Basically everything consumable in our society is tied to oil in some capacity. If the oil tap were actually turned off, or reduced to where it impacted the price of the products it produces, our society would collapse. IF there were a viable alternative, great but there really isn't. I.e. electric cars...cost more to make, use more resources to build, have to dispose of the toxic materials they run on and...where does the electricity come from to power these vehicles?...let's flood the northern rivers and destroy thousands of acres of habitat...sounds cleaner than a pipeline and most people will never see the devastation such a flooding causes.
I would rather see an alternate route that could take to oil to a terminal where loading tankers was safer. However, don't be fooled that changing the route would pacify the First Nations (War Hippy) crowd. As is clear from his comments, this is about power and money wrapped in an environmental flag.
One of the worst environmental abuses I saw involved First Nations maximizing profits off their "ancestral lands". Made possible because they are their own government as WH says and the environmental rules don't apply to them.
First off bud, the "war hippy crowd" is the majority.
Secondly, you don't read much of what I write do you? I am all for a pipeline PROVIDED it meets the basic requirements and is economically feasible. My big gripe right now is that they're lying to us, we are getting screwed monetarily and they just keep on telling people a large pack of crap and telling them it is good for them. $1.2 BILLION over 30 years. Fishing makes almost twice that along the coast per year. Running it through the Douglas Channel, 4th most dangerous waterway int he world would save them almost $200 million to not have to run it to Prince Rupert where BC taxpayers have spent over a billion int he last decade upgrading a port which is much much safer to ship through. Whyw ould I be ok with taking all of the risk for none fo the reward.
over 30 years
$1.2 Billion to BC
$36 Billion to Alberta
$40+ billion to the feds.
That seem like a good deal to you? $40 million a year....really?
My issues with the first nations part of this is that they've not contacted them at all. 8 years and have JUST started to meet with them in the last 14 months. The 209 recommendations list, the first nations councils have not even seen this list. There are rules to follow and they are not following them. That is my issue. You said it yourself, horrible things have been done to the first nations of this country int he past, ramming this through without their consent is just another wrong.
One of the worst environmental abuses I saw was a band in Alberta that had signed off to let their land be used, they got rich. A band across the river didn't sign off. They got crap. Nothing but pollution because the other band was upstream and when they tried to reneg on the contract they lost in court and had to watch as this other band basically got pushed out of their ancestral lands because the water was poison, the animals wouldn't come and there was nowhere else to go.
Why i am arguing you, I don't know. I have dealt with your type my whole life. Just because First Nations people have a different set of laws because this is by all records our land. You find fault with everything, we want permission asked. Oh theres not enough $ for you. We want enough money to offset the loss of our culture and way of life. Oh you're money grubbing. we don't want this here, oh you're enviro nuts.
Nothing will make your mindset happy. Just understand simply. There are rules and regulations involved. If they are not 100% met and agreed on by the first nations groups along the proposed route this line does not get built period