Other side to coal

From the Vancouver Sun: The coal industry too often is gratuitously demonized by groups telling a one-sided story.

Criticism has gone into overdrive of late as Port Metro Vancouver considered, then approved last August, a controversial $15-million coal-loading facility at Fraser Surrey Docks.

Environmentalists, along with the Fraser Health Authority’s chief medical health officer and local citizens, balked at dust and diesel fumes associated with the coal transport, specifically what they viewed as toxic dust blowing off rail cars.

This, despite a report from Golder Associates, a ground engineering and environmental consulting firm, which had found “no significant adverse environmental effects, including health effects,” that could not be mitigated.

Further, Westshore Terminals, the largest coal terminal on the continent’s West Coast, has operated for 44 years without serious harmful effects, including upon marine life.

So now several B.C. union organizations are joining forces in response to attacks on their industry. A prominent point they make is that they’ve witnessed no evidence of harm among their membership, either from the mining or transport of coal.

“If there were problems, our unions would be the first to sound the alarm and demand changes to protect members,” they say. They contend as “nonsense” claims that coal dust kills Canadians or harms children living nearby coal activities.

Coal plants do produce sulphur dioxide and carbon dioxide emissions, and the unions are hopeful new carbon capture and storage technologies being tested in Estevan, Sask., will be helpful in future.

Nine of the 10 B.C. mines produce metallurgical coal, which is cleaner than thermal coal and used in steel making. It makes possible goods such as cellphones, surgical instruments and subway cars.

As for thermal coal, a good part of the world would go dark without it.

Full consideration of all aspects of the coal story must be taken into account before strong opinions are formed.