Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image
Scroll to top


Surrey: coal exporter, climate denier?

Paul Hillsdon

In a year where the American mid-west faced the worst drought in a generation, New York was pummelled by super storm Sandy, and the 97% of the Greenland ice sheet melted, Port Metro Vancouver is planning to accelerate the burning of coal, the dirtiest of the fossil fuels.

With no public consultation, the Port is moving quickly to turn Metro Vancouver into North America’s largest coal exporter. They plan to expand an existing terminal in North Vancouver, and open a new transfer station at Fraser Surrey Docks. At full-build, 8 million tonnes of coal will run along the BNSF railway through White Rock and South Surrey, transfer to an open barge on the Fraser River, and float via tugboat to a small Island near the Sunshine Coast for shipment to Asia.

Coal accounts for 20% of global emissions. While oil produces 778 grams of carbon for every kilowatt hour, and natural gas produces 443 grams per kWh, coal can produce up to 1050 grams! In comparison, hydro produces just 10 grams per kWh. If you thought the Premier’s plan to expedite liquefied natural gas to Asia, or Enbridge’s desire to ship raw bitumen to China through the Northern Gateway, were bad, shipping coal east is significantly worse.

For a city that has spent the past several years building a more sustainable reputation, approval of this coal export terminal will tarnish our civic brand. We cannot be hypocrites, touting our electric cars and bike lanes while shipping our carbon emissions elsewhere.

The time to stop releasing carbon is running out quickly. The International Energy Agency has warned that our current emissions trend will lead to a 6 degree Celsius temperature increase by 2100, a catastrophic scenario that would deplete most existing agricultural zones, raise sea levels, render large parts of the Earth uninhabitable, and cause mass migration. The last time the world temperature rose 6 degrees Celsius was 55 million years ago, over a period of 20,000 years – not two centuries. We are truly playing with fire.

Knowing what we do, the continued burning of any fossil fuel is simply unethical. The Port deserves to be reprimanded for trying to ram this project through. Surrey must continue leading the charge towards a clean, green future, not prop up the harmful and dangerous economic policies of the past. Stop this coal terminal immediately.

Your Council
Dianne Watts:
Tom Gill:
Bruce Hayne:
Marvin Hunt:
Mary Martin:
Barinder Rasode:
Barbara Steele:
Judy Villeneuve:

Your MLAs
Harry Bains (Newton):
Jagrup Brar (Fleetwood):
Stephanie Cadieux (Panorama):
Kevin Falcon (Cloverdale):
Sue Hammell (Green Timbers):
Dave Hayer (Tynehead):
Gordon Hogg (White Rock):
Bruce Ralston (Whalley):

Your MPs
Nina Grewal (Fleetwood-Port Kells):
Russ Hiebert (White Rock-Cloverdale):
Jasbir Sandhu (North):
Jinny Sims (Newton):


  1. bumfluff122

    97% of the Greenland ice sheet didn’t melt. 97% of the surface thawed. It will take many thousands of years for the Greenland ice sheet to melt. That was the only error I see with this post. And I completely agree that something definitely needs to be done. BC does not use any coal to produce energy. We get over 90% of our energy from renewable resources. It’s the exporting of this coal, which you allude to, that has to be stopped. But if we do that it may affect our economic output. It’s a hard choice on where exactly to begin halting the use of coal for energy production.

  2. Powerful. If any municipality was sent a letter by the Port over this issue, it was Surrey (New Westminster states it was not contacted, despite the Port’s claims to the contrary — see While the Mayor of Vancouver has called for a delay in decisions on coal export expansion until the regional public has been fully consulted, Surrey, so far, has been silent. Does Surrey council agree the public deserves a say in decisions that will have such a huge impact on their future? If you live there, it’s worth asking.