All posts by Roger Straw

Editor, owner, publisher of The Benicia Independent

Orcem/VMT Letter: Environmental Misdirection

Repost from the Vallejo Times-Herald, Letters

Environmental misdirection

By Jeff Carlson, March 12, 2019 at 6:00 am

The corporate interests desperate to salvage an ill-conceived waterfront slag cement mill application, now staggering on its last legs under appeal, will attempt to pull off a sly last minute magic trick. Like most magic tricks, it relies on misdirection to draw the observer’s attention away from what they should really be looking at. Instead of talking about community values and our aspirations for the future character of our city for decades to come, the applicants want us to focus on the arcane intricacies of a technical environmental review process.

It’s a cynical calculated strategy designed to take a process intended to inform decision-makers and the public and turn it into an inaccessible debate among “experts” — impossible for the general public to follow or critically evaluate. Just check out the EIR analysis of traffic impacts from all the heavy diesel truck and crosstown freight train trips the project would generate at various intersections. See if you can make heads or tails of how they arrive at their numbers. Likewise for the modeling of the impacts to air quality from all the various pollutants the project would release. One more version of an environmental report and re-hash of emissions thresholds and mitigations adds nothing useful to the discussion, but the applicants are determined to create the illusion that the decision should hinge on nothing else.

The city staff who worked on this project application for years recommended that the permits be denied, not because the project crossed this or that threshold of significance in the environmental review, but because a heavy industry project in that location is fundamentally incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood land uses. The city commission primarily responsible for making rational decisions about land use compatibility and planning overwhelmingly agreed, and voted to deny the permits. The city’s general plan update process conducted at a cost of millions of dollars with broad public participation over a period of years resulted in a very different vision for a walkable connected waterfront, in line with the Bay Commission’s public access guidelines.

Why should we pay any attention to one more round of technical environmental analysis? If a deep-pockets corporation can pay experts-for-hire to come up with greatly improved numbers at this late date, it only goes to show what those numbers are really worth. It’s particularly galling after years of trying to avoid and game the environmental review process that the applicant’s would now so desperately cling to it as their last hope.

Former City officials and some members of the lead agency repeatedly demonstrated impermissible pre-approval of the project over a period of years prior to environmental review, beginning with the resurrection and transfer of a lease for public trust land with amendments that anticipate major impactful development. A one-vote majority of the Vallejo City Council colluded in secret with the applicants in a private planning initiative, and explicitly tied the goals of their ad hoc committee with approval of the project before even a first draft EIR was ready. CEQA requires that the public be allowed to evaluate and comment on an environmental analysis based on a stable project description. All the talk of trying to approve a final version of a radically altered project now without re-circulating a new draft EIR for public comment is not at all realistic and will never fly.

This decision is not about thresholds of significance or mitigation measures, it’s about what we value as a community and consider worth preserving and protecting. Residents in the proposed project impact zone already suffer some of the highest rates of pollution-related health effects in the state, including low birth weight babies and heart and lung diseases. No matter what a final EIR and the mercenary experts have to say, it won’t change the fact that instead of an accessible walkable waterfront, local residents would get heavy neighborhood truck traffic and another load of particulate and gas pollutants on top of the unfair burden they already carry.

Let’s ignore the magical misdirection and expert dog and pony shows masquerading as participatory public forums, and keep our attention focused where it belongs. The quality of economic development matters, and the old take-whatever-comes-along approach to city planning is completely irrational. The council is under no legal obligation to wait for another version of the EIR, and I’m sorry — the applicant’s fairness argument is laughable. This project was never worth anywhere near the resources and effort the city put into it, and the costs in terms of political division and acrimony continue to pile up. Time to pull the plug and turn out the lights on this magic show.

— Jeff Carlson/Vallejo

From California to Alberta: we must stand against tar sands

Repost from STAND.earth
[Editor: STAND is asking for your signature on a petition.  Go here.  – R.S.]

NO MORE TAR SANDS TANKERS IN CALIFORNIA

The science is in— tar sands oil is much dirtier than conventional crude. It has an outsized climate impact, is terrible for air quality, and when it spills it’s much harder to clean up than conventional crude oil. And now Phillips 66 wants to expand its refinery to process more tar sands in the San Francisco Bay Area.

This would significantly increase the amount of oil tankers coming into the Phillips 66 refinery in the bay! In addition to its negative impacts on California,increasing tar sands production is bad for indigenous communities at the source in Alberta, and transporting it via oil tankers threatens devastating oil spills in the waters of British Columbia, Washington, and Oregon as well.

It’s important that the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors, Gov. Newsom, and other key decision makers do everything they can to stop Phillips 66 from completing this expansion project.

Thanks to public pressure from people like you, in 2017 we defeated Phillip 66’s plan to build an oil train terminal in San Luis Obispo that would have also imported tar sands. Phillips 66’s marine terminal and refinery expansion is their last ditch effort to bring more dangerous and dirty tar sands to their Bay Area refinery and we need your help. Will you join us in urging Gov. Newsom and other key decision makers to reject this harmful proposal?

To BAAQMD, Contra Costa Board of Supervisors, Gov. Newsom, and other key decision makers in California:

Tar sands oil harms our air, water, climate, and indigenous communities. We respectfully urge you to reject Phillips 66’s refinery expansion that would double the number of tankers delivering to their refinery and allow them to process tar sands.

To add your voice, click here.

Derailments raise questions about the surge in oil trains

Repost from The Star, Toronto, Ontario

Derailments raise questions about the surge in oil trains

By Gillian Steward, Mon., March 11, 2019
A train derailment is shown near Field, B.C., on Feb. 4. A Canadian Pacific freight train fell more than 60 metres from a bridge near the Alberta-British Columbia boundary in a derailment that killed three crew members. The westbound freight jumped the tracks at about 1 a.m. near Field, B.C.
A train derailment is shown near Field, B.C., on Feb. 4. A Canadian Pacific freight train fell more than 60 metres from a bridge near the Alberta-British Columbia boundary in a derailment that killed three crew members. The westbound freight jumped the tracks at about 1 a.m. near Field, B.C. (JEFF MCINTOSH / THE CANADIAN PRESS)

Now that so much oil is being shipped by rail from Alberta to points south and west, the sight of a crumpled freight train on the banks of the Kicking Horse River high in the Rocky Mountains has taken on a new twist.

Normally most of that oil would be shipped by pipeline but with the Trans Mountain project and other pipeline expansions stalled or abandoned, the oil industry has taken to shipping the stuff to refineries and ports by train.

A coalition of Indigenous and environmental groups along with the B.C. government successfully stalled the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion that would carry diluted bitumen from Alberta through B.C. But is this what they wanted? Trains loaded with oil navigating narrow mountain passes, rolling through small communities?

Three crewmen were killed in that horrific derailment in early February when a loaded, parked, Canadian Pacific train of 112 cars started to roll down the track west of Lake Louise.

According to the Transportation Safety Board, it barrelled along for three kilometres before 99 cars and two locomotives toppled off a curve ahead of a bridge and into or near the river.

The only saving grace from this accident is that none of the derailed cars contained bitumen, heavy oils, or other petroleum products. If they had there would have been a toxic mess that would no doubt have cost millions of dollars to clean up.

There have been other CP derailments since. Not as deadly as the one in the Kicking Horse Pass but enough to raise questions about the dangers of shipping oil by train instead of pipeline.

On Feb. 28, 20 rail cars went off the tracks west of Banff. Three days later rail cars carrying diesel fuel and grain went off the tracks in Golden B.C. The next day 20 cars on a CP train derailed in Minnesota. And just this past Saturday two CP trains collided in the rail yards in Calgary forcing at least a dozen cars off the tracks.

Again, there were no dangerous goods spilled. But I have seen trains with well over 100 oil tankers roll through Calgary. During the 2013 flood a CP train carrying petroleum products derailed on a bridge and hung precariously over the surging Bow River.

According to the National Energy Board trains are shipping record amounts of oil. Between December 2017 and December 2018 crude oil exports by rail more than doubled to 353,789 barrels a day — add on domestic shipments and the total is even higher.

And it isn’t about to slow down.

Alberta Premier Rachel Notley recently announced her government will spend about $3.7 billion to lease about 4,400 new rail cars to move up to 120,000 barrels per day by 2020, with shipments starting as early as July this year.

Apparently, trains loaded with oil rolling through B.C. isn’t what John Horgan’s government had anticipated when it vowed to use all the tools in its tool box to block the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.

Because now the B.C. government wants more regulatory control over rail shipments of heavy oil even though rail transportation falls under federal jurisdiction. And it wants to know exactly how much heavy oil is being shipped by rail in B.C.

So far that information has only been made available to federal agencies. B.C. will argue its case before the B.C. Court of Appeal on March 18.

It’s obvious that the B.C. government and its supporters don’t want any bitumen or heavy oils transported through B.C. This is not just about the expansion of one pipeline, it’s about stopping heavy oils, a key resource in Alberta, from being shipped anywhere by any means in B.C.

But now the B.C. government is dealing with the law of unintended consequences.

Holding up the Trans Mountain pipeline has led to more oil trains, and heightened the possibility that one of them could derail and spill barrels of heavy oil.

Horgan is no doubt praying that there will be no derailment of oil cars anywhere in B.C. Because if that happens he will have a lot to answer for.

Short video: Why you still don’t understand the Green New Deal – “TACTICAL FRAMING”

Repost from Vox on Youtube

Why you still don’t understand the Green New Deal

Published on Mar 11, 2019

Political news coverage tends to focus on strategy over substance, and that’s making it less likely that the public will agree on big policy ideas when we need them the most.

The Green New Deal is an ambitious proposal that outlines how the U.S. might begin transitioning towards a green economy over the next ten years. It includes steps like upgrading our power grid and renovating our transportation infrastructure. But most people watching news coverage likely don’t know what’s in the Green New Deal. And that’s because political news coverage tends to focus on strategy over substance, fixating on a bill’s political ramifications rather than its ability to solve a problem. That approach to news coverage is known as “tactical framing,” and research shows it makes audiences at home more cynical and less informed about big policy debates. The result is a cycle of partisanship, where solutions to big problems like climate change are judged on their political popularity rather than their merit.

Check out this in-depth look at the substance of the Green New Deal: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-enviro…


Vox.com is a news website that helps you cut through the noise and understand what’s really driving the events in the headlines. Check out http://www.vox.com.
On Strikethrough, Vox producer Carlos Maza explores the challenges facing the news media in the age of Trump. Follow Carlos on Facebook for more: https://www.facebook.com/CarlosMazaVox
Watch our full video catalog: http://goo.gl/IZONyE
Follow Vox on Facebook: http://goo.gl/U2g06o
Or Twitter: http://goo.gl/XFrZ5H