Submission Number: MBTL-EIS-0002349 

Received: 11/19/2013 12:18:35 AM
Commenter: Diana Bankston
Organization: 
State: 

Agency: Cowlitz County, the Washington Department of Ecology, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Initiative: Millennium Bulk-Terminals Longview EIS
Attachments: No Attachments
Submission Text
It makes no sense to spend huge amounts of money to facilitate exporting coal that will make climate change worse. The idea that we won't stop burning coal until it's all gone is an idea that we MUST get over while there's still a chance for a viable future for our kids! Just because some companies want to make money with no regard for the health of our planet, that's not a reason to help them! We should be spending our precious resources to build an economy that will genuinely be sustainable. We cannot go on basing our economic development on making the world unlivable, and soon we won't even be able to argue about that, it will become increasingly obvious. Look at what we've seen in just the last four or five years-- bigger and bigger weather "events", crisis in our agriculture from climate change, many people waking up to the reality of how volatile our weather is getting. In another five or ten years it will be much worse. Don't lock us into an expensive coal facility when we desperately need to pursue alternatives! A few people, living far from the coal dust and environmental pollution, will make money and all the rest of us will be screwed. I want you to consider the CO2 impact of making this coal available for burning, and I want you to consider the people and aninmals living in the area and the impact that this huge, toxic industrial development will have on them. I want you to consider the salmon and the herring at Cherry Point, and I want you to consider the orcas. You know that if it's built there will eventually be some kind of spill. I want you to look at the noise and the coal dust, as well as the destruction of the tourist economy. Why is the developer trying to stop the local council from becoming knowledgeable about the proposal? Why is the comment period so short? Why are the applicants prevaricating about consequences of the terminal? (I saw one thing where they claimed that train traffic would not substantially increase!) Why did they try to go around the permit process, using that very old irrelevant non-coal permit? I want you to consider how truthful they are when you evaluate their statements, particularly when they claim it will be great for jobs. (I am currently living in the midwest, but I was born and brought up in Seattle and my family still lives there.)