Emotional arguments in pipeline debate

Reader says they are too emotional to be part of the debate

A good scientist is encouraging me to oppose the Enbridge pipeline based solely on “risk factor” of unknown probability, but 100 per cent certainty, that an event would occur that “could be catastrophic for the region impacted”.

That same statistic could be applied to the major ‘quake that is supposed to devastate our coast. I don’t see a mad rush to evacuate people from the Island or greater Vancouver in light of this pending catastrophic disaster.

In our province (B.C.), over the last 10 years, one spill is significant enough to be reported on Wikipedia — Burnaby Oil Spill, July 24, 2007 — with estimated 201 tonnes. I haven’t been there, but the impact does not appear to be enduring. Awful, but not catastrophic.

Without a doubt, one would point out that there is a “risk when we cross the road.” Most sensible people still cross the road, and occasionally, and regrettably, one doesn’t make it across. Sometimes it their fault and sometimes it is the fault of some vehicle and the event is devastating, alarming, regrettable, however life goes on. In our province (B.C.), over the last 10 years, an average of 62.5 pedestrians died in such events. A total of 625 people died in pedestrian-vehicular events in the last 10 years. That is catastrophic!

If emotional arguments count in this debate, I’m out. I’m far too emotional with respect to the real value of life.

Eli W. Fricker

North Saanich