Coal Port Scoping, Bellingham Style

I didn’t have time to linger over the newspaper this morning, what with the prospect of Bellingham’s biggest socio-political event in years taking place over at Squalicum High School.  But a full-page ad in the Herald, shouting “We’re Speaking Out!”, did catch my attention.  Sponsored by the Alliance for Northwest Jobs and Exports (Slogan:  “Build Terminals Here/Build Jobs Here”), the ad featured an attractive young couple and a little girl..

“Now, who’s that couple?” asked an out of town friend who was staying with us.  I don’t know who they are, and if they came to the High School this morning to “speak out,” I didn’t spot them in the sea of red t-shirts and the forest of “No Coal Export” signs. 

From what I’ve heard – and I may have missed it – the young couple did not “speak out.”

I did see one young man who looked a little bit like the fellow in the ad.  He was wearing a “Build Terminals Here/Build Jobs Here” pin, but wasn’t accompanied by a wife or child.  Probably a different guy.   

When somebody asked if he was from Bellingham, he said “No, actually I’m from Bothell.” 

This raised a question in my mind about what the word “Here” might mean to that young man.  Was he at Squalicum High School in order to advocate the construction of a terminal in Bothell?  Or perhaps Whatcom County is akin to a church mission project for Bothellites, who want to give us a hand out of our current employment situation by providing advice on “good jobs.”

Speaking of advice, I do think that SSA’s public process consultants need to learn from Disney.  What was the point of making hundreds of Whatcom County citizens line up in the cold and rain in order to compete for the opportunity to speak out about the coal terminal?  I had suggested to the County, only half in jest, that they could have given out bracelets in advance.  After all, concert impresarios know what they’re doing when it comes to crowd control.

At the very least, we all could have been provided with flu shots while we waited.  But then, I suppose that, as a captive audience, we should be grateful that we were not subjected to ads for the coal terminal.

Fortunately for the organizers, Whatcom County folks are hardy,  good natured, apparently not prone to claustrophobia, and very tractable.  We waited, we stood where we were told, we shuffled where and when we were supposed to shuffle, and eventually we all got inside the high school.  

Two rooms, the gym and the auditorium, accommodated speakers.  I was in the gym, and the first two speakers expressed the Lummi Nation’s opposition to the terminal. I’m sure that Paul Anderson won’t mind if I borrow one of his lovely photos to illustrate the moment when Lummi Chairman Cliff Cultee was addressing government agency representatives:

Photo by Paul Anderson

The speakers were warmly and respectfully received by the crowd.  To a large extent, the crowd wore red for “no coal” and green for “build a terminal here.”  This will make for a most festive holiday family photo, no question.

I didn’t hear a single pro-terminal speaker throughout the time that I listened to testimony, although I have since heard that there was one.  In the auditorium, I hear that things were about the same – one pro-coal speaker, and dozens of passionate, informed, thoughtful citizens who asked the agencies to respect the fact that the future of our community is in their hands.

To me, today’s event showed that this is a community that merits the utmost respect.  I hope that the agencies agree.

_________________________

P.S.  Kudos to County Council member Carl Weimer, who came out to hear the community's concerns.  I hear that City Council member Seth Fleetwood was also at the scoping session, listening to community comments.  Thanks, Carl and Seth!

Coal Terminal Scoping Meeting on Saturday, October 27th

In case anybody has missed the calls to attend the “scoping” meeting to be held on Saturday for the proposed Gateway Pacific coal export terminal at Cherry Point--

There’s a scoping session for the proposed Gateway Pacific coal terminal on Saturday at Squalicum High School, at 3773 East McLeod Road in Bellingham. The doors open at 11:00.

Let me say, up front, that I'm feeling sorry for everybody.

I’m sorry for the organizers, who apparently viewed this as just another scoping session for just another private project.  They scheduled a venue for a single day – actually, half of one day (four hours, 11:00-3:00), as if there weren’t going to be thousands of people, literally, who want the chance to make their case. 

Maybe this would have made sense if the purpose of the scoping session were solely to allow the public to submit scoping comments.

Well, frankly, that’s the purpose of the internet. 

At its root, the issue is this:  this is no typical private project. It’s not a project that will only have direct effects on a few people.  Most important, it’s not an issue about which only a few people will be in a position to offer comments, mostly technical in nature, about its environmental impacts.

The public wants to be heard, to hear each other, to be seen to exist, and this is the chance.  There won’t be another chance until the agencies are on the verge of making their decisions. 

It’s not irrational for the public to want to be seen and heard – not when you have engaged citizens on both sides. And that’s what the agencies apparently failed to take into account.

And so, I feel sorry for the folks who will be opening the doors at 11:00 a.m.  If I’m not mistaken, there will be a whole bunch of people waiting to get in.  Let’s hope that they haven’t been waiting in the rain – or snow (it’s not winter yet, is it?).

I feel sorry for the folks who are standing in line if it rains.  I hope that they (we) all get to be heard.  If not, I feel sorry for them.  Us.

And finally, I feel sorry for these folks, who are the ONLY citizens in Whatcom County who are banned from this event. 

 

 

Why have these nice people been banned?

 

Because, as members of the Whatcom County Council, they’re the people who have the greatest need to be informed.

Seriously.

 

No, it doesn’t make sense.  It all goes back to the County’s stance on “Appearance of Fairness.” The County's interpretation has ensured that our County decision makers are isolated from citizens and (officially, at least) kept in the dark on the most important issue to hit this County – well, ever.

For those who haven’t been following this saga, the County has decreed that County Council members aren’t supposed to read or hear anything about the Gateway Pacific coal terminal.  In one particularly ludicrous statement, the Council was informed that it shouldn’t even read anything about the coal industry. 

The Appearance of Fairness law limits the Council’s knowledge of the project to the “record” for the permits to be approved.  So why doesn’t Whatcom County take the bold step of declaring:  “All information that’s in the public record will also be placed into the record of the permits.  Council, inform yourselves.” 

What would be the worst that could happen?  The project applicant could tie itself up in knots, trying to show that allowing County Council members to review public documents somehow violates its rights.  (Even if it won, which it wouldn’t, what would happen? The whole County Council would be disqualified?  Not the way the law works.  If everybody is in a position to be disqualified, the law says that everybody gets to vote under the "rule of necessity" in RCW 42.36.090. )
 

As it is, the Council is required to be willfully ignorant until it reviews the Gateway Pacific Terminal project permits, when it will have 21 days – that’s three whole weeks – to read the record of the past several years, absorb the technical reports and citizen input, and make a decision.

Ridiculous.  Nonsensical.  It’s enough to make you feel sorry for them. 

Or for us, for being represented by the most ignorant people in Whatcom County.

More on Agenda 21: Talking to "Steve"

I found a comment “awaiting moderation” yesterday, and was impressed that Blogspot had read my statement that I’m not going to allow anonymous comments on my blog.  This comment was submitted by “Steve.”  “Steve” has been on Blogger since December 2011, and “his” profile has been viewed 4 times (twice by me).

Well, hi, “Steve.”

“Steve” commented on my blog “Agenda 21:  A Straw Enemy.”    That blog took issue with the claim by some folks that the United Nations, through “Agenda 21,” is pushing a one world government to be implemented through “local visioning,” “historic preservation ,” “consensus,” and the like. 

The blog pointed out that this view is entirely divorced from history, in light of the fact that these concepts existed (and were being implemented) before Agenda 21.

Long before Agenda 21. 

For example, here’s a pre-Agenda 21 example of comprehensive planning.  It’s L’enfant’s plan for Washington, D.C., developed in 1791:

Source:  http://www.nps.gov/nr/travel/wash/lenfant.htm

Whether or not we believe that planning is an outrageous assault on property rights, whether or not we believe that it’s OK for a French person to tell Americans how to build a city, can we at least agree that the United Nations wasn’t responsible?

That was the point of the blog, and I’m afraid that “Steve” missed it. 

In the blog, I reprinted a paragraph of Agenda 21 that calls for “broad public participation in decision-making."  This paragraph states:

23.2. One of the fundamental prerequisites for the achievement of sustainable development is broad public participation in decision-making. Furthermore, in the more specific context of environment and development, the need for new forms of participation has emerged. This includes the need of individuals, groups and organizations to participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work. Individuals, groups and organizations should have access to information relevant to environment and development held by national authorities, including information on products and activities that have or are likely to have a significant impact on the environment, and information on environmental protection measures.

I asked:  “Are you shocked, are you outraged, by the statement that ‘individuals, groups, and organizations’ should be allowed to ‘participate in environmental impact assessment procedures and to know about and participate in decisions, particularly those which potentially affect the communities in which they live and work’”?

Well, “Steve” was.  “He” wrote:

You wish to rally for critical thinking - Ok. Where in that section of text quoted does it say that participation is voluntary? To highlight further "the need for new forms of participation has emerged." What new forms of participation? Many people already participate in using green products, recycling, and many other environmentally friendly movements voluntarily. There is no necessity for the UN to become involved. (Unless their goal isn't just environmentally friendly nations). We can do it ourselves, and better than they can. Also, your article is essentially Reductio ad absurdum considering you don't address any of the reasons "The Tea Party" or "conspiracy theorists" dislike Agenda 21 - Namely the removal of privacy and property

Well, I could rise to the bait.  I could point out that “participation” is not an ominous term.  Coercion is not inherent to the term “participation.”  The On Line Dictionary says it means “The act of taking part or sharing in something: Teachers often encourage class participation.” 

That hit home.  I’m a teacher.  I try to encourage class participation.  And I swear on everything that I hold dear:  the United Nations has never forced me to do so. 

I could also point out that Agenda 21 wasn’t talking to us, or at least not to us alone.  It’s also talking to Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria. . . It’s a big world out there. And most people, in most countries of the world, don’t have the opportunities to participate in decision-making that we have here.

So Agenda 21 suggests (and that’s all that it can do) that countries adopt a proud American product:  the environmental impact assessment process.  This is not “new” to us, since it’s been around since 1969 in our country.  It’s not “new” in other developed countries.  But it might be “new” to Afghanistan.

But no, I’m not going to rise to the bait. 

The point of disagreement between “Steve” and me is not really the benefits of participation or even issues relating to property rights and privacy, where we might find some points of agreement. 

The disagreement is that “Steve’s” underlying premise, untouched by any of the facts in my blog (and unresponsive to them), is that the United Nations dictates U.S. policy.  At every level of policy.  

When that premise remains in place regardless of all evidence to the contrary, we can’t talk about issues.  We can’t debate or discuss.  That big scary straw man stands in our way. 

As Cervantes* said, “Fear is sharp-sighted, and can see things under ground, and much more in the skies.”   Once you accept the premise that the United Nations runs our government, you can see Agenda 21 in every policy.

It is an empirical fact that a lot of groups influence government policy.  The Chamber of Commerce, the Building Industry Association of Washington, and the fossil fuel industry come to mind at the local, state, and federal levels.  In some small way, the dreaded ICLEI (a nonprofit intended to help local governments to implement “sustainability” goals contained in Agenda 21) may have influenced our government.  That doesn’t mean that the United Nations runs the world.  Nor does it mean that One World Government is either the cause or the result of every Agenda 21 policy.

-------------------------------------------------------------

*While it’s never possible to know for sure, it seems unlikely that Cervantes (1547-1616) was an agent of the United Nations.  After all, his character Don Quixote was the ultimate opponent of windmills. Windmills, an example of "green energy," are alleged to be the spawn of Agenda 21.  Ergo, Don Quixote must be a prequel.  By tilting at windmills, the Knight of the Woeful Countenance was fighting against the "giant," which was really Agenda 21.