Oooh, it's nice when Slog has a streak of 5 or 6 posts with White Men photos. Something most of us Sloggers can relate to.

"Because democracy, John Creighton."

Wow, horrible fucking grammar.

It's not his fault. Scorpius is in his brain making him do things.

@2 and @4 "Because X" is a deliberate construction used in a lot of internet writing. But thank you for the watchfulness.

@5
Oh I wasn't really agreeing with his grammar point. I was saying Nice Catch, because I ended up reading your post which I would have normally ignored. I'm sure lots of people think you're a great addition to The Stranger, Sydney, but I don't. Which means I'm probably a minority, and we all know how minorities get treated, thanks to Slog.

staffer: instead of feeding the troll, just ban him.

Climate bomb? Such hyperbole. It really isn't about the climate, luxury cruise ships have the same affect in Puget Sound, so it's about the use of the vessel. What's next? Do you want to prohibit climate-change-caused-by-man-made-CO2-emission deniers the right to drive on city streets?

I'm not saying that you don't have any premise to your arguments, Sydney. You just need to cut through the hyperbolic extrapolation crutches and work harder at elevating your arguments to withstand objective reasoning.

For raindrop, reason and logic is a function of mansplaining.

Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins, in "The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2 °C, published last month in Nature, argued that the oil in the Arctic cannot be removed if we have any hope of keeping the warming of the globe under 2 °degrees.

"Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused from 2010 to 2050 in order to meet the target of 2 °C. We show that development of resources in the Arctic and any increase in unconventional oil production are incommensurate with efforts to limit average global warming to 2 °C."

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v51…

In other words, we must not go after that oil, and Seattle must not enable Shell in this crazy dream. “It is up to Shell then to keep the oil industry’s Arctic dreams alive,"

Furthermore, Shell's safety record is not good. "Add to this potential nightmare scenario another little fact: Shell has garnered a well-deserved reputation as “the company with the spottiest Arctic record.”

"The answer: the Chukchi Sea and the adjacent Beaufort Sea, off Arctic Alaska, and you can commonly spot bowhead, beluga, and grey whales there, while fin whales, minkes, humpbacks, killer whales, and narwhals are all venturing into these seas ever more often as the Arctic and its waters continue to warm rapidly."
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/03/o…

And shell has been engaging in union busting activity lately... Fuck them

Note to stranger writers: If you want to really bust the port on their environmental hypocrisy look into the emission specs and regulations of the yard rigs operating at the port. No not the drayage trucks operated by exploited independent operators (which are highly regulated and often touted by misleading port press designed to make us think all their equipment is green) the ones owned and maintained by Goldman Sachs owned SSA and other global corps like Hanjin that spew copious amounts of vile filth including so much diesel soot that they might as well be running on coal

@10: Better not catch you filling up your Prius at a Shell station then.

@3 Hit the nail on the head.

Me personally, I've already sent an email, a snail mail letter, and a phone call to this guy's office. His fellow commissioners can expect no less than the same, if not more.