Dear Sir:
I attended the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline educational forum on Feb.1 at REM Lee Theatre to hear the discussion.
The venue and the meeting organization were fine but as usual there was the decision to end the public event at the end of the second hour.
That short time allowed only one hour for the public to ask questions, leaving many to be left unanswered. The purpose of the meeting was to provide as many points of view as possible to be heard. Adding one hour would have expanded the dialogue.
At the meeting I passed on a written question to do with climate change for panel member Greg Brown.
Unfortunately he did not understand the intent of the question because a short preamble I wrote was not read out before the question was asked.
Sadly climate change continues to be ignored by most people, either on purpose, because of apathy or simply from unawareness.
Climate change must be up front in the pipeline discussion and decision making process.
If our country agrees to sell oil to Asia the global carbon out put will increase and it will contribute to the acceleration of climate change that is already causing enormous and unheard of weather events across Canada and the world.
The National Energy Board and the Joint Review Panel (JRP) who are tasked with making a decision on whether the Enbridge pipeline should be built are hamstrung by a very restrictive Terms of Reference which can not examine the relationship between the export of oil and climate change. The JRP process is touted by Enbridge, Municipal councilors, mayors, business people and pipeline supporters as the means for answering all of the questions associated with the environmental impact from the pipeline, oil terminal and shipping. They say wait until the JRP has concluded its review before deciding if you are for or against the pipeline.
Another crucial element that the JRP can not review or comment on is the Alberta Tar Sands production and its impact upon Aboriginal people living downstream from the production facilities and tailings ponds. These people are experiencing some of the highest rates of cancers in Canada that will only get worse with an increase in oil production. The critical point is that the Tar Sands production will have to substantially increase its oil or bitumen output to supply the Enbridge pipeline demand.
Two absolutely critical questions have to be answered before this Enbridge pipeline debate goes any further. Does the Enbridge pipeline proposal trump the climate change implications that are real and serious? With that question in mind agriculture and other human activities are already at serious risk because climate warming and unpredictable changing global weather events are confounding the ability of all nations to deal with these uncertainties.
Should human health be marginalized to a secondary consideration in the haste to approve a new oil pipeline? Need I say more!
What do you think?
Jim Culp