I am having a difficult time understanding the environmentalists' argument against the proposed pipeline. It is generally accepted that a pipeline is the most efficient and safest method to move oil.
No pipeline does not mean less oil will be consumed. The likely result will be the oil will move in a less efficient and less safe method such as truck or rail. It is also likely that at least part of the oil will be moved by a different country. Will Venezuela move the oil safer than Canada? The other result is less employment in Canada which cascades into more homeless and a reduced standard of living.
Perhaps it is “the not in my backyard argument.” True there is a risk although very small that a spill on land or sea will occur. Canada will react quickly and effectively. Can this be said of the other country that will move this product instead of Canada?
We seem to have a number of safeguards in place and the federal government has committed funds for coastline protection should an ocean spill occur. Global warming is a world problem not a regional problem. I believe Canada is a good choice as steward of land and sea while moving oil in a safe and efficient method .
Wayne Richardson, St. Albert
