Concerns are raised over how this project will affect the community's safety, the environment and public health. "Low-income communities of color disproportionately overburdened by pollution are on the front lines of potential train derailment in West and East Oakland," said Ernesto Arevalo, East Oakland environmental justice and housing advocate. "The transportation of coal is another burden to these communities that are already facing other environmental risks and displacement." It will also undermine California's strong commitment to cutting carbon pollution, as the state continues to suffer from extreme drought, forest fires and other signs of climate disruption.

The official voice of the labor movement in the East Bay has come out against plans to export coal from Oakland. The Alameda Labor Council's executive committee passed a resolution opposing the export of coal from the bulk commodity terminal planned for construction at the city's former Army Base.

In terms of carbon dioxide emissions, the proposed coal export facility would export approximately  ten million tonnes of coal each year, half of which would likely be from Utah. Ten million tonnes of coal amounts to at least 26 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emitted each year. That amount of coal and carbon is the rough equivalent of seven average (500 megawatt) coal fired power plants. To put it simply, to burn more coal of any kind makes air quality, respiratory illness rates, climate change and other problems much worse.

Having a coal terminal on the shoreline will also damage local water quality and aquatic life according to the San Francisco Baykeeper group. 

If four coal-producing Utah counties invest USD53 million in the Oakland export terminal, Carbon County would hold the largest stake, according to documents acquired by Sierra Club through open-record requests. Carbon County would hold 33 percent of Utah's interest, followed by Sevier at 30 percent, Emery at 25 percent and Sanpete at 12 percent. For their investment, they would be guaranteed "throughput allocations" for their commodities equivalent to 49 percent of the terminal's capacity, the documents said. Together, they would earn a 10 percent annual return, paid on a preferred basis from the terminal's net income. Utah officials defend the investment, saying it can connect rural Utah's products, including alfalfa, soda ash, potash and salt, to international markets. But a term sheet indicates coal could monopolize Utah's share, consuming up to the full 49 percent of the terminal's shipping capacity.

Deception and allegations of money laundering and influence-peddling were all behind a scheme to export coal mined in Utah to Asia through a shipping terminal in Oakland, California. To avert public opposition to shipping coal from Oakland, that aim for a new terminal was kept secret for years, while USD 53 million in public funds in Utah that was supposed to be for local civic projects was diverted to help pay for the shipping terminal project. An investment firm that stood to gain USD one million and a rail line in the deal wrote the script. Utah elected officials supporting the plan took money from the coal company pushing the outlet for Utah coal, Bowie Resource Partners. And the secret scheme, once revealed, forced concerned communities in Oakland to scramble quickly to try to stop it. In Utah, a bill in the legislature to get around prohibitions on USD 53 million in community impact funds being used for an out-of-state coal terminal was criticized as a money laundering scheme. Ultimately the Oakland City Council voted unanimously to ban coal handling and storage, but developers are considering legal challenges still (source corruptionincoal.org).