91ÊÓƵ

For the past several months and years there has been a debate about coal export from the state of Oregon. In the proposed model, coal would be shipped via rail from Wyoming to Oregon, and then down the Columbia River for export to China.

There has been a lot of debate on this issue, both pro and con. It has often been framed as jobs vs. environment. It seems that it was an either/or conversation, with little room for compromise.

However, world events often conspire to take hold and change the nature of a debate in the blink of an eye. China is apparently no longer interested in coal from the United States. According to recent news reports, the company that was developing this project has divested itself of its coal interests.

The Chinese coal producers have not been resting on their laurels. While Oregonians (and Washingtonians) have been debating whether to approve these facilities, it seems that Chinese infrastructure has caught up with its own needs. An increased ability to move coal around China coupled with a potential drop in domestic consumption has shown the Chinese that there is no need for imported coal.

At first blush it would seem that Oregon environmentalists should be cheering for an apparent success. However, a closer look indicates that the concern that has always been raised – i.e., that the Chinese would obtain coal, just from a different source if Oregon chose not to provide it – has indeed come to pass. The Chinese apparently will be mining their own coal to whatever standards they internally impose upon themselves. Thus Oregon and other states have lost the opportunity to safely and economically develop a resource.

However, from the perspective of a coal consumer, it makes sense to secure one’s own sources when overseas sources are unreliable. The debate within Oregon about whether to permit coal export was likely perceived overseas as a symptom of an unreliable source.

Just as the fracking business has provided this country with a reliable energy source not subject to the vagaries of foreign governments, so has coal provided China with a similar one. In one sense, this decision relieves Oregonians of a divisive debate. On the other hand, Oregon has seen an economic opportunity – one that could have been developed in an environmentally sensitive manner – disappear. Not only do we fail to benefit economically, but we also fail to develop a contemporary, environmentally sensitive method of natural resource extraction.

While many Oregonians make their living in a clean environment behind a computer screen, many others rely on heavy industry to achieve a reasonable standard of living. The debates about economic prosperity must be fair and equitable. They must accommodate both of these groups.

Christian Steinbrecher is president of Columbia River Port Engineers Inc. and the immediate past president of the Oregon Section of the American Society of Civil Engineers. He is the editor of ASCE Oregon’s Report Card on Oregon’s Infrastructure. Contact him at cfs@[email protected].