The Editor,
Re: "Environmentalists can't refuse everything," In the House (Keith Baldrey), March 20.
Baldrey's column is a misguided attack on environmentalists and concerned citizens that often do not see themselves as "environmentalists."
Baldrey's article lacks objectivity and is akin to saying "columnists never get anything right."
A column is usually an opinion piece based on fact or a degree of insight or it is simply not an informed opinion and not worth the paper it is published on. Above all it must be coherent!
An environmentalist in Richmond can be a homemaker, a UBC administrative assistant or a retired engineer. They are opposed to giant tankers of jet fuel entering the Fraser River and a fuel pipeline running down their street.
Are they not just concerned citizens protecting their local community and the river that flows around them?
They are not opposed to everything, but are opposed to what VAFFC, Air Canada and Westjet are forcing down their throat in a non-democratic manner.
Further, these citizens have promoted a much better option to deliver jet fuel to YVR.
Their opposition has great coherence and common sense to it and is widely supported by the public and local city councils.
If Baldrey was correct and if environmentalists could oppose everything, why do we have just 20 per cent of the natural Fraser River estuary and wetlands remaining after 100 years of growth, jobs and prosperity?
Why does the Fraser River suffer from high water temperatures that will harm salmon survival?
Why is Port Metro Vancouver going to destroy much of Roberts Bank with continuous port expansion?
Why do we have increasing fossil fuel exports that will harm the Earth's atmosphere and our local communities?
Environmentalists have had input into many developments from the 1970s to now.
However, in that 40 years, why have we seen the greatest development of our fossil fuel resources, shipping, highway construction and urban growth in our history?
Why are citizens that are concerned about our future and our living natural world seen by Baldrey as an obstacle to growth, when governments have done their best to neuter environmental legislation and muzzle scientists, the civil service and the public?
Governments alone have caused polarization of the many development debates.
Baldrey feels opposition to controversial projects lacks coherence and recognition of the real losses to society.
Here, he is simply out of touch with reality, considering our vast economic development and prosperity to date.
Further, has he ever considered the history of our industrial society and what non-sustainable growth cost us? We are at a point on this planet of over developing our population base and our consumption of resources and we are now faced with holes in our ozone layer, loss of species of life that has out stripped past historic losses and catastrophic temperature increases and many other impacts that are not being addressed effectively.
When citizens yet oppose more natural gas fracking, another oil pipeline or another coal export port are they not more coherently addressing the issues facing the planet and future mankind than our governments that live in denial of any associated negative impacts?
Certainly, our B.C. and Ottawa politicians and many industries are undermining the very basis that will allow our communities and the economy to exist over the next 50 to 100 years.
Otto E. Langer Richmond
