Dear Editor:
I'm writing in response to MP John Weston's letter of July 29, in which he simultaneously promotes the construction of an oil pipeline and the need to improve environmental health (Oil, Environment Can Be on Same Team, North Shore News).
Weston voted in favour of Harper's omnibus budget bill C-38. Not only did the bill make a farce of the democratic process, but it weakened our Fisheries Act and cut funding to important scientific research.
The notion that reallocating our money for oil tanker safety and pipeline inspections is somehow improving our environmental health is simply delusional.
I agree with Weston's comment that we need to stay as "super natural as we are today," but does he actually believe that building a pipeline across our province will attain this goal?
An oil pipeline would commit Canada to decades of pumping our fossil fuels around the world.
Aside from the oil spills, how much would this contribute to global greenhouse gas emissions? How much would this improve our "environmental health?"
It's hard to see how pursuing this will improve the environment or the economy. Are there not serious economic consequences associated with a changing climate?
We don't need politicians that promote environmentally disastrous projects; we need real, thoughtful, careful, forwardthinking leadership.
We need people who realize that a healthy environment is a prerequisite for any economic endeavour.
Mike Richardson North Vancouver
