The railroad industry stands to benefit financially from coal export proposals, so it’s no surprise their supporters are worked up. If you want to see some of the cute (well, amusingly misinformed) things they’re saying about the upcoming day of action, check it out at http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,2634517,2634691

I’m excited to see the youth climate movement in the greater Northwest is powerful enough to earn the angst of industrial players. Let’s have a great weekend of action February 18th-19th!

You overlook the fact that even though coal plants may be getting marginally more efficient, there is no proven technology that can dependably capture or significantly reduce carbon dioxide from the plants. Nor is such technology likely to be developed any time in the near future.

You also make the same mistake as Robert above, by assuming China will continue to burn coal no matter what we do in the US. As I explained to Robert, coal is a finite resource, and the price is going to go up over time. In fact, the International Energy Agency just released a new report showing international coal prices are slated to rise (see http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/90778/7677210.html). If the US refuses to sell China our coal, it will of course speed up rise in coal prices internationally, and prompt a faster transition to clean energy in countries like China.

There isn’t anything mysterious about this process whereby developing countries will choose to make the natural shift to renewable energy. It’s a matter of economics, pure and simple. As energy demand grows worldwide, the price of coal will go up – while the price of renewable energy (which for all practical purposes exists in infinite supply) will only continue to go down. Argument that China will burn coal “no matter what” are misguided.

http://dragonawardnewtalent.com/en-us/filmview/land-of-the-asers/

http://dragonawardnewtalent.com/en-us/filmview/land-of-the-asers/

Please try not to get so worked up – there’s really no need to be so defensive. Coal from the Powder River Basin has a marginally smaller sulfur content than Chinese coal; but you also have to burn more of it to produce the same amount of energy, so any pollution savings are quickly lost. I also disagree with your assessment that selling more coal to China will be good for the US. What we would be doing, essentially, is exporting raw materials so skilled labor in the China could use the energy to produce manufactured goods. I don’t want to see the US to become a producer of mere raw materials, while our skilled labor jobs move overseas. I also haven’t heard that China plans on forgiving any debts we owe them, just because we sell them more coal.

Your claim that “China will burn coal until Hell freezes over” is equally misguided. Where are they going to get this coal, exactly? Sure China can import coal from Russia, Australia, etc – but none of those countries have the coal reserves we do in the US. There is a finite supply of coal, and as it becomes scarcer, the price will go up. This will trigger a shift in countries like China to clean, renewable energy sources. If we refuse to dump more US coal on the international market, the shift will happen sooner. It’s a matter of simple economics.

Finally, your “challenge” in the second paragraph of your comment is laughable, and has nothing to do with what I wrote about in my post. Point me to the place where I said all energy consumption is evil, and that modern technology is a purely bad thing. I support a sensible transition to renewable energy, not an immediate cessation of all forms of energy use. Unlike you, I believe humans have the intelligence and the ability to use technology responsibly.

I hope that addresses some of your concerns. And really, try not to get into a tizzy just because I challenge some of your assumptions. We can have a rational, respectful conversation, here.

I invite you and all your eco friends to cut off your utilities, stop using electricity, gas, water, sewers, and stay off the roads. Bive away your cell phones and computers. Stay out of the super markets, & stores of all kinds. Haul you butts out into the woods with no manufactured goods, and lets see just how long you survive. Even your excrements are pollution. You want the good life, but oppose what it takes to have that life. Cake, eat it too. One or the other my friend.

Yes, freight trains produce diesel fumes. That of course is part of my point, as an increase in coal freight through towns affected by coal export proposals will increase diesel pollution. What your point is, exactly, remains a little unclear to me. And of course trucks produce diesel fumes too; that’s another problem I’d like to see addressed, but I’ll save it for another blog post.

Clearly you haven’t spent much time near the rail yard in Missoula lately. If you had, you would understand that the noise from coupling trains is on a whole new level of magnitude above noise pollution from the highway. In addition, it’s closer to more residential properties.

Finally, coal trains have indeed been around longer than I have. Again, I’m not sure what your point is. I can think of many things that have been around longer than me, which I’d like to see done away with (nuclear weapons and the typhoid virus come to mind). Today’s trains are somewhat more efficient than the ones we had 30 year ago – a good thing, too. That still doesn’t make me happy about having hundreds more uncovered coal cars pass through Missoula everyday.

Sorry to say, but it seems like you need to work on your argument a little more. You haven’t even addressed the impact that exporting coal would have on climate change. If you have a good argument for why increasing coal train traffic makes sense, I haven’t seen it yet.

Noise? The interstate running through our town makes highway noise 24/7.

Traffic congestion? Trains have been around longer than you have have, little boy! In fact, there are less train operationg now than there were 30 years ago. And the locomotives powering the current trains, emit fewer emissions than previous locomotives.