Editor:
I am extremely worried about any increase in tanker traffic off our coast.
Among many, there are two issues of a dire nature. The first is the insurance industry has said clearly no oil company carries enough insurance to cover the cost of a spill. The other is oil tankers are not the responsibility of oil companies, and they have said that clearly.
Their responsibility ends when the tanker leaves harbour. And those tankers deliberately fly the flags of countries like Liberia, they are one-tanker companies and do not have any resources to pay for spills.
The federal government gives assurances, but who can believe it, when a real life disaster occurs, it is arguing at length about who should pay for the oil cleanup at Lac Megantic?
Frankly that does not inspire confidence at all.
More responsible countries, like Germany, are promoting green technology to a large degree. This has not hurt its economy, as can be seen in the way that it has the most successful economy in Europe and is bailing out other European countries who have been having financial difficulties.
I have visited my daughter, son-in-law and little grandsons in Bella Coola, on the B.C. coast and seen the beauty of our west coast.
The livelihood of many of their neighbours depends on the sea, those in the fishing and tourism industries, to name two.
It only takes the failure of one cotter pin or one moment of inattention, and disaster happens. The storms off our coast are some of the worst anywhere, with 30-metre seas not uncommon.
Frankly, I will do anything in my power to stop any increase of tanker traffic off our coast. It will be a long time before technology can offer safe transit for oil, and until then it should stay in the ground. Or at least off the oceans.
I am just one voice, but sometimes one voice can work miracles, No amount of propaganda by Enbridge and others in the oil industry can change my mind.
Premier Clark's espousal of LNG is also irresponsible, it is China who will claim carbon offsets, not us. And, who is to say they will not continue using coal at the same rate with LNG a nice add-on?
The other thing I know is that the cost of producing LNG is going to be borne by the taxpayer, in terms of paying for the Site C dam, which is only being built to support LNG development.
I have yet to see a good, responsible analysis into the cost of the development of LNG, the fracking, the water pollution, the pipeline cost and so on, and how much the taxpayer is on the hook for.
Also, countries like China are developing their own LNG resources, so I can see that we could very well build a dam, build a pipeline, build processing facilities at Prince Rupert and Kitimat, only to find that our gas is not wanted. This seems to me to be a very likely scenario.
Please slow down, take a breath, and look at slow responsible growth that takes into consideration both the economy and the environment.
Sharry Schneider
Summerland