
U.S. Judge Blocks Oakland Port's Ban on Coal Shipments - protomyth
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-15/oakland-port-ban-on-coal-shipments-blocked-by-u-s-judge
======
orasis
This seems appropriate. Local governments shouldn’t be able to determine
international commerce policy.

~~~
vkou
But they aren't determining international commerce policy. The coal companies
are free to ship it out through Texas, or Wyoming, or wherever will have them.

There's a difference between "I don't want guns in _my house_ " and "I want
guns to be banned in my country."

It's not Oakland's responsibility to ensure that the coal industry can make
money in Oakland.

~~~
bcheung
Such reasoning is detrimental to a free society. It's not a house, it's a
port. And a major one at that.

Should ISPs be free to discriminate and ban anything they don't like too?

~~~
fiter
The government does regulate what ISPs can host. In this case, the local
government is trying to regulate what the port can host.

~~~
AmericanChopper
Should cities where fiber cables land be able to regulate what packets pass
through them?

~~~
fiter
Your original statement was that ISPs should not get to ban. I noted that ISPs
might not get to ban, but governments do get to ban. You are now asking me if
governments should get to ban. I believe I already said that they do get to
ban.

If your point is that you believe specifically cities should not be able to
ban, then maybe that should be the case. I'd like to hear your argument,
though.

~~~
AmericanChopper
You're actually replying to a different person.

But in any case, giving local government the power to arbitrarily deny access
to national infrastructure is a terrible idea, and it would allow local
government to override any national foreign trade strategies, amongst other
things. There's lots of major exchange points on the west coast, should the
cities where they're located have a say on what packets they handle? Do you
think your requests should be dropped if the City of San Jose doesn't want to
serve them for you? Because that's no different than this.

~~~
mikeash
Oakland owns this “national infrastructure” so it doesn’t seem at all like San
Jose dropping my requests, unless they own the network.

~~~
AmericanChopper
This point is entirely contrived. California owns all of the interstates
within it's borders, are they also "national infrastructure"? Do you think
California should be able to dictate what goods can and cannot be transported
on them? Numerous private companies own the fiber cables and exchanges that
deliver internet across the country, are they "national infrastructure" too?
In this case a local council is trying to control what goods can and cannot be
imported out of America, something which it does not and should not have the
power to do.

Edit: in case it’s not clear, your “unless they own the network” remark is an
assertion that Net Neitrality should not exist in any form.

~~~
manicdee
Governments already do dictate what goods can not be carried on their roads.
At the very least we have load limits, size limits, speed limits. Then there
is dangerous goods regulation meaning you aren't allowed to transport fuel in
buckets on an open trailer, and you aren't allowed to transport sand in
uncovered trailers either.

~~~
AmericanChopper
All of those regulations are for public safety, and regulate how goods are
transported, not what goods are transported. If Oakland could provide some
evidence that exporting coal via it's port posed a public safety risk to the
people of Oakland, then they'd have had a case. The truth is simply that they
don't want anybody exporting coal from the US, and they are trying to majorly
overstep the limits of their power.

~~~
manicdee
Or maybe the truth is that coal handling ports produce a lot of particulate
pollution in excess of existing regulations which Oakland is sick and tired of
policing only to have offenders return to their polluting ways.

~~~
AmericanChopper
The goal of these organisations is to end US coal exports, and that they will
abuse the court system with any vexatious lawsuit they can dream up. They had
the opportunity to present evidence to support their claim that shipping coal
through the city posed any health risk to the community, and they failed to
produce any evidence to that effect.

~~~
manicdee
They did produce documentstion to that effect, but Tagami claimed thst using
these brand new whizzo coal car covers, no dust would escape (despite having
no evidence to support that claim).

The judge basically ruled thst since the report didn't perform a comparison to
other sources of pollution, that it was not relevant.

Which I guess is fine if you regard deaths from lung cancer as a statistical
measure rather than preventable losses.

------
mrguyorama
So wait, if I live in a city with a very busy port, and things happening at
that port lead to damage to my health, do I really have no choice but to live
with it or move away? I can't vote for policies restricting the damaging
things the port is doing?

Is there a more local equivalent of the EPA? One that could legally have teeth
without being swatted down by the Supreme Court?

~~~
true_religion
No, due to federal supremacy, individual cities aren't allowed to control
international commerce. They can ban use, but not possession, or mere
transportation. Even cities which banned handguns had to allow you to
transport your handgun through them on your way to someplace else.

~~~
fiter
It's not so much the intentional transportation that's the issue. The leakage
is the problem. Are individual cities required to allow leaky transportation
of hazardous materials on their roads?

------
JumpCrisscross
Can't California just slap a fat tax on ports based on tonnage of coal
handled?

~~~
AndrewBissell
No? That would raise all the same interstate commerce issues that led the
judge to block the export ban in this case.

~~~
sxates
Berkeley can tax Soda but Oakland can't tax Coal?

~~~
simcop2387
Berkeley is also only trying to tax soda sold in berkeley. Oakland's issue is
that they're trying to control the item being sold in other places, just
because they're being brought through oakland.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
Which is why I’m curious about California taxing its ports for handling coal.
Port services are sold in California.

------
DrScump
This judge is a distinguished graduate of U.C. Berkeley, a former clerk to
Justice Breyer, and an Obama appointee.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Chhabria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vince_Chhabria)

------
John_KZ
Is there a real reason this happened besides attacking the coal industry? Is
this even considered legal now?

~~~
mikeash
The reason is the potential health impact on locals, and given that a judge
struck it down, I suspect that it is not legal.

~~~
John_KZ
It's extreme. The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule
amounts of dust that can be eliminated with a piece of tarp. I don't object
the people's right to try and pitchfork down the coal industry, but the
company should appeal.

~~~
cryptoz
> The only think that coal-loading can produce is minuscule amounts of dust...

That is absolutely _not_ the only thing that coal loading can produce. The
locals have to breathe air too, and the locals may very well be concerned
about the breath-ability of their own air after another half century of
greenhouse gas emissions, increased outputs of coal mines, etc.

Claiming that the "only" thing that coal loading does to locals' health is
small amounts of dust is wrong. Your claim is provably wrong, and it seems
like you're making the claim intentionally knowing it is wrong, just to say it
anyway.

Handling coal at the Port of Oakland has a long list of negative consequences
for the locals that you are completely ignoring, acting dismissive of and
otherwise rude about how the locals feel about their own health. It's insane
to suggest people are trying "pitchfork down" an industry while completely
ignoring a majority of issues caused by the coal loading.

~~~
stale2002
Ok, so it is not the fact that it is that 'specific' port that the health
consequences happen.

The green house gasses would be caused whether it is that port or a different
one.

~~~
mikeash
It makes an impact. If it didn’t, the coal companies wouldn’t care about it in
the first place.

------
cryptoz
Some questions/comments.

> The developer, Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal LLC, argued the city had no
> substantial evidence that shipping coal through the terminal would endanger
> the health of workers or surrounding communities.

I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has
health impacts on the surrounding communities. Therefore it seems clear that
_any_ shipping activity has health impacts for those nearby, coal or
otherwise. This is confusing. Is he lying, or am I incorrect?

(Edit: Does coal come in by truck? If so then it will _very clearly_ have a
health impact on the surrounding communities as this study has already been
done: [http://pacinst.org/news/new-study-reveals-alarmingly-high-
co...](http://pacinst.org/news/new-study-reveals-alarmingly-high-cost-of-
oakland-port-truck-diesel-pollution-and-the-broken-trucking-systemmore-
than-153-million-drained-from-the-economy-each-year/) and if the coal doesn't
come in by truck, would it still change or alter truck patterns in the area?)

I cannot fathom how someone thinks that increasing shipments at the Port of
Oakland will have no health impacts on the surrounding communities - going so
far as to say that _there isn 't any 'substantial' information about it_ which
is clearly a lie.

> Reversing the ban could increase exports by as much as 19 percent, according
> to the Sierra Club...The National Mining Association cheered the ruling.

This seems like tragedy of the commons. Clearly all the miners would be better
off if there were no coal shipments, because we'd _all_ be better off if there
were no coal shipments. The National Mining Association should applaud
reductions in harmful greenhouse gasses as it prepares to move its workers
into a more sustainable field.

~~~
djrogers
> I thought it was commonly accepted that operating the Port of Oakland has
> health impacts on the surrounding communities.

Clearly that's not related to the question at hand here - the question is will
allowing coal shipments cause more health risk than shipping anything else
from the port. The port of Oakland is important enough to the state and
national economy that it will pretty much be at or near full capacity at all
times, so coal would mostly displace other shipments, making your edit-linked
article moot (oh, and it would mostly be rail anyway).

Ports are a necessary fact of a global economy, and the fact is they tenhave
historically had large cities develop around them due to the jobs and
opportunities they created. It sounds like you'd prefer that the port get
completely shut down. That's an opinion, but it's unrelated to this case - and
unlikley to get anywhere. You'd be much better off moving away from the port
and teh city that grew up around it.

~~~
DoubleCribble
For the record - The Port is nowhere near full capacity. The Outer Harbor has
been mothballed for 2+ years. [0] The coal shipments would displace the
current bulk shipments terminal as it would be converted to a dedicated coal
export terminal.

[0][https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-of-oakland-ports-biggest-
te...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-of-oakland-ports-biggest-tenants-
moving-out-1453248509)

