For what it's worth, the BC Govt. was accepting public input to its
until March 1st -- results can be read on the publicly accessible list of comments, at this link:
* NB: Govt. (unreasonably) specified that comments be limited to "Marine Shipping Category ONLY" -- just to throw everyone off & deter inevitable opposition, no doubt.. i.e. Exactly what you'd expect from irresponsible leaders that prefers to trick its public into agreeing to BILLION$ of OUR TAXES going to an uneconomical (Govt.-sponsored) project in a dying industry, one that's already been OPPOSED by the MAJORITY of BCers from the start, due to predictions it's bound to cause unmitigatable harms to our important biodiversity, natural ecosystems, salmon & marine wildlife.. even WITHOUT a disastrous spill, which itself is deemed "highly LIKELY" by the most legit & reputable scientific sources.
Following is my contribution to this 'Reconsideration' of Trans Mountain's Pipeline Expansion (TMX), for added reference points..
(BELOW THAT are copied-&-pasted public comments posted by a range of concerned contributors -- the majority of which, you may note, are overwhelmingly AGAINST building TMX -- for a wide range of strong reasons.. (Thank you to ALL who took time to add their own!
Starting with mine:
Sarah C. (Feb. 16, 2021)
The NEB's dismissal of valid fears related to TMX's significantly increased shipping volumes - confirmed in Raincoast Foundation's painstakingly detailed initial (allowed) report - is unreasonable, considering TMX's early environmental assessment(s) projected significant (uncontested) increases in all marine-based activities -- activities which are already proven to be harmful to all BC's coastal marine wildlife species?!!
Equally worrisome reading the Draft 'Reconsideration' (hope I got that right!) is HOW the NEB can dismiss concerns raised regarding GHG emissions from Project-related marine shipping, based solely on Trans Mountain's own "..air quality assessment that predicted GHG emissions from Project-related marine shipping would be reduced as a result of new energy efficiency standards adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), of which Canada is a member state, and the proposed federal Clean Fuel Standard regulations".
For TMX's own statement (which is what the NEB has used as its reasoning) to be valid, first you must ask, have ANY Cdn/BC actual recorded GHG levels been commensurate -- or even marginally aligned -- with any of the goals/ regulations/ standards set, by anyone (incl. Govt?)? No. Canada's actual GHG emissions have risen exponentially - & are expected to keep rising in spite of regulated standards if we don't drastically reduce our actual GHG output (& not just set more heightened 'goals' with fewer industry sectors' measures included!) As such, Canada's regs/ standards are nothing more than optimistic fabrications at this point. So TMX's predictions thereof -- which the NEB uses here as its own -- are not accurate or real or true by any measure, so cannot be taken as a good reason to exclude rising GHGs as a VALID CONDITION in this Reconsideration..
Equally valid are concerns expressed by Squamish Nation and the City of Vancouver re. TMX-related rise in "GHG emissions from increased vessel traffic, and upstream extraction activities and downstream combustion of extracted product leading to an increase in GHG emissions and exacerbating sea level rise". So why does the NEB negate their input based on, in NEB's own words, "Trans Mountain's own view that since Project operations (excluding marine shipping) were not the subject of the NEB Reconsideration process, any amendments (thereto) 'are outside the scope of the provincial reconsideration process'"? This process cannot possibly contain the required credentials/ scope/ standards to be considered valid if the NEB takes all its reasoning directly from Trans Mountain's own arguments & ADMITS this Reconsideration is too limited to be complete/ valid!!?
We're talking about the future extinction of our iconic native biodiversity - species as endemic as the Resident Orca whale, which is already being catastrophically harmed by EXISTING marine activities/ shipping in BC's coastal waters!!? If THESE cataclysmic events are not included in this 'Reconsideration' due to arbitrary/ self-set limitations, where is proper accountability/ assessment/ reconsideration for the extreme harms TMX has already been proven to exacerbate in THOSE --ie. in ALL -- categories related to TMX??
Even more confusing, is the question of HOW it can possibly be deemed "unlikely" the very real possibility (according to already-uncontested analyses of TMX projections) of a spill by TMX in BC waters, when ordinary boats/ferries are known to have grounded & sunk & killed people as a result of sailing in these same waters WITHOUT the added risk of TMX's dangerous size & load(s)? WITH them, it is extremely relevant & significant that there is NO KNOWN CLEANUP/ PRODUCT/ REMEDIAL CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO PROPERLY MITIGATE A SPILL OF THE TYPE OF MATERIAL TMX WILL BE SENDING FROM THE POLLUTING TARSANDS TO OUR COAST & THEN SHIPPING FROM (necessarily) ENLARGED PORTS THRU OUR SEAS TO CHINA, where (if arrived) it will be used in various polluting & toxic processes that will only ADD TO rising global GHG counts -- levels deemed disastrous by most measures (except, naturally, TMX's own team of - biased - assessors in their own product's Reconsideration!!??)
It's all too clear at this point on which side of this "Hearing" our own Govt sits, given the source cited (TMX) as basis for its hastily-arrived - NOT PROPERLY CONSULTED! - conclusions made in this oddly-named "Reconsideration" with parameters so narrow that most heartfelt (highly-wrought, by its very nature of fast-tracking functional extinction!!?) public input Govt will doubtless exclude as "irrelevant" to this specific sub-topic of a sub-category of a MEGA-PROJECT most of us --taxpaying public-- rejected outright from the start!
Given resultant previous Govt approvals of TMX despite the detailed dangers thereof outlined with careful scrutiny by our best related (REAL!) experts/ scientists, we've no reason to expect a positive outcome to THIS latest process ( = pretending to care what indigenous/ public responses say, while using them: A. to appease the panicked public re. extreme spending on exiting fossil-fuel subsidies that render TMX -- NOT court-forced conditions -- IRRELEVANT & OBSOLETE... & B. to assess how to tailor their Final Approval so the lazy LCD majority will accept TMX with its "new" conditions..)
In reality, the educated & knowledgeable minority know that construction of TMX will always be the clincher, ie. the fossilized & obsolete old pipeline that set climate change locked into its inevitable outcome that NOBODY will ultimately witness in the end.. (So TMX will have achieved its widely-predicted genocidal result without accusation of its unmitigatable -wd?- catastrophic effects by a living soul!) Or so they apparently hope, against all legit info/ records/ stats etc..
TMX's approval, regardless of conditions/limitations set, will guarantee the start of the end -- the darkest day in Canadians' if not humanity's entire history: a mega-project with the highest price imaginable, that of destruction of all life on Earth! (Well done, Govt & TMX - your children must be so proud of your devious designs to put our taxes into thwarting all future hope!)
With links to the following documents:
attach_fileBCWF-Response-to-Together-For-Wildlife-Document.pdf
attach_file2018-complicity-in-destruction.pdf
attach_file2019-climatechange-accountability-report-web (1).pdf
attach_fileBanking_on_Climate_Change__2020_vF.pdf
POSTED COMMENTS BY OTHER CONTRIBUTORS:
Anonymous
February 17, 2021
The consultation does not include informed prior consent from the Coast Salish People, this is in direct contradiction to UNDRIP which the Province of British Columbia is a signatory.
Anonymous
February 17, 2021
Please heed the non-consenting Indigenous communities’ objections. Please respect those who are directly impacted by this project. Please heed climate science. Please heed the warnings from studies that environmentalists are publishing about the irreversible impact on endangered species that can’t be rejuvenated (all for the sake of $$) and the ecological devastation that will follow a spill. Which can and DO happen. On land and at sea. Our land, our kids’ futures, species at risk and our environment matter to us even if they don’t matter to you. This is why we object and will continue to do so. This pipeline project is unconscionable. Imagine the difference that money could make if invested in green technology to protect the planet (and inhabitants)? Which will still be around (in altered form) long after the luxuries you pursue from the profits that make their way to your bank accounts have been realized.
Anonymous
February 17, 2021
The Draft Provincial Reconsideration Report fails to place strong conditions on Trans Mountain pipeline project. I do not see clear, measurable and enforceable rules set out in this report for many areas of concern and thus it does not do nearly enough to protect humans and other living beings residing on the coast against a potential spill. Below are some reasons I believe this to be true based on my reading of the report its outcomes for the BC provincial government: - BC is relying too heavily on the federal government for protective measures against the risks of the TMX project. The risk of a spill on this coast is far too serious to leave out the various pathways for action they will take to prevent a spill now. BC should set clear, measurable, and enforceable standards and rules now about what BC can and will do to regulate TMX to prevent a spill. - This report dismisses the concerns of affected First Nations groups, despite affected First Nations not giving free, prior and informed consent to this project. This is despite BC passing UNDRIP and committing to align all government policies with the principles set out in UNDRIP. The B.C. Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act provides for the use of frameworks for joint decision-making yet there is no effort to utilize them in this report, essentially dismissing BC's own efforts for reconciliation as well as ignoring First Nations calls for free, prior, informed consent and accountability for Trans Mountain Expansion project that is being pushed through their unceded territories by the federal government. If BC truly cares about reconciliation it will stand up for these groups by leveraging UNDRIP to include First Nations groups in the decision making around this project and its effects. - There is thus a huge gap in addressing spill preparedness, essentially passing the buck to the federal government on this issue. We all have a responsibility to protect the coast on which we reside but as shorelines are a provincially managed ecosystem, BC should not be giving away its powers to the federal government to protect coastal ecosystems. I see no clarity about equipment, labour sourcing, training, how much oil will be cleaned up. If a spill occurs, which scientific evidence points to as very likely should this project go through, there will be irreparable harm to this coast and every being residing here. It is inexcusable not to use every power available to BC to plan for a spill now without relying heavily on the federal government. The health of the environment is the responsibility of all people, especially those in positions of power. - BC EAO should ensure that Trans Mountain issue a report on potential health impacts of a spill that include mental and social determinants of health and make certain that this report from Trans Mountain is turned into clear rules for preventative action, as well as ensure that the costs for preventative action are not paid for by the public. - There must be meaningful plans/framework put in place for post-spill remediation and recovery that respects Indigenous rights and titleholders, and that sets clear rules for post-spill damage and loss that address ecological, economic and social damages. Given the immense risk of this project I would hope to see the government not relying on a polluter pays principle, but in any case there must not be any room for polluters to evade their responsibilities in the event of a spill and there must be clear criteria and timelines for recovery put into place. - BC and BC EAO must make an effort to engage the public in a meaningful and accessible way. The 85 page report and its technical, scientific wording is a huge barrier to public participation and accountability. If the BC government truly cares about being accountable to the people of this province they must create a plain language report summary and plain language documentation on oil spill plans that is translated into many languages and that is make widely available as this is an issue that affects us all. The BC Government must not hide behind technical jargon and instead take on the burden of accountability for letting this risky, climate-change inducing pipeline project to be built on this coast.
Anonymous
February 17, 2021
Why is TMX allowed to reroute the pipeline through the Brunette River and destroy over 1300 trees in our urban forest? Why can’t we stop this madness?
Anonymous
February 16, 2021
Oh please said the trees, the squirrels, the salmon, the robins and crows, please save me. As you move from fossil fuel to green energy you know you won’t need this pipeline. Two legged have take so much. Leave this land as she is, you are smart two legged people think outside your box.
L Nicks, New Westminster, BC
February 16, 2021
Installing a new pipeline makes no sense either environmentally or financially. The environmental costs are obvious: destruction and contamination of water, land, flora and fauna; not to mention the danger to nearby residents or visitors to the area, specifically children, the elderly, and those with compromised immune systems or other chronic health issues. I notice that the proposed pipeline is not slated for areas like West Vancouver or Point Grey. It's only middle-class or poor neighborhoods that are being inflicted with this potential for widespread and long-term contamination. Don't tell me about precautions or X number of days without a spill. A spill will happen and it will be an environmental calamity. There have been too many spills on land and in the sea around the world as well as here in Canada for any guarantees to the contrary to make me feel reassured. In fact, one spill is too many. Financially, the pipeline makes no sense because we all know the oil and gas industry is dying. Green energy sources are becoming more and more successful in providing energy and jobs. Norway has divested itself of all oil and gas sources, its main source of income for decades. But for the sake of their own environment and the world's, Norway made a forward looking choice. Canada should do the same. Let's make the right choice and move towards a future of green energy.
Peter L, New Westminster, BC,
February 16, 2021
The Trans Mountain tar sands pipeline is opposed by millions of people, many Indigenous nations living along the pipeline route, and dozens of municipalities - including the cities of Vancouver and Burnaby. Tens of thousands have demonstrated against the Trans Mountain pipeline, year after year. If that wasn’t enough, now the Canadian government’s own oil regulator did the math and confirmed that the Trans Mountain pipeline is not only inconsistent with Canada’s climate commitments, but actually completely unnecessary. The United Nations has also called for governments around the world to slash fossil fuel production by 6% per year to have any hope of keeping their Paris climate commitments. That means no 👏 new 👏 pipeline👏 projects. With the Keystone XL pipeline now dead, the spotlight has immediately shifted to Trans Mountain. There’s still time to cancel this pipeline, and redirect the $10 billion still unspent to clean water and energy instead.
Anonymous
February 16, 2021
We are living in the decline of fossil fuels. World wide, countries are trying to reduce the use of fossil fuels because the risk to the world, including the oceans, is indisputable. Canada has the opportunity to be a leader in this, not a follower. Marine life, in particular, is threatened by the inevitable oil spill, and this is not properly addressed. Orcas and other ocean mammals need protection and if we don't provide it, nobody will. I do not want to see this pipeline built. Alberta's oil is heavy and dirty, and it's time to support the people of that province to change to a green economy. It's time to stop supporting a dying industry. This takes courage. For once, let's put life over profit.
Anonymous
February 15, 2021
This pipeline is in violation of First Nations treaties and the unceded territory’s. It is also in violation of UNDRIP. History has been repeated by this government by removing First Nations people from their land and the same treatment has occurred when they were first put on reserves. This is cultural genocide. This Transcanada pipeline has already shown previously that it can and WILL leak. How is it that you can put this pristine eco system at risk for a brief profit and temporary jobs. We moved here to BC because we thought that you were forward thinking ahead of the rest of Canada. Allowing this pipeline does not say that and it shows that profits are more important than the environment or people. This government has allowed the destruction of old growth forests to the point that it barely exists. We MUST protect the environment at ALL COSTS for all of nature, your children and you children’s children. No amount of reforming or reconsiderations is acceptable. I thought governments represented the people and not corporations ?! Once a spill occurs it will not matter what new technology is created the harmful effects will be there forever. Who will be responsible for the homes destroyed? Will the pipeline companies pay full restitution? The past has shown that they will not. Alberta already has a huge problem with abandon drills sites because the oil companies are doing nothing and will do nothing These younger people are our future don’t destroy the eco system, leave them with the things we have been fortunate enough to enjoy in our lifetime. Will everyone in the NEB take legal responsibility when (not if) the pipeline leaks destroy habitats, waters and ocean life for good ? If now who will be held responsible? https://thenarwhal.ca/topics/trans-mountain-pipeline/ https://thenarwhal.ca/canada-needs-more-pipelines-myth-busted/ https://thenarwhal.ca/opinion-keystone-xl-cancellation-canada-oil/ https://thenarwhal.ca/un-rebukes-canada-industrial-projects/ https://thenarwhal.ca/the-story-of-albertas-100-billion-well-liability-problem-how-did-we-get-here/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/10/31/keystone-pipeline-leaks-gallons-oil-second-big-spill-two-years/ https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/EE-Safety-Briefing.pdf https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents
Anonymous
February 3, 2021
It’s not too late to save our children and grandchildren’s future. By moving forward with this, you are robbing them of a chance to see whales and other endangered marine life. We can’t keep taking from the earth. Do the right thing and cancel TMX.
Anonymous
February 2, 2021
Unfortunately there is no way to attach sufficient requirements to this proposal. The risks to the marine environment are too high and the inability of the assessment to impose legally binding requirements on the tankers creates even more risk. While I understand that some people feel we should be using our natural resources until we've transitioned to renewable energy, I worry that the money being spent by our government to buy pipelines and subsidize the fossil fuel industry is a very poor investment. This money could have a much greater impact, and employ way more people, if it was invested in a green transition. Even our own government budget office understands that this pipeline does not make economic sense for our country. I believe the impacts to our coast line (another valuable resource) when a spill occurs are too great of a loss both economically and more importantly ecologically. We are already experiencing the impacts of climate change in Canada and the financial benefits this project will bring (if any) and minuscule compared to the costs of addressing climate disasters, not to mention the suffering we will all face as our world change before us. Furthermore, I believe our country has a long way to go to deliver on our responsibility of reconciliation with First Nations and this project undermines any of those efforts. I'm embarrassed that our country owns a pipeline at a time when so many countries around the world are taking steps to be leaders in addressing climate change. Saying that we all use and need oil is ludicrous. If more money was invested in renewables than in fossil fuel subsidies than we would have more choices available to us to stop using oil. Right now the government is supporting a monopoly on our energy and we have very little say. Please, I ask that those in charge of this process exercise whatever power they have to put an end to this short-sighted and dangerous project.
Anonymous
February 2, 2021
This does not make sense...we need to shift our thinking more towards climate action and not what we need as human! That thinking needs to stop we need to get renewable energy which is very possible and Affordable. We all know that’s the truth. Stop all the talking and ACT in order to save our planet and the future. Not spending more money for oil company’s to gain from. Our wild life animals are already paying the price. If anything has taught from COVID 19 is that we can as human live in harmony and live simple. Look at how many COVID dogs there are...we need animals. They don’t need us. They pay the price right away and ultimately we will too.
Anonymous
February 2, 2021
Please go forward with environmental, and creative solutions to energy creation that does not harm the planet or the sacred creatures that exist within it. TMX has no future that is sustainable for long term solutions. There are better options. Fossil fuels are on the way out. Just like coal. Surely this pandemic has shown the ingenuity of humanity. There are so many solutions. And each of us hold the key.
Anonymous
February 2, 2021
Cancel it.
Anonymous
February 2, 2021
A huge mistake if indeed it goes ahead. With our beautiful narrow Burrard Inlet already loading Oil from the existing pipeline, Sulphur and Potash a bit west we are desecrating the legacy for our future. Oil is on the way out. Lets find a better spot for its transfer to refineries in the USA and Asian countries. So, cancel or reroute it.
Mohamad Awada , Burnaby Mountain
February 2, 2021
I’m completely against of the TMX pipeline, because it’s going to impact our environment and our Burrard Inlet. And also it’s bad for BC, I fear the increased tanker traffic in Burrard Inlet will have the permanent, negative consequences to the local marine flora and marine wildlife. Every time I hear of orca spotting in the Inlet, I get sooo frustrated with the fact knowing these waters will be made inhospitable to them as the sound from ships increase and their food sources are disrupted. The increased tanker traffic will add carbon emissions to our community by continuously spewing emissions during the time in transit. The pipeline has little benefit to British Columbians, why should we even allow such a thing to go through our backyards. This is an decadent energy source the world is actively trying to move away from. For us in in BC, it’s all cost and no benefits, We as British Colombians we don’t want the pipeline twinning will require significant disruption to fragile ecosystems already recovered from the existing pipeline. Why build another one? If Alberta wants the profit, let them take the risk. By allowing the pipeline, we are enabling poor environmental practices and dependency on foreign companies to prop up an economy dependent on a failing commodity. No to TMX No to TMX.
attach_file762DF7B5-D06C-4650-B310-39B5ADDBBD4A.jpeg
Anonymous
February 2, 2021
You Can cancel TMX. You will destroy the coastline if you do not. You are living in a fantasy upsidedown world of you think otherwise.
Anonymous
February 3, 2021
I do NOT support this pipeline. We want fewer ships in our waters, not more. Direct funds away from this project, into sources of clean energy.
Anonymous
February 3, 2021
I am firmly opposed to the pipeline and will consider civil disobedience to obstruct it. We need to transition to a green economy as fast as possible. The money we are wasting on Site C should be spent on a renewable energy economy. Drastic action is called for. Absolutely NO more pipelines!
Anonymous
February 3, 2021
This is a terrible new pipeline given that we need to start reducing oil consumption. And Bitumen is toxic, spills would create huge environmental damage. So anything that can be done to make it safer is great but best option is that somehow it gets stopped.
Anonymous
February 3, 2021
I am firmly opposed to the pipeline and will consider civil disobedience to obstruct it. We need to transition to a green economy as fast as possible. Drastic action is called for. Not more pipelines!
Anonymous
February 4, 2021
Oil is dead, dying and killing our planet whether you're talking GHG emissions, plastics in our oceans or poisons in our air and tailing ponds. The only reason it's not gone from our lives is due to lobbyist, subsidies and cronyism. We need to invest in a green recovery before it's truly too late. Which side of history do you want to be on?
Anonymous
February 3, 2021
The money being funneled into pipeline expansions and increasing the production of fossil fuels in Canada should be spent on renewable energy like solar, geothermal, battery technology , and others. Canada needs to be a leader in climate change policy, not following our neighbors to the south. Canadian jobs can be created to create energy for Canadians, not to ship oil and gas to foreign countries. Shipping these products in sensitive marine environments can and will have dire consequences on the ecosystems.
Anonymous
February 3, 2021
Going ahead with the project is madness. They should cut their losses. There is no future in oil. The damage that it WILL cause will be catastrophic and irreparable. Put our tax money into producing hemp made plastics not oil made plastics. Once the damage is done... it’s over. No clean water or food = sick humans = massive cost to healthcare system = massive cost to government. People often complain about job losses due to turning our back on oil, but if you turn towards better environmental options, it creates jobs. Growing pains hurt, but you have to grow because there is no choice and you come out the other end stronger. We will only be weaker if we encourage the oil industry.
Kevin D Lessor (Engineer), Powell River B.C.
February 4, 2021
I think public and private stakeholders should get together on a project that allows the TMX to come to Burnaby and build one or two fractionators and refine our own bunker c.In doing this you can sell all the byproducts .Which will bring other business to process by value added to the byproducts of the process.The fuel we produce will be sold locally.By consuming what we process there will be little to no tanker traffic on the inside straight.
Anonymous
February 4, 2021
STOP THIS PROJECT NOW. Yes that will be expensive. FAR MORE EXPENSIVE, in many ways, , would be the damage done to ecosystems, wildlife, water, tourism, and human health. Yes the oil companies will scream. Let them scream. The day of their dominance has to cease. The pro-oil, pro-carbon, pro-fossil days are OVER OVER OVER. Yes it will be expensive to compensate, to change, to alter old habits. SPEND THE MONEY! ITS MY MONEY YOU”RE SPENDING AND THAT IS FINE BY ME. Don’t give in to the oil barons.
Anonymous
February 4, 2021
I am a resident of Vancouver, a student of the environment at UBC, and I stand against the TMX expansion. It would be an awful blow to all aspects of the environment and work against BC's sustainability mission.
Anonymous
February 4, 2021
Do not build this pipeline.
Anonymous
February 4, 2021
It should not be done. The damage it will cause will be detrimental to our lands and sea life.
Eric Pahal, Vancouver
February 4, 2021
Ignorance is bliss? The slightest bit of real research indicates that our only chance of preventing climate change is halting fossil fuel projects identical to this.
Adrian Hunt, Kelowna, BC
February 4, 2021
No pipeline, please!! Gas is passe. The era of diesel is over. Capitalism does not help most people. You are Immoral to pushing forward such a violent act upon the earth and its inhabitants.
Anonymous
February 5, 2021
I understand that the province does not have the ability to cancel the pipeline extension, but wish to express my position that it should NOT be extended. The oil and gas business is not what we as a nation should be investing in. If we are to make any kind of impact on lessening our devastation of the environment, we need to start investing NOW in renewable resources. I didn't see anything specific in the proposed amendments that would require the TMX companies to provide up-front funds that would go towards remediating any kind of pipeline spill. They should be required to PAY UP-FRONT for what is sure to happen at some point. It's not a matter of 'if', but a matter of 'when'. The same can be said for the tankers that will take away the bitumen. We KNOW that at some point there will be a spill. Our waters, our wildlife, and the citizens that live on the coast will all pay for that. The companies making the profits from these projects should be MADE to pay into a fund to remediate the effects of these disasters to come. They should pay up-front, because we all know that when things go wrong they will just declare bankruptcy and escape from their responsibilities.
Anonymous
February 5, 2021
We do not need a pipeline or tankers in British Columbia’s lands or waters. Both would cause major destruction and devastation to our environment, habitat of wildlife, mammals and plant species. Canada should be forward thinking and investing in clean energy projects. Study Europe and instead of depleting our natural resources, protect them.
Anonymous
February 5, 2021
This pipeline should not be built. The increase in oil tanker traffic poses a significant risk to our marine and terrestrial environments as well as disrupts the visual beauty of the areas that they would be harboured. Additionally, projects that are based on non-renewable resources such as this are antiquated and need to be replaced by ones that are based on renewable sources of energy. Such drastic shifts are required if we, as a country, are truly serious about combating climate change.
Anonymous
February 5, 2021
All governments need to respect Indigenous people and their land. We don't need pipelines, we need solar/wind, etc... Yes natural gas is supposedly green but look at the damage pulling it out of the earth! Shame on all you nasties pushing pipelines.
Janette Sperber, Victoria BC
February 5, 2021
Please reject and prohibit any aspects of pipeline expansion that threaten endangered species or degrade critical habitats.
Anonymous
February 6, 2021
We need to follow the scientific evidence and not increase our fossil fuel infrastructure. I am not in favour of this or any fossil fuel pipeline.
Deborah Jackson, Vancouver
February 6, 2021
Given the total disregard for indigenous lands, as well as the lack of need for further extraction or transportation of fossil fuels, the pipeline should NOT even be built. The thought that the BC Government would even consider compromising our fragile and unique marine life system to accommodate said pipeline is UNACCEPTABLE.
Anonymous
February 6, 2021
Stop building and expanding this pipeline. Stop wasting our tax dollars supporting this. Stop letting Alberta and the Federal government put our local environment, indigenous communities and people at risk. Oil and gas is done, move on to investing in sustainable energy sources instead. If you want to create more jobs in the province, start investing in companies that support the protection of our coast and rivers.
Jess, Burnaby
February 7, 2021
As a city that prides its self on its natural beauty and brings in millions of dollars in ecotourism yearly, is there really an argument for more tanker traffic in the harbour? Never mind the fact that we’ve reached peak oil and that the extraction and processing of tar sands oil is hardly even economically viable at this point, let alone 20 years from now. Let the environment be. I’d be so pleased to see investment in a diverse range of renewable resources. I stand firmly against trans mountain pipeline expansion project.
Anonymous
February 7, 2021
First and most importantly, this project does not have consent from Tsleil-Waututh, Squamish, and Musqueam peoples, whose unceded ancestral land this project is proposed (and imposed) upon. These nations have said “no” to the project and continuing without consent is another offence towards Indigenous peoples, on top of a history of abuse and oppression. The project itself is not a benefit of BC’s interests, nor Canada’s long-term prosperity. This is a lossy, wasteful development that should be stopped. The risk of harm to the environment, waterways, marshlands, wildlife, and humans far outweighs the short-term economic benefit.
There is nothing about this project that protects the land that is being badly affected as the pipeline moves through this Province. This heavy bitumen is the last thing to move over water. In the protection of the whales and sealife in our area: no oil! In light of our coming years of moving away from this disastrous product this is just foolish. You cannot claim to protect our environment by pursuing this oil meets water. Lastly, what about the tankers that you have no control over - noise pollution, water pollution. The idea of continuing this way of moving thick oil or any oil over water is beyond ridiculous.
Anonymous
February 7, 2021
This project was untenable at its inception as the world looked at ways to combat climate change. Now with the Biden government in place and the situation even more dire for climate change, it is absolutely lunacy to build this pipeline. Time to invest in green jobs instead of holding on to the oil sands, time to develop sustainable practises instead of holding on to antiquated technology. Stop this insanity and move to the future.
Anonymous
February 7, 2021
As a environmental toxicology researcher at Simon Fraser University, I have seen the data on the state of our environment as of now. There is NO way the Salish seas can handle more oil tanker traffic. The J pod orcas are holding on by a thread!! They were just starting to regain strenght but only due to a decrease in tanker traffic. Our oceans and air is already polluted. Our environment cannot tolerate anymore pollution! This pipeline will seriously endanger the lives and health of people and the environment! Why are we still investing in oil!??? Could we not have used the 4.9 billion invested in this pipeline to find alternative and sustainable sources of energy?? That could have created thousands of jobs too. Jobs that would also be sustainable into the future unlike the oil industry. Make the changes to the NEB report but be honest, it's an excuse for the BC government to say they tried to do something. We all know what these reports just cost money and are riddled with bureaucratic bullsh*t. I will fight against the TMX pipeline with every fiber of my being and SO SHOULD THE BC GOVERNMENT! You can do better than amending a report, come on.
Simon W Tallboy, DUNCAN
February 7, 2021
I am very much against this project and I am very disappointed the Federal Government approved it. The oil industry is a sunset industry, and spending money on it is a lost opportunity to move forwards on solutions to the crisis we are facing. The fact that industry didn't want to spend the money to finish it should be a warning sign. The oil industry is aware that the worldwide demand is likely to be declining, they call it "Demand Destruction". The fact that the largest players in the industry like Shell now refer to themselves as Energy companies rather than Oil companies should also have given the Government some pause. They people running these companies aren't stupid, and the fact they seem to have a clearer picture of the future than our Government is really concerning. I feel the risk to the environment is too great, especially the marine environment in my immediate area. It seems to me the economic impact of a spill in the Salish Sea would greatly out weigh the benefits of the pipeline. The life of the pipeline is unlikely to be long enough to make the investment worth while. This money could have been spend on greener tech, grants to improve efficiencies to peoples homes, solar, heat pumps etc to lower energy usage. I also feel that increasing shipping is a problem not only for the local environment, but also the larger environment as the shipping and airline industries burn a lot of fuel and seem to do very little to improve their carbon foot print. I'm afraid that we will have a spill and discover that the response is lacking and the damage overwhelming. I'm also disappointed the lip service given to reconciliation in the face of objections from many of the local indigenous people on the coast. I also feel the Government is marketing the idea that the revenue from the pipeline will fund green projects. I feel that they should have invested in the green projects and left the pipeline to the industry. I do not believe this pipeline will lead to lasting employment. The industry is investing heavily in automation, so I do not see new jobs there. And their response to leaks from existing pipelines has been poor at best. I feel that the current American leadership is likely to do more for the Climate Crisis than our Government is, and that is disappointing. I think the resources they will spend on this Sunset industry would be better spent elsewhere, but that is unlikely to happen. simon Tallboy
