« Back to Home Page

Oakland City Council Moves on Coal Transport Ban

Bill DiBenedetto | Wednesday June 18th, 2014 | 1 Comment

2113747638_33ca920f07_zThe Oakland City Council just approved resolutions opposing the transportation of coal and other fossil fuels in Oakland and the East Bay.

The council  unanimously approved the resolutions by consent Tuesday evening, citing the problems with using coal trains through the urban area. Such problems included environmental threats, public health hazards, economic pitfalls, and public opposition to exports, specifically coal. 

Another resolution declares a “city policy prohibiting the investment of city funds or holding any investment or ownership stake in any companies that extract, produce, refine, burn or distribute fossil fuels,” and urges other nearby local jurisdictions to “divest from all publicly-traded fossil fuel companies, all in an effort to support the goals of the Oakland energy and climate action plan and diminish the use of fossil fuels that significantly contribute to climate change.”

Passage of the measure, written by council members Dan Kalb, Lynette Gibson McElhaney and Rebecca Kaplan, means Oakland joins Berkeley and Richmond, California in opposing the shipment of crude oil and coal on railroad tracks through their communities.

Cities do not have the power to prohibit these shipments because only the federal government can regulate railroads, so it’s an easy stance to take — it’s a resolution not a law.

However, fierce local opposition to fossil fuel exports carried on trains through West Coast port areas is putting a severe crimp in those plans. “From California to Oregon to Washington, local communities are holding the line in the fight against dirty coal exports. We still have more work to do here in the Bay Area, but (the) decision shows that Oakland’s leadership is committed to safeguarding clean air, clean water, and public health for our communities,” said Michelle Myers, director of the Sierra Club’s San Francisco Bay Chapter.

Sierra Club noted that due to strong community organizing, coal, petcoke and oil export facilities “have been unable to move forward along much of the West Coast.” Other communities in California have passed similar resolutions regarding oil transport, including Berkeley and Richmond. The San Francisco Environment Commission also unanimously passed a resolution to work with the city and port on crafting a policy to ban the exports of coal, oil and petcoke.

Coal dust and diesel particulate matter from the numerous open-top, mile-long trains used to transport these commodities would pose significant air and water quality threats to Bay Area families, the organization continued. “On average, the BNSF estimates that each uncovered rail car can potentially lose up to 500 pounds of coal per trip, or more than 60,000 pounds lost per train. Coal breaks apart easily to create dust that contains lead, arsenic, uranium, and hundreds of other heavy metal toxins harmful to fish and human health. Coal dust also can contribute to train derailments.”

“The number of mile-long coal, petcoke and oil trains passing through our community is expected to rise dramatically,” said Brian Beveridge of the West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. “Those coal and oil trains will pass thousands of homes from San Leandro to Martinez to Berkeley to Oakland. An accident along this route could deliver incredible damage to lives and property. We applaud Oakland’s steps towards opposing the dangerous transport of these fossil fuels.”

Pretty soon the fossil-fuel industry will run out of convenient, agreeable and economically viable options to transport their hazardous products — and that will be an excellent thing.

Image credit: Flickr/redarrow101


▼▼▼      1 Comment     ▼▼▼

Newsletter Signup

Comments

  1. June 18, 2014 at 12:57 pm PDT | Joshua Daniels writes:

    And once the Panama Canal expansion is finished next year none of this will matter because they’ll just ship coal out of Texas of Louisiana. It’s an election year, so we’ll probably see the city council putting forth more of these non-binding resolutions to make it appear the council is doing something. I’d rather them pass actual legislation that will actually do something, not fool around with essentially ceremonial items like this.

    Reply Or REGISTER HERE if you are new.

Leave a Reply

  1. Please leave an intelligent comment. You are welcomed to link to your company or website, but entirely self promotional posts will be marked as spam.
There are 3 ways to comment on 3P

2. Facebook Users

Login to your Facebook account

3. Members

Register for an account or login.

Subscribe to Comments