tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post4408556583783704560..comments2023-11-22T22:04:17.326-08:00Comments on Get Whatcom Planning: The Gateway Pacific Terminal and Ocean AcidityJean Melioushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-2384090679843163062012-12-11T07:11:35.068-08:002012-12-11T07:11:35.068-08:00Dave is my real name and my point remains that ask...Dave is my real name and my point remains that asking and taking Mr. Petree's input on environmental issues is foolish since he's spent his entire career negating the impacts of poor development choices by his clients and so excuses and obfuscation are his forte. <br />I believe civility doesn't need to turn turtle and present a tender belly just to keep the owners happy and avoid unpleasant truths.davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-71336886080666108982012-12-04T08:36:59.801-08:002012-12-04T08:36:59.801-08:00Speaking of a carbon tax, Elizabeth Kolbert, who&#...Speaking of a carbon tax, Elizabeth Kolbert, who's been researching and writing about climate change for years, has a short piece in the New Yorker that explains the need: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2012/12/10/121210taco_talk_kolbertJean Melioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-15679983022511599002012-12-03T21:45:04.902-08:002012-12-03T21:45:04.902-08:00If any issues did get to the Planning Commission, ...If any issues did get to the Planning Commission, I'm sure that Jack would strenuously object to Dave Onkels' participation, based on Mr. Onkels' prejudgment in favor of the terminal. For example, in today's Herald, Mr. Onkels posted:<br /><br />. . .I would correct this by shipping cleaner coal to China, who is going to burn coal to produce power in any case. In this way, Gateway Pacific reduces pollution from China and other countries. In this way, nobody pays a tax that distorts resource allocation and reduces economic growth.<br /><br />http://blogs.bellinghamherald.com/politics/politics/after-decades-of-decline-us-manufacturing-shows-signs-of-rebound/#comments#storylink=cpy<br /><br />Mr. Onkels is referring to a theoretical discussion of a carbon tax. Of course, the entire basis of the GPT process is market distortion -- the ridiculously low prices paid for Powder River Basin coal leases, the subsidy of transportation, and the externalization of pollution costs throughout the entire process (mining, transportation, and coal burning). But heaven forbid that a tiny portion of these market-distorting externalized costs should be internalized through a carbon tax!Jean Melioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-4692104364049071762012-12-03T20:33:54.566-08:002012-12-03T20:33:54.566-08:00David's right... but wanna bet some of the iss...David's right... but wanna bet some of the issues get to the planning commission?jack petreenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-54250253663323420912012-12-03T19:59:34.353-08:002012-12-03T19:59:34.353-08:00The Planning Commission has no decision on Gateway...The Planning Commission has no decision on Gateway Pacific. That decision is made by one person: the Whatcom County Hearing Examiner in a recommendation to the County Council. There is one option for the Council to send it to the Planning Commission for their recommendation, but that is not a requirement.<br /><br />Look up Major Project permits for the process in the zoning code.David Stalheimhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10588880557546749656noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-64541664809451054752012-12-03T11:09:40.956-08:002012-12-03T11:09:40.956-08:00You haven't; but I answered your question for ...You haven't; but I answered your question for you in my previous post<br /><br />john lesownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-75999661996294441172012-12-03T10:08:58.709-08:002012-12-03T10:08:58.709-08:00John,
Jack Petree on the Environment thinks ther...John, <br /><br />Jack Petree on the Environment thinks there is a lot to consider, as do the people driving the discussion on both "sides." Sides is in quotes because actually there are many points of view on the issues involved.<br /><br />I will say, a rush to decide, even before the scoping for an EIS is done, might be seen as unseemly in a Planning Commissioner sitting on a body that will make recommendations to the Council one day.<br /><br />I am aware you are leaving the Commission and will not be involved in that process.<br /><br />I hope I've answered your question. Jack Petreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06275936244782707075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-76737951173878537742012-12-02T23:30:16.171-08:002012-12-02T23:30:16.171-08:00Does that shrug qualify as a "yes" for t...Does that shrug qualify as a "yes" for the coal terminal ?<br /><br />Time to register an opinion on this issue; you and your search engine need to stop beating around the bush; cut the gasbagging and provide a straight answer<br /><br />what does Jack Petree on the Environment think of the proposal under consideration?john lesownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-78836415886336388752012-12-02T20:01:52.322-08:002012-12-02T20:01:52.322-08:00Huh?Huh?jack petreenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-66599898944975803572012-12-02T16:31:25.759-08:002012-12-02T16:31:25.759-08:00Jack, is your use of irony a deliberate literary d...Jack, is your use of irony a deliberate literary device or something you happen to stumble upon inadvertently?<br /><br />Two weeks ago, you alleged that this Planning Commissioner was planning for a permanent recession. No proof. No examples. Just another Petreeian potshot at a pop enviro by one who is unable to address a question adequately. But your wisecrack was probably good for a few high-fives at the last Chamber meeting. <br /><br />In her response, Commissioner Melious neatly summarizes in her first sentence the position of a wide swath of citizens; the fact that coal export does nothing for domestic power needs. Vince Buys said as much at a candidate's forum last month. I suspect Kelli Linville is of the same opinion, although I have not been following her emerging positions on this issue.<br /><br />As a veteran Planning Commission watcher, you are no doubt aware that I took a similar position earlier this year during the Birch Bay Watershed hearings, citing SaskPower's use of Powder River Basin coal to provide electricity to nearly one third of their Saskatchewan ratepayers. And the success of carbon sequestration by that public utility. Saskatchewan keeps their coal for power generation for their citizens and industry. We sell ours to our foreign competitors. China gets the coal and we get the hole. <br /><br />The fact is that the proposed coal terminal is a loser. Few jobs generated and plenty of adverse impacts, both economic and social, on Bellingham and the County. <br /><br />And I would bet my last dollar that you support the coal port. Period. <br /><br />Just like you support more growth in a County that already is zoned for too much. <br /><br />It doesn't take a logic course to figure that out. <br /><br /><br /><br />john lesownoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-53892116731840184182012-11-30T21:35:40.677-08:002012-11-30T21:35:40.677-08:00Jack is responding to an anonymous post. I don...Jack is responding to an anonymous post. I don't want the blog to become a place for anonymous potshots, so I deleted the comment.<br /><br />"Dave," if you want to post a critique of Jack's suggestion, you're welcome to do so -- but please use your own name, and keep the discussion on the issues. Jack's comment was entirely civil, and thus adds to the dialogue.Jean Melioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-51249511317376918412012-11-30T14:56:05.442-08:002012-11-30T14:56:05.442-08:00Look at the bright side... The Twinkie has a longe...Look at the bright side... The Twinkie has a longer half life than I do as well... <br /><br />On a lighter note, I seem to recall in my logic class some four or five decades ago that a common logical fallacy involves attacking the person when one cannot address the question adequately. <br /><br />In point of fact, much of the German war machine as long as 70 years ago was run on synthetic fuel, a byproduct of coal gasification, so investigations into gasification are hardly new... Will that be the techology of the future? Entirely possible but, as Jean points out, not certain either.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08722117687014394572noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-52280955010437145212012-11-30T09:24:11.103-08:002012-11-30T09:24:11.103-08:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-31315414963921113112012-11-29T13:14:28.053-08:002012-11-29T13:14:28.053-08:00Jack,
Accepting for purposes of argument that coa...Jack,<br /><br />Accepting for purposes of argument that coal gasification is the wave of the future, I don't see how that argues for coal export. If coal gasification will be the best solution to our energy needs, we should keep our own coal until the technology has made gasification feasible. <br /><br />But it's very far from clear that coal gasification is the wave of the future. If you are suggesting that coal gasification will reduce greenhouse gases, carbon storage and capture will have to be perfected. The National Academy of Sciences stated, in 2009:<br /><br />"At an estimated cost of about $70/bbl of gasoline equivalent (that is, less than $60/bbl of oil equivalent), gasoline and diesel can be produced from the abundant U.S. coal reserves to have life-cycle carbon dioxide (CO2) emission similar to that of petroleum-based gasoline in 2020 or sooner if existing thermochemical technology is combined with carbon capture and storage (CCS). CCS, however, would have to be demonstrated on a commercial scale and implemented by then."<br /><br />It has not been demonstrated yet, and there are some real problems. For example, the Department of Energy states estimates carbon capture technology will increase water use by 50-73% (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d10675.pdf at 35). The need for large water supplies for coal gasification apparently has already curtailed its use in dry areas of China (see http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2011/world/water-needs-curtail-chinas-coal-gasification-for-fuel-yet-conversion-to-chemicals-pushes-ahead/ -- a really interesting article). If we have to choose between water and energy, that's not always such a clear-cut choice.<br /><br />Speaking of China, the presumed destination for some of this exported Powder River Basin coal: China apparently is buildling pilot underground coal gasification plants, which theoretically will make carbon capture easier. Such plants will be built next to China's own enormous coal supplies, reducing transportation costs. I have read that the reason that China is currently importing coal is that domestic transportation costs are high. <br /><br />Again, this doesn't argue for increased coal exports. It indicates that China is working on a number of ways to be able to use its own coal, which does not bode well for the long-term market for Powder River Basin coal.Jean Melioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15759730663769578269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-20961321947224280482012-11-29T08:06:02.240-08:002012-11-29T08:06:02.240-08:00Jean,
It is possible coal may be the solution......Jean, <br /><br />It is possible coal may be the solution...Even our Department of energy and the Brit's scientific establishment have tumbled to that. Coal gasification has huge potential, especially because it is seen to be the most efficient and economical way to produce hydrogen. If you'd like to read more, my modest little blog: http://www.jackpetreeontheenvironment.blogspot.com/2012/11/coal-may-be-our-most-important-future.html has a piece on the issue.Jack Petreehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06275936244782707075noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2257022282747854387.post-52010384282690459522012-11-28T22:46:33.748-08:002012-11-28T22:46:33.748-08:00Jean your clear thinking and excellent writing is ...Jean your clear thinking and excellent writing is a local treasure, thanks once again for speaking out so eloquently.Frank Jameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07146759199243658295noreply@blogger.com