Dear editor,
Re: last month’s recommendation of federal approval for Northern Gateway pipeline.
Building a pipeline provides temporary employment, but an alternative exists that offers fewer environmental risks, fewer carbon emissions, and more long-term work for residents of B.C.
If the proposed $6.5 billion expenditure were invested in public transit, building retrofits, and renewable energy, between three and 34 times more jobs would be generated.
In addition, more supertankers would have a negative impact on commercial fishing and eco-tourism in the Kitimat region. And if a spill occurs, thousands of jobs along the entire coast will be in jeopardy. Since there is a much better option, why take the risk of toxic spills on our land and water?
Larry Kazdan
Vancouver