How We Fight to Protect the Columbia River From Fossil Fuel Pollution–and Win
24 August 2018
Popular
No LNG Rally on May 26, 2015, in Salem, Oregon; in 2016 we defeated the project. Alex Milan Tracy
By Dan Serres
As highlighted by the article Why Does Climate Change Matter to the Columbia?, we are in the the fight of our lives to stop dirty fossil fuels and transition to clean energy. The good news? You are making a difference right now. As activists, you have a tremendous impact on greenhouse gas pollution in the Pacific Northwest. Over the past decade, you defeated the region's largest fossil fuel proposals. From stopping liquefied natural gas (LNG) developments on the Lower Columbia River, to blocking mind-blowing quantities of coal exports, to persuading Washington Gov. Jay Inslee to deny North America's largest oil train terminal, your efforts register on a global scale.
<p><br>Together, we have helped prevent: <br></p><ul class="ee-ul"> <li><strong>Coal </strong>— more than <strong>132 million tons per year, destined to travel through the Columbia River Gorge </strong>in dozens of mile-long coal trains, to ports in Oregon, Washington and British Columbia. </li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"> <li><strong>Oil </strong>— more than <strong>760,000 barrels per day</strong> shipped in "bomb trains" to new or expanded oil-by-rail terminals in Oregon and Washington. </li></ul><ul class="ee-ul"><li><strong>Fracked Gas </strong>— more than <strong>2 billion cubic feet of fracked gas per day</strong> <strong>(more than Washington and Oregon combined use in a day)</strong>, by defeating pipeline, power plant, and LNG terminal proposals. And we continue to fight projects in Kalama and Port Westward that would use or export another 640 million cubic feet.</li></ul><p>Altogether, you helped stop 471 million metric tons of carbon pollution per year. That's almost four times the carbon pollution of the Keystone XL pipeline, and more than seven times Oregon's total in-state greenhouse gas pollution. Incredible! Not only did you take a stand for our climate, but you made a difference for clean air and water as well. Fossil fuel projects pose tremendous safety and toxic pollution risks to millions of people across the Northwest. When we fight fossil fuels, we are fighting for clean water and healthy communities.</p><h2>Together We Are Strong</h2><p>To win against powerful coal, oil and gas interests, we must work together with allies. Riverkeeper engages with community activists from eastern Oregon and Washington all the way to the mouth of the Columbia River.</p><p>People may fight dangerous fossil-fuel projects because the projects harm local businesses, water resources, forests, farms or public safety. We are fortunate to work with firefighters, fishers, foresters, farmers, health professionals, educators and union leaders who see fossil fuel risks in their communities and stand against injustice. Whether seeking to protect critical salmon habitat, the safety of schools near rail lines, or a stable climate for our children, we seek common ground and a path away from dangerous fossil fuels. We strive to learn from one another and stand in solidarity across traditional political boundaries.</p><p>We also salute the incredible work of Columbia River tribes that stood up to coal exports and oil-by-rail. Several tribal nations presented rock-solid arguments to state and federal decision-makers on the dangerous impacts of coal exports and oil-by-rail. According to the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission:</p><blockquote>[Our] opposition stems not only from the climate effects of continued fossil fuel use, but also the present danger of transportation risks. Continued reliance on fossil fuels would have long-lasting, harmful impacts to the environment and the natural resources upon which tribal cultures are based. This alone is reason enough for opposition to expanding fossil fuel transport through the region, but adding in the risk of catastrophic environmental damage from spills and derailments and the correct course of action is even more obvious.</blockquote><p>We are honored to work in solidarity with these tribes to protect the Columbia from the perils of oil-by-rail and other dangerous fossil fuel projects.</p><h2>The Battle Continues</h2><p>Linking Grassroots Power to Expert Advocacy The "Thin Green Line"—the Northwest's remarkable effort to block fossil fuel expansion projects—is driven by everyday people who take time to connect with their friends, neighbors, and public officials.</p><p><span></span>Riverkeeper works to link these people with one another, empower them with technical information, and fight for their rights in the courtroom.</p><p><span></span>The fight continues. Fracking companies desperately seek outlets for their climate-disrupting methane. Two massive fracked gas-to-methanol refineries proposed in the Lower Columbia River would consume nearly as much fracked gas as the entire state of Oregon. Meanwhile, shippers of tar-sands crude are eyeing the Lower Columbia River for outlets for oil that is so thick and polluting, it sinks upon spilling, a huge threat to salmon recovery in the Columbia River.</p><p><span></span>As the backers of the Millennium coal terminal continue to litigate over a rejected coal export scheme in Longview, Washington, the Washington Pollution Control Hearings Board <a href="https://www.columbiariverkeeper.org/news/2018/8/coal-company-loses-appeal-water-quality-permit-denial" target="_blank">upheld</a> the Washington Department of Ecology's denial of a necessary water quality permit for proposed Millennium coal terminal, affirms that DOE acted validly to protect the water, land, air and people of Washington from harm.</p><p><span></span>The Columbia River has two futures. The first: a superhighway for fossil fuel exports—oil tankers, refinery smokestacks, flares and piles of coal eight stories high—enriching multinational corporations.</p><p><span></span>The second: strong, healthy communities and thriving local businesses united by clean air, clean water and sustainable salmon runs. Thank you for choosing clean air and water. When it comes to the onslaught of fossil fuel infrastructure on the Columbia, the actions you take in your community have global climate impacts.</p><h3><span></span>What Can You Do to Help? Take Action.</h3><p>Tell Washington State Gov. Inslee to "Oppose Kalama Methanol Refinery!" The world's largest fracked-gas-to-methanol refinery threatens our safety, river, climate, and private property rights! <a href="http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/50797/p/dia/action3/common/public/?action_KEY=20129" target="_blank">Act now</a>!</p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Lance Koudele / Columbia Riverkeeper
By Miles Johnson
Why does a river organization like Columbia Riverkeeper dedicate so much energy to fighting fossil fuel projects?
First, fossil fuels threaten clean water. Think oil spills, pipelines that degrade salmon streams, coal dust in the river, and aerial deposition of mercury from coal-burning power plants. But we have additional motivation to fight fossil fuel infrastructure: climate change is harming the Columbia River and our communities right now. And giant fossil fuel corporations want to build more infrastructure—pipelines, fracked gas refineries, shipping terminals—to lock our region into continued reliance on dirty energy. Together, we are taking a stand to protect clean water and our climate.
<p>With each victory over fracked gas, oil and coal, we are protecting clean water and our climate. This article explores four (of the many) impacts of climate change—salmon in hot water, extreme heat waves, fire danger and streams running dry—harming the people, animals and plants in our region right now. In addition, the article describes scientists' projections of future impacts. Our work is urgent and full of hope. By defeating fossil fuel infrastructure today, we support the rapid transition to <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/renewable-energy/">clean energy</a>, which will increase prosperity in the Pacific Northwest.<br><br>Four impacts of climate change in the Pacific Northwest:<br><br><strong>Salmon in Hot Water</strong></p><p>The mighty Columbia River is synonymous with salmon. When tribes alone inhabited the Columbia River Basin, as many as 30 million salmon returned to the river each year. Despite significant declines, these salmon runs hold tremendous cultural and economic value for tribes and other river communities throughout the Pacific Northwest. While we struggle to restore the Columbia's imperiled salmon runs, climate change is warming the river, making it even harder for salmon to survive.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xODMxMjM2OC9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYzNjAwMDM4Mn0.VlsJs8v-9DNGl19gLqQ0DY3h1wMX4IYE6c7_-YTONiI/img.jpg?width=980" id="cb13e" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="cb294af9f3227b34f21da28ae2595c24" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Salmon leaping of Lyle Falls</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Columbia Riverkeeper</small></p><p>Salmon need cool water. Warm water encourages disease-causing bacteria and fungi, delays salmon migration and depletes salmon's energy reserves. How warm is too warm? Adult salmon have difficulty swimming upstream when water temperatures approach 68 degrees Fahrenheit. Salmon that have stopped or slowed their migration, and languish for days or weeks in warm water, begin dying from stress and disease before they can return to their home streams to spawn.<br></p><p>Average summer water temperatures in the Columbia River have steadily increased over the past 60 years, and will only get hotter if climate change intensifies. Fifty years ago, the Columbia was too hot for salmon migration for only a week or two during the very peak of the summer. Now the Columbia frequently remains above 68 degrees Fahrenheit from mid-July until mid-September, making salmon migration during that time difficult or impossible. The Fish Passage Center, a federal science agency, explained that "under a climate change scenario, the long-recognized and largely unaddressed problem of high water temperatures ... becomes an ever-increasing threat to the survival of salmon in the Columbia River Basin."<br><br>That threat became a stark reality in the summer of 2015. Roughly 250,000 adult sockeye salmon, including 96 percent of the critically endangered Snake River sockeye run, died prematurely in the Columbia and lower Snake because the rivers were too hot. Though it's convenient to call 2015 an outlier, climate scientists predict that the air and water temperatures that killed so many salmon in 2015 will become increasingly common.<br><br>To protect salmon, we must stop burning fossil fuels. In addition, altering and removing dams on the Snake and Columbia rivers can help solve water temperature problems. The Columbia and Snake dams create large, shallow reservoirs that trap the sun's heat and warm up the rivers. If we operated the dams differently, and removed the lower four Snake River dams, we could directly address the hot water crisis that threatens salmon survival.</p><p><img src="https://assets.rbl.ms/18312457/980x.jpg"><small></small></p><p class=""><em>Free the Snake 2015 by Ben Moon for Patagonia</em></p><p class="caption"><strong>Extreme Heat Waves</strong></p><p>Across the Pacific Northwest, hotter days and nights are growing more common. Climate change will increase the intensity, frequency and duration of extreme heat waves during the summer, with dangerous consequences. Heat kills more people in the U.S. in most years than floods, tornadoes or hurricanes. Our region's cool, rainy reputation leaves many people unprepared to deal with <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/extreme-weather">extreme temperatures</a> and heat waves.<br><br>The Pacific Northwest—like many other parts of the world—has seen record hot spells in recent summers. Climate change has already doubled the frequency of heat waves in some regions. And more extreme heat is on the way, even if we substantially reduce our global greenhouse gas emissions. Government scientists predict that heat waves in the Pacific Northwest over the next 30 to 60 years will be roughly twice as common as they are now and last twice as long. Summer temperatures that would have been extreme in the 1950s will become commonplace in coming decades, and we will see more record-high temperatures.<br><br>Extreme heat waves are dangerous. Heat is among the top weather-related causes of death in the U.S., responsible for an average of 1,500 fatalities per year. One recent study in Washington state found a 50-percent increase in heat-related hospitalizations during summers with serious heat waves. Residents of the Pacific Northwest may be at particular risk, even though heat waves here are less severe than in other regions. Many Oregonians and Washingtonians don't think of heat as a health risk, may not know the signs of heat stroke, and may not have access to air conditioning. A nationwide study found that "areas along the West Coast showed very high vulnerability [to heat waves], even though their current climates are temperate.<br></p><p>Like many other consequences of climate change, extreme heat waves will cause the most harm to the most vulnerable members of our society. Because urban areas collect additional heat, elderly and poor people living in large cities face the greatest risks. Older people tend to be less resilient to the physical stress of prolonged heat waves. And in the Pacific Northwest, where many homes lack air conditioning, low-income communities may not have access to, or the ability to pay for, relief from the heat.<br><br><strong>Fire Danger</strong></p><p>Residents of the Columbia River Gorge and the Portland metro area won't soon forget last summer's Eagle Creek Fire: weeks of smoke and haze; road closures; evacuation alerts and vacant downtowns in Gorge communities that usually bustle with summer visitors. And while we had it bad, the deadly fires that ravaged California communities later in 2017 were downright catastrophic.<br><br>Across the nation and the globe, climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/wildfires">wildfires</a>. Large wildfires in the U.S. currently burn more than twice as many acres each year as they did in 1970, and the average wildfire season now lasts two-and-a-half months longer. Less snow, earlier snowmelt and warmer air temperatures—all linked to climate change—lead to the hot, dry conditions that boost fire activity. Warmer, drier conditions also make fires harder to put out.<br><br>The Pacific Northwest's <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/tag/forests">forests</a> will be especially susceptible to wildfires as our climate changes. In Oregon and Washington, the mountains of the Cascade and Coast ranges traditionally have wet winters and relatively cool summers, leading to infrequent forest fires. But if the average temperature increases by one degree Celsius in this region—including the Gorge—the number of acres burned each year could rise by more than 400 percent. In the forests of northeastern Oregon, the number of acres burned each year could increase by more than 500 percent.<br><br>While we fight climate change, we'll also need to change the ways we manage and live with wildfire. Old ideas about wildfire suppression should be discarded; immediately putting out every forest fire, no matter the location, is incredibly expensive and allows dangerous amounts of fuel to build up over time. Forest management, like thinning around rural communities, may play a limited role. But powerful timber corporations and elected leaders should not use fire danger as an excuse to increase clearcutting and salvage logging that harm water quality, fish and wildlife.<br><br><strong>Streams Running Dry</strong></p><p>Washington, Oregon and Idaho are famous for beautiful, wild rivers and streams. The Wenatchee, Yakima, Deschutes, Clackamas and Selway—just to name a few in the Columbia Basin—evoke a powerful connection and sense of pride for many Pacific Northwest residents. We boat, fish, swim, and draw drinking water from our many rivers. Properly restored, these streams can once more support healthy salmon runs. But only if there's enough water to keep our <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/rivers">rivers</a> and streams flowing. <br><br>Climate change threatens to decrease water levels in western rivers, especially during the summer. Most surface water in the West comes from snowmelt, but snowfall is declining and projected to decline faster if climate change continues. With less snowmelt to feed rivers throughout the summer, and warmer air temperatures increasing evaporation, many rivers won't have much water left in the summer and fall. Some streams in the Columbia Basin may run dry altogether. <br><br>In response to declining snowpack, some suggest building new <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/dams">dams</a> to trap rainfall and spring runoff. But dam construction would sacrifice the very rivers we seek to protect and restore. We already live with the legacy of thousands of large and small dams throughout the Columbia Basin. Dam construction is the past; dam removal and healthy, free-flowing rivers are our present and future. <br><br>One Columbia Basin stream already facing acute water shortages is Fifteenmile Creek. From its headwaters in the eastern foothills of the Cascade Mountains, the creek flows into the Columbia River near The Dalles, OR, and provides an important spawning area for threatened steelhead. Fifteenmile Creek receives about 70 inches of precipitation each year—mostly as snowmelt—but irrigation already competes for scarce water in the summer, sometimes running the stream dry and killing young fish. Further decreases in snowfall and precipitation could push this imperiled population of steelhead over the brink of extinction. <br><br><strong>Hope for a Brighter, Cooler Future</strong></p><p>The threats from climate change are real and daunting, yet we see reasons for hope all around us. The Pacific Northwest is combating climate change by refusing to host coal and oil export terminals and by decreasing our reliance on fracked gas for power. Instead, your voice is driving a transition to clean, renewable energy and setting an example for the rest of the U.S. and beyond. Together, we can protect the Columbia Basin's people and places from the worst impacts of climate change while protecting clean water.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="039d9" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="45NFSM1576663368"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="961365226234023937" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Report: Fracked Gas Project Could Undermine Washington’s Clean Energy Goals https://t.co/ecmCpLdYxJ @foodandwater… https://t.co/MjaiDBJS2Y</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/961365226234023937">1518042305.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Miles Johnson is senior attorney at <a href="https://www.columbiariverkeeper.org" target="_blank">Columbia Riverkeeper</a>.</em><br></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
EcoWatch Daily Newsletter
People's Climate March boat parade. Rick Rappaport
By Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky
Bill McKibben is right. Last summer, the co-founder of climate change organization 350.org penned a Rolling Stone article titled How to Tell If Your Reps Are Serious About Climate Change. One way to tell, said McKibben, is if "[t]hey understand natural gas could be the most dangerous fuel of all."
<p>A <a href="https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/SEI-2018-DB-towards-a-climate-test.pdf" target="_blank">new report</a> from the <a href="https://www.sei-international.org/" target="_blank">Stockholm Environment Institute</a> (SEI) on a controversial fracked gas-to-methanol refinery proposed in Washington state confirms McKibben's assertion: the Kalama methanol refinery will not help us achieve a low-carbon future or meet the goals in the <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/paris-agreement">Paris agreement</a>. According to the report, approving the Kalama methanol refinery "would not appear to be consistent with globally agreed climate goals of keeping warming at less than 2 degrees Celsius."</p><p>The Kalama methanol refinery—the largest fracked-gas-to-methanol refinery in the world—would cause the equivalent of 3.7 to 7 million tons per year of CO<sub>2</sub> pollution, based on 20-year global warming potential. That's over half the carbon footprint of the massive <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/coal">coal</a>-fired power plant in Centralia, Washington. When the Centralia coal plant closes in 2025, the Kalama methanol project would become Washington's top contributor to climate change. </p><p style="">Backed by the Chinese government, a company called Northwest Innovation Works proposes to refine fracked gas to liquid methanol on the banks of the Columbia River in the <a href="http://twilightsaga.wikia.com/wiki/Filming_locations" target="_blank">Twilight-famous town of Kalama</a>, then ship the methanol to China to produce olefins, a chemical building block for <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/tag/plastics">plastic</a>.</p><p>The new report casts doubt on claims that the Kalama methanol refinery would replace coal-based methanol production in China and thus benefit the climate. Researchers found that the Kalama facility is just as likely to displace more common—and less emissions-intensive—methods of making plastic. This means that "that the facility would be just as likely to increase global GHG emissions [from other sources] as to decrease them."</p><p>Researchers also found that the Kalama methanol refinery could result in emissions that are two to six times higher than estimates in the final Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS"). That's largely because the EIS left out emissions involved in supplying fracked gas to the methanol refinery. "The new analysis provides an opportunity to fix that, and consider all emission impacts in the supplemental review," said SEI senior scientist Peter Erickson, a co-author of the report.</p><p>Last fall, a Washington state hearings board ruled that the final EIS was illegal, siding with <a href="http://columbiariverkeeper.org/" target="_blank">Columbia Riverkeeper</a>, <a href="http://www.sierraclub.org" target="_blank">Sierra Club</a>, <a href="http://www.biologicaldiversity.org" target="_blank">Center for Biological Diversity</a>, and <a href="https://earthjustice.org" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a>. The board ordered a new EIS that fully discloses the methanol refinery's climate impacts. A comment period for the new, climate-focused EIS is open now through Feb. 28. <a href="http://salsa4.salsalabs.com/o/50797/p/dia/action4/common/public/?action_KEY=24033" target="_blank">Click here to send in your comment</a>.</p><p>The report should be an eye-opener for Washington Governor Jay Inslee; it allows the governor and all Washingtonians to see the true climate cost of this project. Inslee is a leader in the fight against climate change, as demonstrated by his bold commitments to the Paris agreement, state carbon reduction goals, and the introduction of a carbon pollution tax in the Washington legislature. Now Inslee can take a stand against the Kalama methanol refinery and new fracked gas infrastructure that would add stunning new greenhouse gas pollution right here at home.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed">
</p><div id="fc9b2" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="755FE81576663084"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="801555957998358528" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">World's Largest Methanol Refinery to Be Built Along the Columbia River https://t.co/eBDDBgXsMI @1stnations @tarsandsRESIST</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/801555957998358528">1479940807.0</a></blockquote></div>
<p></p><p><em>Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky is the senior organizer of <a href="http://columbiariverkeeper.org" target="_blank">Columbia Riverkeeper</a>.</em></p>
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Energy Fuse
By Justin Mikulka
On Jan. 29, Washington Gov. Jay Inslee rejected a permit required for Tesoro-Savage to build the Vancouver Energy oil-by-rail facility, the largest such project in the nation, at the Port of Vancouver, along the Washington-Oregon border. The governor explained the basis of his decision, which followed a several year long process, in a letter to the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council:
<p style="margin-left: 20px;">"When weighing all of the factors considered against the need for and potential benefits of the facility at this location, I believe the record reflects substantial evidence that the project does not meet the broad public interest standard necessary for the Council to recommend site certification."Vancouver Energy, a joint venture of Tesoro and Savage, has not yet commented on the decision but has 30 days to file an appeal. Local environmental groups, however, were quick to applaud the news.</p><p style="">"This project was absurdly dangerous and destructive, and Governor Inslee saw these risks clearly," said Dan Serres, conservation director of <a href="http://columbiariverkeeper.org/" target="_blank">Columbia Riverkeeper</a>. "The threat of an earthquake or accident creating an oil spill in the Columbia River poses far too great a risk to the Columbia, its salmon and its people."</p><p style="">Serres and the governor both outlined why many oil-by-rail projects have been fiercely opposed by local communities: The projects offer huge risks and very little reward for the communities where they are located. The Vancouver Energy terminal would have resulted in oil train traffic hauling <a href="http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/371254-washington-gov-rejects-proposed-oil-by-rail-train-station" target="_blank">more than 131 million barrels of oil</a> along the Columbia Gorge and transferred to ships bound for West Coast refineries.</p><p style="">The governor's decision came a week after three rail employees involved in the deadly <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/23/rail-workers-acquitted-trial-deadly-lac-megantic-oil-train-disaster" target="_blank">Lac-Mégantic, Quebec, oil-by-rail disaster</a> were acquitted, a situation which makes the potential risks of moving explosive oil through communities readily apparent.</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-rebelmouse-image" style="">
<img type="lazy-image" data-runner-src="https://assets.rebelmouse.io/eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.eyJpbWFnZSI6Imh0dHBzOi8vYXNzZXRzLnJibC5tcy8xNzEzNTUwNi9vcmlnaW4uanBnIiwiZXhwaXJlc19hdCI6MTYyOTkwMDc2NX0.Rubs1is6LJUDZ_l2eVu9jBgRlC3_Ut1nJ5TTx7Dbl20/img.jpg?width=980" id="46a9c" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="bc22ab5861bef4f3edf0db94b195fd90" data-rm-shortcode-name="rebelmouse-image">
<small class="image-media media-caption" placeholder="add caption...">Lac-Mégantic before and after the oil train explosion.</small><small class="image-media media-photo-credit" placeholder="add photo credit...">Claude Grenier / Studio Numéra / Lac-Mégantic</small></p><p style="">In Washington they don't need to look as far as Lac-Mégantic to see the risks of moving oil-by-rail.</p><p>In 2016 a train carrying Bakken oil through the Columbia River Gorge <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/06/05/luck-rides-rails-another-near-miss-bakken-bomb-train" target="_blank">derailed and caught fire</a> in Mosier, Oregon. By all accounts Mosier was very lucky that day and avoided a much larger disaster. The proposed <a href="https://www.ecowatch.com/1-000-people-attend-hearing-on-proposal-for-nations-largest-oil-by-rai-1882149481.html">Tesoro-Savage</a> facility would have meant many more oil trains moving through the Columbia River Gorge, which straddles Washington and Oregon.</p><p><strong>Listening to the Will of the People</strong></p><p style="">One could argue that with this decision, Gov. Inslee is simply doing his job by representing the people he serves. While the final decision about this project's future was the governor's to make, in November 2017 the voters of Vancouver were given an opportunity to voice their opinion about this project at the ballot box—and the vote wasn't even close.</p><p style="">Last year two candidates—one for the oil train project and one against—ran for the open seat on the Port of Vancouver board of commissioners, which would be charged with decisions related to the proposed Tesoro-Savage facility. Don Orange, who opposed the oil-by-rail project, won that election with almost <a href="https://www.opb.org/news/article/washington-vancouver-port-race-donations-oil-kris-greene-don-orange/" target="_blank">65 percent of the vote</a>.</p><p style="">Orange was elected despite his opponent receiving more than $600,000 in campaign funding, with 90 percent of it coming from the companies behind the oil-by-rail facility and its backers. That's a lot of money pouring into a campaign for an elected position that pays less than $20,000 a year.</p><p style="">Earlier this month Commissioner Orange and the other two port commissioners <a href="http://www.columbian.com/news/2018/jan/09/port-commissioners-end-vancouver-energys-lease-for-oil-terminal/" target="_blank">voted to not renew the company's lease</a> if the project did not have all required permits and licenses by March 31.</p><p><strong>Big Victory Caps a String of Success for Oil-by-Rail Activists</strong></p><p>By itself, the rejection of the Port of Vancouver oil-by-rail facility would represent a major victory for activists opposing oil and rail projects, as it would have been the largest facility of its kind in the nation. However, the outcome caps a string of wins for West Coast communities fighting against new oil-by-rail facilities in their midst.</p><p>Last year a California court ruled that an <a href="https://yubanet.com/california/groups-stop-rail-terminal-expansion-that-would-increase-bomb-train-traffic-and-degrade-air-quality/" target="_blank">oil refinery and rail project in Bakersfield</a> could not proceed because its <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/27/regulators-helped-oil-by-rail-bakersfield-crude-terminal-environmental-review-california" target="_blank">environmental review</a> was inadequate.</p><p style="">That was preceded by the Washington Supreme Court <a href="https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/environment/court-throws-wrench-in-plans-for-big-washington-oil-terminal/" target="_blank">voting unanimously</a> to deny an oil-by-rail project in Grays Harbor because that project lacked a comprehensive environmental review and did not consider the Ocean Resources Management Act.</p><p>Also in 2017, a proposed <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/oil-by-rail-california-san-luis-obispo-5e1ca568123b/" target="_blank">Phillips 66 oil-by-rail project</a> in California was voted down by the San Luis Obispo County planning commission.</p><p style="">In 2016 the city council in Benicia, California, voted unanimously to reject <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2016/09/28/ruling-little-known-federal-agency-paves-way-communities-say-no-oil-trains" target="_blank">Valero's proposed oil-by-rail project</a>. The Benicia project also resulted in another victory for local communities when the Surface Transportation Board ruled that local communities had the right to weigh in on oil-by-rail projects proposed in their area.</p><p>The Benicia decision was a situation that Yolo County Supervisor Don Saylor acknowledged had national implications. "The community of Benicia, in the crosshairs of history, made one of those decisions that will make a difference for the country. They stood up and said the safety of our communities matters," he said.</p><p>That decision gave communities the right to say whether or not they wanted to absorb a large part of the risks of oil-by-rail projects when it was oil and rail companies reaping the rewards.</p><p><strong>The Fight Continues</strong></p><p>In June of this year <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2017/06/07/west-coast-oil-rail-long-term-strategy-global-partners" target="_blank">I wrote about</a> how the oil industry had long-term plans to use rail to move oil to West Coast refineries. At the time, I mentioned that Kevin Sheys, an industry lawyer speaking to the 2016 Energy by Rail conference, made a presentation that included a slide stating that that the biggest threat facing the industry was "Local Regulation of Crude Oil/Ethanol Unit Train Unloading Projects."</p><p style="">Unhappy with local communities having some say in such matters, Sheys said, "I think that in the next four years, there is an issue that the administration will have to deal with … and the issue is local regulation of crude oil and ethanol unit train unloading projects."</p><p style="">As Gov. Inslee and the state of Washington have shown, Sheys prediction seems to be spot on.</p><p style=""><em>Reposted with permission from our media associate <a href="https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/29/washington-inslee-rejects-oil-rail-vancouver-energy-tesoro-savage" target="_blank">DeSmogBlog</a>.</em></p>
From Your Site Articles
Related Articles Around the Web
Read More
Show Less
Lighthouse Resources Inc.
Washington state regulators denied a water quality permit for a major coal export terminal Tuesday, dealing a possibly lethal blow to the project.
The Washington Department of Ecology denied the permit for the Millennium Bulk terminal project, finding that the proposed terminal would have caused "significant and unavoidable harm" to the nearby city of Longview.
<p style="">"There are simply too many unavoidable and negative environmental effects for the project to move forward," Ecology Director Maia Bellon said in a statement.<br></p><p style=""><span></span>As reported by the <a href="https://apnews.com/b7d0edb148d84d85baa666262ea572e7/Washington-state-deals-blow-to-plan-for-coal-export-terminal" target="_blank">AP</a>:</p><p style="margin-left: 20px;">"An environmental review released in April by Washington's ecology department and Cowlitz County analyzed potential harm to fish habitat, wetlands, water quality, local communities and more. Of 23 environmental areas, 19 would face harmful effects, and some could not be offset or reduced, officials said at the time."</p><p class="shortcode-media shortcode-media-twitter_embed"></p><div id="287e7" class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="EI89N91576663690"><blockquote class="twitter-tweet twitter-custom-tweet" data-twitter-tweet-id="859052546647887873" data-partner="rebelmouse"><div style="margin:1em 0">Final Study Shows Coal Export Terminal Would Increase #Cancer Rates, Carbon Emissions https://t.co/BpJimmnJ69 @Earthjustice @PowerPastCoal</div> — EcoWatch (@EcoWatch)<a href="https://twitter.com/EcoWatch/statuses/859052546647887873">1493649062.0</a></blockquote></div><p></p><p style="">"This a major victory for activists who have been fighting for seven years to stop the coal export terminal in Longview," Jasmine Zimmer-Stucky, senior organizer with <a href="http://columbiariverkeeper.org/" target="_blank">Columbia Riverkeeper</a>, told <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/west-coast-coal-export-terminal-denied-water-permit-b129434914f1/" target="_blank">ThinkProgress</a>. "Today's victory came after 260,000 public comments were submitted in opposition to this permit, and it's a relief to know that agencies are responding to not only overwhelming opposition from the public but also their own facts and their own science."</p><p style="">If built, the terminal would have been the largest export terminal in the country, expected to export up to 44 million tons of coal per year from Wyoming and Montana to China and potentially increasing U.S. coal exports by 40 percent.</p><p style=""><span></span>"I think this really ends the conversation around coal export, and it ends it with a firm punctuation mark that these are bad choices for our region," Seattle-based <a href="https://earthjustice.org/" target="_blank">Earthjustice</a> attorney Jan Hasselman <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/west-coast-coal-export-terminal-denied-water-permit-b129434914f1/" target="_blank">said</a>. </p><p style=""><strong>For a deeper dive:</strong><br></p><p style=""><a href="https://apnews.com/b7d0edb148d84d85baa666262ea572e7/Washington-state-deals-blow-to-plan-for-coal-export-terminal" target="_blank">AP</a>, <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-export/washington-state-denies-key-permit-for-u-s-asia-coal-export-terminal-idUSKCN1C12US" target="_blank">Reuters</a>, <a href="http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-state-regulators-reject-coal-terminal/article/2635697" target="_blank">Washington Examiner</a>, <a href="https://thinkprogress.org/west-coast-coal-export-terminal-denied-water-permit-b129434914f1/" target="_blank">ThinkProgress</a></p><p style=""> <em>For more </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/climate-change-news/" target="_blank"><em>climate change</em></a><em> and </em><a href="http://ecowatch.com/business/renewables/" target="_blank"><em>clean energy</em></a><em> news, you can follow Climate Nexus on </em><a href="https://twitter.com/ClimateNexus" target="_blank"><em>Twitter</em></a><em> and </em><a href="https://www.facebook.com/ClimateNexus/" target="_blank"><em>Facebook</em></a><em>, and sign up for daily </em><a href="http://climatenexus.us4.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=d1f5797e59060083034310930&id=7c84c08aaa" target="_blank"><em>Hot News</em></a><em>.</em></p>
Read More
Show Less
By Brett VandenHeuvel
Thursday, Columbia Riverkeeper filed the nation's first lawsuit against the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's administrator Scott Pruitt, Columbia Riverkeeper et al. v. Pruitt.
<p>Pruitt has <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/pruitt-emails-koch-brothers-2278462822.html">deep ties</a> to the fossil fuel industry. As Attorney General of Oklahoma, he repeatedly sued the EPA to weaken environmental protections. It seems appropriate, then, that the first lawsuit against Pruitt could compel him to addresses the real impacts of <a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/climate-change/">climate change</a> today. That's why we are in court, asking a federal judge to compel Pruitt to protect salmon from hot water—before it's too late.</p><div class="rm-shortcode" data-rm-shortcode-id="8ffbb9356e804e38805724b3315c6de9"><div class="fb-video" data-href="https://www.facebook.com/EcoWatch/videos/1460041177342148/" data-allowfullscreen="true"></div></div><p>Salmon need water cooler than 68°F for long-term survival, but the Columbia and Snake Rivers routinely <a href="http://www.fpc.org/documents/memos/159-15.pdf" target="_blank">exceed</a> 70°F in the summer. And the water temperature continues to rise as our climate heats up. Low snow pack and record heat are becoming the <a href="http://www.cbbulletin.com/438375.aspx" target="_blank">new normal.</a> For the Pacific Northwest, salmon are the canary in the climate change coal mine.</p><p>The summer of 2015 was a heart-breaking reminder of this long-recognized problem. That summer, I watched thousands of sockeye salmon swimming around in circles, scarred with lesions, waiting to die because they could not continue upstream to cold-water streams to spawn. Roughly 250,000 adult sockeye <a href="http://www.fpc.org/documents/memos/159-15.pdf" target="_blank">perished</a> in the lower Columbia and Snake Rivers. Pollution—here, heat pollution—turned back almost entire run of Snake River sockeye salmon.</p><p><a href="http://www.ecowatch.com/trump-climate-change-website-2209059875.html">Climate change</a> is not a future threat or something happening far away. It is impacting our quality of life, economy and local environment right now. The Columbia is just one example, but an important one.</p><p>Fortunately, there are things we can do right now to lower the water temperature in the Columbia and Snake Rivers. Dams on the Columbia and Snake Rivers create large, stagnant pools that warm up the water, but changing the operation of those dams to simulate more natural flows could reduce river temperature. And removing the four lower Snake River dams—which biologists have been recommending since the Clinton administration—could dramatically decrease the temperature of the lower Snake.</p><p>This lawsuit, if won, would require Pruitt to make a plan to protect salmon from the twin causes of hot water in the Columbia and Snake Rivers: climate change and dams. Under the Clean Water Act, the EPA <a href="https://www.epa.gov/tmdl/program-overview-total-maximum-daily-loads-tmdl" target="_blank">must protect</a> salmon from pollution, including heat pollution. We're asking a judge to order Pruitt to do his job: Acknowledge the immediate threat of climate change and make a plan to protect salmon. </p><p>The plaintiffs are Columbia Riverkeeper, Snake River Waterkeeper, Idaho Rivers United, Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen's Associations and the Institute for Fisheries Resources. Plaintiffs are represented by: Bryan Hurlbutt, an attorney at <a href="https://advocateswest.org/" target="_blank">Advocates for the West</a>, a public interest nonprofit environmental law firm based in Boise, Idaho; Richard Smith, an attorney at Smith and Lowney PLLC in Seattle; and Miles Johnson, an attorney at Columbia Riverkeeper in Hood River, Oregon.</p>
Read More
Show Less
By Brett VandenHeuvel
Communities on the frontlines of fossil fuel development are taking a stand against dangerous fossil fuel projects. Take a look at the big fight in the small town of Kalama, Washington. The Chinese government is planning to build the world's largest methanol refinery to convert fracked natural gas to liquid methanol for export to China to make plastics.
This four-minute video on the Kalama methanol refinery shows why these residents of this town are fighting and winning:
From a greenhouse gas perspective, this fight is a big deal. The methanol refinery alone would use more natural gas than all industry in Washington combined. Flip it around: If we win this one battle and stop the methanol refinery, we stop the equivalent of doubling industrial natural gas usage in Washington State.
While the gas industry tries to spin natural gas as clean, new science shows just the opposite. The bulk of natural gas is methane, a potent greenhouse gas. Methane leakage from gas wells and pipelines led scientists to conclude that fracked gas can be as bad coal for our climate. And it gets worse. Gas production in North America relies heavily on fracking, a process famous for polluting air and water, endangering the health of nearby residents.
On the Columbia River, we're no stranger to the fossil fuel industry's pipe dreams. Liquefied natural gas. Coal. Oil-by-rail. Our communities have celebrated major victories. The fossil fuel industry's love affair with the Columbia ignores our region's fierce passion for clean air, salmon and standing up for our neighbors. The coal and oil projects that remain—the nation's largest proposals for coal export and oil-by-rail terminals—face a high-profile movement led by cities, businesses, Tribes, faith leaders, conservationists and others to hold the line on short-sighted, high-impact fossil fuel proposals.
But the Kalama methanol refinery represents a new wave of fossil fuel export. This project would drive demand for massive new pipelines and lock the Pacific Northwest into a half century or more of fracked natural gas consumption, further delaying the transition to cleaner energy alternatives.
Northwest Innovation Works proposed a similar project in Tacoma, Washington, on Puget Sound. Community members and elected officials put the project under the microscope and rejected it. Just days before the company dropped their Tacoma methanol refinery idea (and doubled-down in Kalama) an elected public utilities commissioner told the company to "go away and don't come back" without specific answers to Tacoma's concerns.
Tacoma is a city of 200,000. Kalama is a town of 2,000. The passion to fight the methanol refinery is strong and inspiring in Kalama. But because of its small size, voices must rise from across the Pacific Northwest to stop this behemoth. You can help by signing our petition to Gov. Jay Inslee calling on him to oppose the methanol refinery.