The production of energy — primarily through extracted fuels such as coal and oil — has transformed the global economy over the past 150 years. The United States’ abundance of resources and its ability to turn that abundance into innovation has played a key role in this nation’s ascendancy as a world power. While the need for energy to fuel our vehicles, light our businesses and heat our homes remains, it is clear that we are overdue for a transformation in how we produce and consume those linchpins of civilization.
That, as much as anything, is the broad message to be taken from Gov. Jay Inslee’s rejection of a proposed oil terminal at the Port of Vancouver. Inslee followed the recommendation of the state Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council in turning away a proposal from Andeavor (formerly Tesoro Corp.) and Savage Cos. to build and operate the facility. The plan would have brought an average of 1.5 million gallons of oil each day by train through the Columbia River Gorge and past heavily populated areas en route to the port.
In rejecting the proposal, Inslee cited well-founded concerns about safety for the region’s residents and its environment. But he also was sending a signal to fossil-fuel interests that Washington is prepared to lead the nation in an attempt to limit the damage caused by extraction fuels.
Much of that damage is reflected in climate change, which a vast majority of climate scientists believe is exacerbated by human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels. Anecdotal evidence of climate change is quickly catching up to scientific theory, with extreme weather events becoming more common and more damaging.
This has become perplexing for those who deny scientific findings regarding climate change. In a recent interview, Scott Pruitt said: “I think there’s assumptions made that because the climate is warming that that necessarily is a bad thing. Do we really know what the ideal surface temperature should be in the year 2100, in the year 2018?” This morally bereft logic could be easily ignored if not for the fact that Pruitt is administrator of the federal Environmental Protection Agency and has a duty to protect the environment.
But informing Pruitt about the dangers of climate change is an editorial for another time. For now, we are focused upon this state’s role in the energy industry and the fact that rejecting an oil terminal does not mitigate civilization’s need for energy.
In denying the Port of Vancouver proposal, Inslee said: “I am confident that our ports will continue to play an important role in regional trade and providing opportunities for jobs in clean energy.” Such confidence is well-founded. The U.S. Department of Energy last year reported that about 374,000 people are employed in the solar energy industry; the coal industry employs about 70,000. Meanwhile, the Port of Vancouver last year exported 160,520 barrels of biodiesel and imported nearly 400 metric tons of wind turbines and associated equipment.
Washington’s rejection of the oil terminal also could serve as a harbinger for a coming battle over federal plans to allow for offshore drilling. Pursuit of the proposal will undoubtedly lead to protracted legal battles and face strong public opposition.
Which brings us to the crux of the issue: Energy is essential for maintaining and improving our standard of living. But, as leaders and many residents of this state recognize, it is time to pursue and promote the energy sources of the future rather than clinging to the past.
