The Conservative government overplayed its hand last week in launching an aggressive pre-emptive strike against those opposing Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline.
All that Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's over-the-top attack achieved was to create an atmosphere of sympathy for those justifiably concerned about potential damage to B.C.'s coveted wilderness areas.
Former tree planter Ingmar Lee, an environmental activist unaffiliated with any organized group, was frustrated by Oliver's condemnation of environmentalists. "After all these years," he blogged this week, "I've never made a single buck out of environmental work, and for all my efforts, I'm not famous either."
Lee says he just happens to be partial to old-growth forests, sandhill cranes, wild salmon and whales. And, accordingly, has signed up to speak at ongoing formal hearings into Enbridge's Northern Gateway project.
So have several community groups in Smithers who this week purchased ads and wore blue scarves to register indignation at being dismissed by Oliver as radicals, influenced by foreign elements.
Members of the Friends of Morice-Bulkley and Douglas Channel Watch jointly issued a news release stating that their objective is to protect "salmon watersheds and the pristine north coast, as well as associated, cultures, lifestyles and livelihoods."
"We're a bunch of locals, not typically involved," asserted retired biologist Dawn Remington.
"I would hardly call myself a radical," said Dave Shan-non, a retired Alcan engineer. "Citizens are concerned about the overwhelming risk of this pipeline. Forces of nature and human error are capable of destroying even the best engineered designs."
It is the basic common sense of such statements that has put the Harper Conservatives on the defensive. By Wednesday, Oliver was backtracking, telling CBC the government does not necessarily favour the Enbridge project; it just wants Canada to have a way to export oil beyond the U.S.
Oliver's remark Jan. 8, made in an open letter - "environ-mental and other radical groups . threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda" - invited obvious counterclaims from environmental groups who quickly pointed out that many of the oil companies pushing for the $5.5-billion project are foreign-owned.
It also opened the door for opponents to note that Canada, as a foreign interest, did not hesitate to stick its nose into U.S. hearings last year involving the Keystone XL pipeline project, again rejected Wednesday by the U.S. president.
There's no question, pipelines pose risk to the environment and there's a need to safeguard the environmentally sensitive route Northern Gateway will take.
Also, no question it's economically crucial for Canada to install infrastructure to enable the country to ship crude to Asian markets.
But, as in all things, a compromise must be struck between these two objectives.
Without pressure from environmentalists, the only interest that would be served would be economic.
All that Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver's over-the-top attack achieved was to create an atmosphere of sympathy for those justifiably concerned about potential damage to B.C.'s coveted wilderness areas.
Former tree planter Ingmar Lee, an environmental activist unaffiliated with any organized group, was frustrated by Oliver's condemnation of environmentalists. "After all these years," he blogged this week, "I've never made a single buck out of environmental work, and for all my efforts, I'm not famous either."
Lee says he just happens to be partial to old-growth forests, sandhill cranes, wild salmon and whales. And, accordingly, has signed up to speak at ongoing formal hearings into Enbridge's Northern Gateway project.
So have several community groups in Smithers who this week purchased ads and wore blue scarves to register indignation at being dismissed by Oliver as radicals, influenced by foreign elements.
Members of the Friends of Morice-Bulkley and Douglas Channel Watch jointly issued a news release stating that their objective is to protect "salmon watersheds and the pristine north coast, as well as associated, cultures, lifestyles and livelihoods."
"We're a bunch of locals, not typically involved," asserted retired biologist Dawn Remington.
"I would hardly call myself a radical," said Dave Shan-non, a retired Alcan engineer. "Citizens are concerned about the overwhelming risk of this pipeline. Forces of nature and human error are capable of destroying even the best engineered designs."
It is the basic common sense of such statements that has put the Harper Conservatives on the defensive. By Wednesday, Oliver was backtracking, telling CBC the government does not necessarily favour the Enbridge project; it just wants Canada to have a way to export oil beyond the U.S.
Oliver's remark Jan. 8, made in an open letter - "environ-mental and other radical groups . threaten to hijack our regulatory system to achieve their radical ideological agenda" - invited obvious counterclaims from environmental groups who quickly pointed out that many of the oil companies pushing for the $5.5-billion project are foreign-owned.
It also opened the door for opponents to note that Canada, as a foreign interest, did not hesitate to stick its nose into U.S. hearings last year involving the Keystone XL pipeline project, again rejected Wednesday by the U.S. president.
There's no question, pipelines pose risk to the environment and there's a need to safeguard the environmentally sensitive route Northern Gateway will take.
Also, no question it's economically crucial for Canada to install infrastructure to enable the country to ship crude to Asian markets.
But, as in all things, a compromise must be struck between these two objectives.
Without pressure from environmentalists, the only interest that would be served would be economic.
Anyone who looks at a map would immediately wonder whether Enbridge's choice of Kitimat as a port for oil tankers, while perhaps most economic, is environmentally sound.
Kitimat is deep inland, in the vicinity of the Great Bear Rain-forest. A tanker port located there would pose an obvious challenge for ships navigating the hundreds of kilometres of channels and tributaries to reach open sea - all in the vicinity of a hugely fragile ecosystem.
It can only be hoped that the three-member panel presiding over the government hearings will be objective enough to pronounce on this issue once it concludes its deliberations in 2013.
Conservatives, with their pro-pipeline rhetoric, are not making it easy for the government-appointed panelists to appear objective.
The pipeline and tanker port, being so controversial, are sure to face obstacles in the construction phase.
It's thus crucial that, before a construction phase begins, public concerns about the project are seen to be fully considered and that various competing interests are reconciled to the greatest extent possible.
To that end, during the hearing phase, the governing Conservatives should butt out.
Kitimat is deep inland, in the vicinity of the Great Bear Rain-forest. A tanker port located there would pose an obvious challenge for ships navigating the hundreds of kilometres of channels and tributaries to reach open sea - all in the vicinity of a hugely fragile ecosystem.
It can only be hoped that the three-member panel presiding over the government hearings will be objective enough to pronounce on this issue once it concludes its deliberations in 2013.
Conservatives, with their pro-pipeline rhetoric, are not making it easy for the government-appointed panelists to appear objective.
The pipeline and tanker port, being so controversial, are sure to face obstacles in the construction phase.
It's thus crucial that, before a construction phase begins, public concerns about the project are seen to be fully considered and that various competing interests are reconciled to the greatest extent possible.
To that end, during the hearing phase, the governing Conservatives should butt out.
Original Article
Source: Vancouver Sun
No comments:
Post a Comment