On enviro review, be careful what you wish for

A recent decision by the Washington State Department of Ecology to study the cumulative impacts of a new deep-water port facility as part of the permitting process was hailed by some activists as a landmark victory. Indeed, the decision may prove to be a monumental precedent if the decision stands.

The agency apparently intends to not only analyze the potential impact of developing the port facility itself, but to analyze the associated coal mining operations, expanded rail transportation and the environmental impacts of burning the coal in overseas power plants.

Policy makers in Washington state obviously want to make it virtually impossible to mine coal in Montana and transport it to export facilities, bound for power plants in China, India or Korea.

Some environmental activists are ecstatic. This is the Holy Grail — the brass ring — the coup de grace. With this precedent, they could blast the environmental review process into infinite space …  an orbiting satellite with no return flight path. But as the old adage goes, “Be careful what you ask for.”

Wind energy has shown great promise and attracted significant capital investment in parts of Washington and Montana. But for some reason, the environmental impact studies of proposed wind farms did not accurately predict the effects massive rotor blades travelling at high rates of speed would have on eagles and other raptors. Consequently, a few environmental groups are now questioning the wisdom of whacking eagles from the sky to save a few tons of coal.

The next time a so-called “green energy” project is enthusiastically proposed to supply electricity for the Prius and Tesla cars in Seattle, what’s to stop Friends of the Eagle from demanding a cumulative impact study?

A new wind farm requires tons of copper for the generators, miles of new aluminum electrical transmission lines, hundreds of tons of concrete and lots of steel for the towers. Where will the copper, bauxite ore, iron ore, gravel and limestone be mined, and how will that increased production threaten sensitive, pristine environments somewhere in the world? How will the electricity be generated to turn bauxite ore into aluminum?

What about the steel for the towers — might “dirty coal” be used in the foundry that produced it? Those icky cement kilns that produce the key ingredient for concrete — will they burn used tires somewhere in the world? Oh oh. Wind farms cause climate change. We in Montana certainly hope the Washingtonians who demonize our coal don’t expect us to blight our landscape with wind farms to supply your energy needs.

And how about those high-tech minerals needed to build solar panels and the complex electronics in the directional control equipment? We better analyze the cumulative impacts of where in South America that stuff comes from … and how it is smelted…and how it is transported to the U.S. If it contributes to climate change, the public has a right to know, and it should be the basis for denying a solar project (especially if it’s proposed in Montana and the electricity is headed west).

So where does the nonsense end? The availability of non-resident fishing permits induces people to drive gas guzzling SUVs or fly private jets to Montana. We should probably analyze those cumulative impacts in a full blown EIS before next year’s fishing season. Think of the fossil fuel that could be saved by not inviting people to come to Montana for a fishing trip.

Once the precedent is set, the environmental knife can cut both ways. And it could paralyze the economy if taken to extremes.

Bottom line: As a nation and as a region, let’s get behind responsible, common sense energy development that fosters a healthier global economy. More prosperous countries will have the capacity and the political will to invest in environmental protection measures that are beyond their reach today.

Cary Hegreberg is the executive director of the Montana Contractors Association.