Ask a polit­i­cal orga­niz­er in What­com Coun­ty, and it trends that they will tell you about how often they hear vot­ers ask about the pro­posed coal ter­mi­nal at Cher­ry Point, right out­side of Belling­ham. They get frus­trat­ed. Train tracks cut right through Belling­ham, and run along next to local busi­ness­es. Sit for a few hours at a Belling­ham restaurant/brewery, and mul­ti­ple trains will come by to sti­fle con­ver­sa­tion in the time it takes for the train to go about their self-assured route. 

We have already cov­ered some of the signs of oppo­si­tion to the pro­posed coal ter­mi­nal. Belling­ham isn’t alone in its oppo­si­tion, and many cities have expressed oppo­si­tion or con­cern, includ­ing Seat­tle. This oppo­si­tion has come before the agen­cies con­duct­ing the study about the impacts of the coal ter­mi­nal have even fig­ured out what exact­ly they’re going to be study­ing yet. But Cher­ry Point isn’t the only coal ter­mi­nal pro­posed. Six coal ter­mi­nals have been pro­posed in Wash­ing­ton and Ore­gon.

At least, until last week. 

Last Tues­day, Flori­da-based com­pa­ny Rail­Amer­i­ca announced that it was no longer pur­su­ing a coal export ter­mi­nal in Grays Har­bor. The rea­son­ing giv­en was that anoth­er com­pa­ny was inter­est­ed in ship­ping some­thing oth­er than coal, and this oper­a­tion would actu­al­ly start run­ning quick­er than the time it would take to build a coal ter­mi­nal. The deci­sion gives greater cre­dence to the rea­son­ing that it might bet­ter eco­nom­i­cal­ly for com­pa­nies to ship inven­to­ry oth­er than small, black rocks that con­tribute to cli­mate change. 

Rail­Amer­i­ca giv­ing up on the Grays Har­bor ter­mi­nal is a cause for cel­e­bra­tion for the those who have tak­en a stand against coal. Show­ing that there are bet­ter and faster ways to gen­er­ate eco­nom­ic activ­i­ty in the region will help sway those who believe that export­ing coal is the only way to cre­ate jobs.

One down, five to go. Five coal ter­mi­nals is still a lot to wor­ry about. 

Adjacent posts

Enjoyed what you just read? Make a donation

Thank you for read­ing The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate, the North­west Pro­gres­sive Institute’s jour­nal of world, nation­al, and local politics.

Found­ed in March of 2004, The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate has been help­ing peo­ple through­out the Pacif­ic North­west and beyond make sense of cur­rent events with rig­or­ous analy­sis and thought-pro­vok­ing com­men­tary for more than two decades.

The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate is fund­ed by read­ers like you and trust­ed spon­sors. We don’t accept unso­licit­ed ad buys or pub­lish con­tent in exchange for money.

Help us keep The Cas­ca­dia Advo­cate edi­to­ri­al­ly inde­pen­dent and freely avail­able to all by becom­ing a mem­ber of the North­west Pro­gres­sive Insti­tute today. Or make a dona­tion to sus­tain our essen­tial research and advo­ca­cy jour­nal­ism. Your con­tri­bu­tion will allow us to con­tin­ue bring­ing you fea­tures like Last Week In Con­gress, live cov­er­age of events like Net­roots Nation or the Demo­c­ra­t­ic Nation­al Con­ven­tion, and reviews of books and doc­u­men­tary films.

Become an NPI mem­ber Make a one-time donation

One reply on “One of six proposed coal terminals in Washington and Oregon abandoned”

  1. Pingback: Links 8/23/12 « naked capitalism

Comments are closed.