If the coastal states of the United States isn’t willing to export coal to the Asian market, why should British Columbia handle the coal? There’s an environmental concern regarding the exportation of coal in the United States.
In this article from The Globe and Mail, it talks about the ironies of Obama committing to reduce carbon emissions, while at the same time, promoting coal export to other countries. Environmental groups have praise Obama for his effort in reducing coal-burning power plants emissions. As Asia’s demand for coal increases, the U.S. needs to find a way to export the coal before it can sell it. It’s not a surprise that the coastal states of Oregon and Washington refuse to let countless trucks loaded with coal travel across the state to its export terminals. Although these states rejected the proposal, Surrey of British Columbia approved a proposal and is now letting U.S. use their export terminals to transfer the coal.
The environmental concerns are endless. There is no difference in atmosphere impact whether the coal is burned in the States or in Asia. By transporting coal, it can damage marine systems, as well as post threats to the ecosystems that the coal is travelling through. It makes me question why is the ever so environmentally friendly province of British Columbia willing to export coal to other countries even though it may potentially damage the environment. Additionally, I think that the residents of British Columbia should have a say in this decision, since this decision will directly affect them in their daily lives.