Here’s the real problem with shipping U.S. coal to China through Vancouver’s port

Shipping U.S. coal to China through Vancouver scuttles years of progress on carbon emissions

3
(Photo: Lucas Finlay)

The export of American thermal coal to China via Vancouver effectively undoes years of progress on curbing U.S. carbon emissions. (Photo: Lucas Finlay)

To the uninitiated, it’s hard to see what the fuss is about over an application to ship coal through Fraser Surrey Docks in suburban Vancouver. Port Metro Vancouver, which approved the project on Aug. 21, already moves some 40 million tonnes of coal a year. Fraser Surrey’s new facility would add just four million to that total. The capital spend is just $15 million; the jobs directly created, just 25. With coal trains already coursing through the Lower Mainland to the much larger Westshore and Neptune terminals, it’s not surprising the environmental report behind the port authority’s decision found no appreciable impacts on the health of area residents.

MORE: Port authority OKs controversial coal-shipping facility in Metro Vancouver »

The significance of the proposal is global, not local. It’s about where the coal comes from and what it will be used for. Almost all the coal shipped off Canada’s West Coast since we began exporting coal to Asia in volume around 35 years ago has been metallurgical (or coking) coal mined in Canada. This is an ingredient of steel, with no practical substitute.

The coal destined for Fraser Surrey Docks, however, will be thermal coal, to be burned in power plants to generate electricity. Most of it will come from mines in Wyoming and Montana that find themselves without domestic customers since the shale gas revolution, combined with emissions control regulation, drove utilities in the U.S. to shut down coal-fired plants and fire up cleaner-burning natural gas plants. More than any other factor, this trend has helped the U.S. cut its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 10% since 2007.

Download NextIssue today to enjoy Canadian Business and 130+ more magazines every month for one low price! Start your 30-day free trial now »

The really compelling argument for disallowing the coal supply chain through Fraser Surrey Docks is that it effectively undoes that achievement in emissions reduction if the same hydrocarbons end up being burned and vented into the atmosphere in China, where if anything environmental protections are more lax. However this consideration is not within the scope of Port Metro Vancouver’s regulatory mandate, nor should it be unduly influenced by local activists motivated by the maxim to think globally and act locally. It’s a matter that should be confronted at the national and multilateral level. Unfortunately, no one there wants to take it on.

MORE: Climate Change has a branding problem: it’s not as scary as “global warming” »

3 comments on “Here’s the real problem with shipping U.S. coal to China through Vancouver’s port

  1. Why don’t we leave the hand wringing to the phony US environmentalists who are upset about oil coming in from an ally but don’t care about exporting the dirtiest hydrocarbons to an adversary. Not a good example of thinking globally.

    Reply

    • You are right Mike it is hypocrisy all around! All the fuss about oil sands is a green herring since if the oil sands was completely shut down it would shave a mere 0.5 percent off world GHG emissions. What the world needs is 5-10-20 percent reductions in GHG emissions but these can only be achieved by increases in the efficiency of transportation and building systems as well as a change in how our cities are laid out and built – all doable stuff but not easy like raising millions of dollars to try to choke off the supply of oil from one source, that being the oil sands.
      The sad thing is that if China and India develop a fossil fuel economy such as ours (and it looks like they are headed that way) it does not matter what we do in North America and Europe since the law of big numbers will simply swamp our efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

      Reply

  2. An interesting excerpt: “Most of it (thermal coal) will come from mines in Wyoming and Montana that find themselves without domestic customers since the shale gas revolution,…drove utilities in the U.S. to shut down coal-fired plants and fire up cleaner-burning natural gas plants. More than any other factor, this trend has helped the U.S. cut its greenhouse gas emissions by more than 10% since 2007.”
    So how come Ontario shut down its coal fired plant on Lake Ontario and then spent in excess of $1.billion to cancel gas plants under construction in Oakville and Mississauga?
    Walter Grant

    Reply

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *