A sooty setback

If Oakland failed to do its homework in banning a coal terminal, then it should try again with better arguments. That’s the only option after a federal judge excoriated the city for attempting to block a bayside facility from shipping the fossil fuel to Asia.

The legal opinion from U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria was harsh and sweeping. He found that the city hadn’t produced convincing evidence that coal dust was a health or safety worry, the chief concern that Oakland used in blocking the coal transfer spot on land next to the Bay Bridge.

The upshot is a legal win for businessman Phil Tagami, who is piecing together the financing for a larger shipping terminal and lined up $53 million from Utah coal producers looking to sell their product chiefly to China. City leaders contended that addition to the terminal plan violated the original deal.

The judge’s ruling shouldn’t be the final word. Oakland is mulling an appeal, which should include firmer conclusions on the side effects of running long coal trains through West Oakland. Coal dust carries serious health effects, and allowing such sooty pollution would be a prime example of environmental injustice.

Despite the judge’s ruling, the door may be closing on coal shipments. Washington state is facing lawsuits from mining firms over its decision to block expanded terminals. California is equally hostile, giving rise to a “green wall” along the West Coast on exports. A declining industry may be running out of escape routes.

With this state fully committed to stemming climate change, it’s important that Oakland not give up the fight. The dangers to the city’s residents are part of a larger effort to wean industries elsewhere from using atmosphere-clogging coal. File that appeal, Oakland.