance
With Markets shrinking, these two campaign collided
Beth ºÝºÝߣ 3:
The Thin Green Line
History of Coal
Entrance of Oil
Quick personal story.
River I love. Catch and eat salmon, play with kids
What¡¯s at stake?
Communties threatened by coal trains
Coal is toxic, mercury, lead, arsenic
3. Impact local business and quality of life
- Human health, asthma
How did we decide what to work on? How to narrow focus of campaign?
Coal companies want to open up Pacific Northwest ports so that they can supply American coal to Asia. Current plans call for shipping more than 100 million tons of coal each year, roughly 20 times as much as Washington¡¯s only coal plant burns. That would make us one of the largest coal export communities in the world. There are currently, 5 proposals to transport coal on rail lines from Spokane down to the Columbia River up I-5. This would amount to more than 150 million tons of coal passing through our towns and cities each year.