7 ms·

Some questions/comments. > The developer, Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the ter

Some questions/comments. > The developer, Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger the health of workers or surrounding communities. I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has health impacts on the surrounding communities. Therefore it seems clear that any shipping activity has health impacts for those nearby, coal or otherwise. This is confusing. Is he lying, or am I incorrect? (Edit: Does coal come in by truck? If so then it will very clearly have a health impact on the surrounding communities as this study has already been done: http://pacinst.org/news/new-study-reveals-alarmingly-high-cost-of-oakland-port-truck-diesel-pollution-and-the-broken-trucking-systemmore-than-153-million-drained-from-the-economy-each-year/ http://pacinst.org/news/new-study-reveals-alarmingly-high-co... and if the coal doesn't come in by truck, would it still change or alter truck patterns in the area?) I cannot fathom how someone thinks that increasing shipments at the Port of Oakland will have no health impacts on the surrounding communities - going so far as to say that there isn't any 'substantial' information about it which is clearly a lie. > Reversing the ban could increase exports by as much as 19 percent, according to the Sierra Club...The National Mining Association cheered the ruling. This seems like tragedy of the commons. Clearly all the miners would be better off if there were no coal shipments, because we'd all be better off if there were no coal shipments. The National Mining Association should applaud reductions in harmful greenhouse gasses as it prepares to move its workers into a more sustainable field.

djrogers 8y ago
> I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has health impacts on the surrounding communities. Clearly that's not related to the question at hand here - the question is will allowing coal shipments cause more health risk than shipping anything else from the port. The port of Oakland is important enough to the state and national economy that it will pretty much be at or near full capacity at all times, so coal would mostly displace other shipments, making your edit-linked article moot (oh, and it would mostly be rail anyway). Ports are a necessary fact of a global economy, and the fact is they tenhave historically had large cities develop around them due to the jobs and opportunities they created. It sounds like you'd prefer that the port get completely shut down. That's an opinion, but it's unrelated to this case - and unlikley to get anywhere. You'd be much better off moving away from the port and teh city that grew up around it.
- cryptoz 8y ago
  Interesting points, thanks. > Clearly that's not related to the question at hand here That's not clear at all, actually the opposite is clear. Health impacts of local people were discussed directly in the article. It's clearly a major issue that is directly "related to the question at hand." > It sounds like you'd prefer that the port get completely shut down. I absolutely would not prefer that! That's insane. Please don't put such ridiculous and insane things down as something I said. No way. The Port of Oakland should obviously grow in size as necessary to fit the economy. The Port of Oakland is obviously extremely important. So is recognizing the facts of health impacts of locals and not dismissing it as irrelevant. > You'd be much better off moving away from the port and teh city that grew up around it. I don't live anywhere near there. But I think you'd find that the people who live by the Port of Oakland are not there by choice, and have little financial ability to stage a physical move. It is an incredibly impoverished area, and to suggest people just 'move away' is insulting, rude, and does not even remotely fit the situation.
- DoubleCribble 8y ago
  For the record - The Port is nowhere near full capacity. The Outer Harbor has been mothballed for 2+ years. [0] The coal shipments would displace the current bulk shipments terminal as it would be converted to a dedicated coal export terminal. [0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-of-oakland-ports-biggest-tenants-moving-out-1453248509 https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-of-oakland-ports-biggest-te...
CPLX 8y ago
When shipped by land, coal is almost invariably shipped by rail.
- cryptoz 8y ago
  Good to know. In that case, assuming 100% of the coal arrives by rail to the Port of Oakland, and there is an overall net increase in shipping activity, it stands to logical reason that there might be an issue with changing truck traffic for other loads in the port - this would then have a direct affect on the locals existing health problems that are already documented. Clearly the reality of the situation would still be at odds with the insane claim that additional coal shipments wouldn't have any studied affect on the locals. Edit: I have been banned again for something, I guess it's too many comments with too many downvotes?. Since I'm not allowed to reply, here is my comment reply to the comment below this. There is not one single, individual argument about this - there are many. Coal is singled out here likely because it is one of the most damaging things that could be shipped through the port. I'm not the one who singled it out. But clearly, if the locals are concerned about their health, than this is a major thing to look at. Additionally, I was taking the quote of the port loading commercial developer, who said specifically that there would be no health impact to locals, or no study about it - and I am responding that this is false. Either he is lying or does not know the truth.
  - CompelTechnic 8y ago
    If the argument is that any net increase in shipping traffic is bad for local health, then why is coal singled out here when the effects are just the same as any other cargo?

djrogers 8y ago

> I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has health impacts on the surrounding communities. Clearly that's not related to the question at hand here - the question is will allowing coal shipments cause more health risk than shipping anything else from the port. The port of Oakland is important enough to the state and national economy that it will pretty much be at or near full capacity at all times, so coal would mostly displace other shipments, making your edit-linked article moot (oh, and it would mostly be rail anyway). Ports are a necessary fact of a global economy, and the fact is they tenhave historically had large cities develop around them due to the jobs and opportunities they created. It sounds like you'd prefer that the port get completely shut down. That's an opinion, but it's unrelated to this case - and unlikley to get anywhere. You'd be much better off moving away from the port and teh city that grew up around it.

cryptoz 8y ago
Interesting points, thanks. > Clearly that's not related to the question at hand here That's not clear at all, actually the opposite is clear. Health impacts of local people were discussed directly in the article. It's clearly a major issue that is directly "related to the question at hand." > It sounds like you'd prefer that the port get completely shut down. I absolutely would not prefer that! That's insane. Please don't put such ridiculous and insane things down as something I said. No way. The Port of Oakland should obviously grow in size as necessary to fit the economy. The Port of Oakland is obviously extremely important. So is recognizing the facts of health impacts of locals and not dismissing it as irrelevant. > You'd be much better off moving away from the port and teh city that grew up around it. I don't live anywhere near there. But I think you'd find that the people who live by the Port of Oakland are not there by choice, and have little financial ability to stage a physical move. It is an incredibly impoverished area, and to suggest people just 'move away' is insulting, rude, and does not even remotely fit the situation.
DoubleCribble 8y ago
For the record - The Port is nowhere near full capacity. The Outer Harbor has been mothballed for 2+ years. [0] The coal shipments would displace the current bulk shipments terminal as it would be converted to a dedicated coal export terminal. [0]https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-of-oakland-ports-biggest-tenants-moving-out-1453248509 https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-of-oakland-ports-biggest-te...

CPLX 8y ago

When shipped by land, coal is almost invariably shipped by rail.

cryptoz 8y ago
Good to know. In that case, assuming 100% of the coal arrives by rail to the Port of Oakland, and there is an overall net increase in shipping activity, it stands to logical reason that there might be an issue with changing truck traffic for other loads in the port - this would then have a direct affect on the locals existing health problems that are already documented. Clearly the reality of the situation would still be at odds with the insane claim that additional coal shipments wouldn't have any studied affect on the locals. Edit: I have been banned again for something, I guess it's too many comments with too many downvotes?. Since I'm not allowed to reply, here is my comment reply to the comment below this. There is not one single, individual argument about this - there are many. Coal is singled out here likely because it is one of the most damaging things that could be shipped through the port. I'm not the one who singled it out. But clearly, if the locals are concerned about their health, than this is a major thing to look at. Additionally, I was taking the quote of the port loading commercial developer, who said specifically that there would be no health impact to locals, or no study about it - and I am responding that this is false. Either he is lying or does not know the truth.
- CompelTechnic 8y ago
  If the argument is that any net increase in shipping traffic is bad for local health, then why is coal singled out here when the effects are just the same as any other cargo?