×
X logo

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox.

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)

You may opt-out anytime by clicking "unsubscribe" from the newsletter or from your account.

Anti-Coal Forces Beaten by Truth

City officials and environmental hardliners apparently were counting on anti-coal hysteria to carry the day for them this week. Fortunately, they ran into a federal judge more concerned with the truth.

In 2013, Oakland officials approved construction of a new terminal to load cargo onto oceangoing ships. But in 2016, they decreed that the terminal could not handle coal or petroleum coke, which is a solid substance refined from oil.

City officials, backed by the San Francisco Bay-area’s powerful anti-coal environmentalists, insisted the ban was for the good of residents in the area through which coal shipments would move. Coal dust would be detrimental to the health of those along the route, they insisted.

They also played their trump card: Allowing coal to be shipped to other countries through their port would contribute to climate change, municipal leaders said.

Much of the coal intended for shipment through the Oakland port is mined in Utah. Much of the coal from there goes to Japan and South Korea, via ports in Mexico.

A developer of the new terminal took the city to court. Among his lawyers’ arguments was that in approving the terminal, city officials knew the plan to use it for coal.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria struck down the Oakland ban on coal shipments. He took aim at arguments about health and safety presented by the city’s attorneys.

Their contentions were “riddled with inaccuracies” including “faulty analyses, to the point that no reliable conclusion about health or safety dangers” could be drawn from the city’s claims, the judge wrote.

Specifically, Chhabria pointed out Oakland officials’ claim about coal dust ignored the possibility shippers could use coverings on rail cars to keep dust down.

Local residents are familiar with the practice. Many East Ohio municipalities have and enforce “tarp laws” for that very reason.

Chhabria addressed the global warming claim, too. He wrote that it was “facially ridiculous …”

In other words, Oakland officials ignored facts in the hope that the judge would swallow anti-coal propaganda. Good for him for taking the time to look past the claims and insist on basing his ruling on the truth.

Other judges — and members of Congress — ought to consider that as an approach to energy policy.

NEWSLETTER

Today's breaking news and more in your inbox

I'm interested in (please check all that apply)
Are you a paying subscriber to the newspaper? *

COMMENTS

[vivafbcomment]

Starting at $4.73/week.

Subscribe Today