To the editor;
Re: Northern Gateway pipeline recommended for federal approval: www.cbc.ca/…/northern-gateway-pipeline-recommended-for-federal- approval-with-conditions-1.2470465
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 to 34 times more jobs would be generated. In addition, more super-tankers 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?
Go to: The Economic Costs and Benefits of the Proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline http://www.policyalternatives.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/BC%20Office/2012/03/CCPA-BC_Enbridge_Pipe_Dreams_2012_SUMMARY.pdf
Larry Kazdan,
Vancouver, B.C.
