3 ms·

The reason is the potential health impact on locals, and given that a judge struck it down, I suspect that it is not legal.

John_KZ 9y ago
It's extreme. The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust that can be eliminated with a piece of tarp. I don't object the people's right to try and pitchfork down the coal industry, but the company should appeal.
- cryptoz 9y ago
  > The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust... That is absolutely not the only thing that coal loading can produce. The locals have to breathe air too, and the locals may very well be concerned about the breath-ability of their own air after another half century of greenhouse gas emissions, increased outputs of coal mines, etc. Claiming that the "only" thing that coal loading does to locals' health is small amounts of dust is wrong. Your claim is provably wrong, and it seems like you're making the claim intentionally knowing it is wrong, just to say it anyway. Handling coal at the Port of Oakland has a long list of negative consequences for the locals that you are completely ignoring, acting dismissive of and otherwise rude about how the locals feel about their own health. It's insane to suggest people are trying "pitchfork down" an industry while completely ignoring a majority of issues caused by the coal loading.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Ok, so it is not the fact that it is that 'specific' port that the health consequences happen. The green house gasses would be caused whether it is that port or a different one.
    - mikeash 9y ago
      It makes an impact. If it didn’t, the coal companies wouldn’t care about it in the first place.
- mikeash 9y ago
  > the company should appeal. Did you miss the part where they won?
djrogers 9y ago
That was a justification used, but looking at the groups who pushed for the ban it was clearly an attempt to punish/attack the coal industry.
- Drakim 9y ago
  What is the reason, in your opinion, that these people were born with an irrational hatred for coal? Something in their DNA maybe? Or could it be that the consequences of coal negatively affects their community?
  - pathseeker 9y ago
    >Or could it be that the consequences of coal negatively affects their community? It is more likely that they don't like coal because of the concentrated propaganda (some justified) against coal by political groups in the US. It's unlikely that coal was negatively affecting Oakland in any way (other than the global scale climate change which a local ban has no impact on). Can you elaborate how you think coal shipments were harming the Oakland community?
    - bluGill 9y ago
      Coal miners get black lung from coal dust. It is possible that if the port is very stupid about their design they could put so much coal dust into the air that it would affect the community. Note that I said possible. Ports normally would not do the type of things that would cause this problem even in the complete absence of legal and moral controls.

John_KZ 9y ago

It's extreme. The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust that can be eliminated with a piece of tarp. I don't object the people's right to try and pitchfork down the coal industry, but the company should appeal.

cryptoz 9y ago
> The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust... That is absolutely not the only thing that coal loading can produce. The locals have to breathe air too, and the locals may very well be concerned about the breath-ability of their own air after another half century of greenhouse gas emissions, increased outputs of coal mines, etc. Claiming that the "only" thing that coal loading does to locals' health is small amounts of dust is wrong. Your claim is provably wrong, and it seems like you're making the claim intentionally knowing it is wrong, just to say it anyway. Handling coal at the Port of Oakland has a long list of negative consequences for the locals that you are completely ignoring, acting dismissive of and otherwise rude about how the locals feel about their own health. It's insane to suggest people are trying "pitchfork down" an industry while completely ignoring a majority of issues caused by the coal loading.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Ok, so it is not the fact that it is that 'specific' port that the health consequences happen. The green house gasses would be caused whether it is that port or a different one.
  - mikeash 9y ago
    It makes an impact. If it didn’t, the coal companies wouldn’t care about it in the first place.
mikeash 9y ago
> the company should appeal. Did you miss the part where they won?

djrogers 9y ago

That was a justification used, but looking at the groups who pushed for the ban it was clearly an attempt to punish/attack the coal industry.

Drakim 9y ago
What is the reason, in your opinion, that these people were born with an irrational hatred for coal? Something in their DNA maybe? Or could it be that the consequences of coal negatively affects their community?
- pathseeker 9y ago
  >Or could it be that the consequences of coal negatively affects their community? It is more likely that they don't like coal because of the concentrated propaganda (some justified) against coal by political groups in the US. It's unlikely that coal was negatively affecting Oakland in any way (other than the global scale climate change which a local ban has no impact on). Can you elaborate how you think coal shipments were harming the Oakland community?
  - bluGill 9y ago
    Coal miners get black lung from coal dust. It is possible that if the port is very stupid about their design they could put so much coal dust into the air that it would affect the community. Note that I said possible. Ports normally would not do the type of things that would cause this problem even in the complete absence of legal and moral controls.