Isn’t a clean coast in the national interest?
You’d think that the first question in any oil tanker-pipeline environmental review would be whether or not a spill can be contained and cleaned up.
Apparently not.
Christy Clark abdicated provincial responsibility by refusing to hold an inquiry, and the federal assessment under Stephen Harper specifically forbade any consideration of the impacts of a maritime accident.
We can be thankful that we have a premier willing to seek answers to these fundamental questions, and who refuses to be drawn into a trade war.
Rachel Notley argues that what’s good for Alberta — jobs and oil revenue — is good for the nation, and Prime Minister Trudeau believes his plans for a carbon tax are in the national interest.
Both are likely correct, but what about a Pacific coast that is not irreparably fouled, endangered species that are protected, indigenous rights, prosperous West Coast communities and viable tourism and fishing industries?
Ultimately, climate scientists warn that 80 per cent of the world’s known hydrocarbon reserves — including virtually all of the tar sands — must be left in the ground if we are to have any hope of avoiding runaway global warming.
Might not the preservation of a habitable planet also be considered “in the national interest”?
Mike Ward
Duncan