Reply to comment

04/09/14

There was talk about giving folks the facts and letting them make up their minds ... but almost NO real facts were given at all.

A few statistics about numbers of trains and square miles of mining ... but most all of the focus was on people and their views and their personal impacts from a possible coal terminal.

This was a very shallow treatment of the issue.

Nothing about national defense, almost nothing about the economics of the exports and how the funds arriving would filter in our economy ... for all we know from this piece ... the coal firms could be owned by the chinese or germans or martians ... who would be exporting the funds to their country or planet instead of stimulating the us economy.

No real treatment of the gas or particulate matter constituents or contamination from the trains or loading port were discussed ... or the consequences ...

No real treatment of the degree of contamination of the puget sound or inland waters from the additional volume of ship traffic to service this proposed coal port.

No treatment of the additional risks of coal moving on the coastal routes that have periodic landslides or mudslides and washouts.

etc. etc. etc.

very very shallow ... as if they just wanted an excuse to "look green" and "get some field time having fun".

Extremely unimpressed.

The only rational comment was the kid saying "it is not fair" etc.

Debate DOES need real data, not just a bunch of people saying how good or bad this is based on how they will be personally effected by it.

We need a higher standard of investigative reporting from PBS and Channel 9 ... something we can use to foster real policy analysis and strategic planning debate ...

This was just another trivial fluff piece on what should be a serious debate based on sound facts and analysis.

Reply

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.