In Washington state, state government has blocked action for a prominent coal exporting company to ship coal from the Western United States to East Asia. The company, if granted permission, could have potentially increased U.S. coal exports to Asia by around forty percent. Worries for environmentalists include the pollution of water and damage to local ecosystems from the company, while the deal could have brought forth a stimulation of regional economy and revival of job loss.
I am personally a bit conflicted on whether supporting the decision from the Department of Ecology. I do believe that they are justified in the decision, but Washington state is in moderate need of economic stimulation. The damage done to the environment, however, in contrast to job loss and economic bore, isn't necessarily a 'quick-and-easy' irreversible action.
https://www.1065thearch.com/2017/09/26/washington-state-deals-blow-to-plan-for-coal-export-terminal/
Personally I feel the choice made was justified as damage done to the environment by the burning of such massive quantities of fossil fuels is irreversible and in respect to the state's economy, promoting the foundation and/or growth of the renewable energy industry is a better long-term plan as when we inevitably experience rising coal and oil costs, both in selling and production, caused by shortages, it would benefit the state to have an energy industry it could fall back on, i.e. solar, wind, etc.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Connor. This is also a small step towards possibly making greener energy more efficient, which will be a necessity as England is expected to run out of most fossil fuel reserves by 2050
DeleteI agree with the decision made by Washington because irreversible damage to the environment is more negative than Washington DC losing some business. The environment is something that can never be replaced, while money can always.
ReplyDeleteMaria Gonzalez
ReplyDeleteI am for the ideas of saving the environment rather than businesses. There wouldn't be any businesses if there's no world.
I see your point about being conflicted about the effects of this decision. On one hand, pollution is being prevented, but on the other many people are losing jobs and perhaps even some losing power because of this choice.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this decision because this helps stop the massive use of fossil fuels which damage our environment. It would be much appreciated if many more decisions like this could be made all over the world.
ReplyDeleteIts sad that there will be an increase of job loss. But we have to start takin small steps to help our planet.
ReplyDeleteI completely understand why you feel conflicted in whether you agree with this decision or not and as do I, but emember how Mrs. Kmetz pointed out last year that we don't export nearly as much fossil fuels as we have? I believe she remarked that perhaps we are reserving quite an amount in order to be less dependent of others states for energy. I just thought that would be interesting new perspective.
ReplyDelete