Opinion

LETTER: Coal port’s benefit overstated

Re: “Fraser coal port will create jobs,” Letters, Jan. 17, 2014.

“The project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental, socio-economic or health effects...”

I do not trust this study as it is vague and is also dependent on the implementation of controlled operations and practices. I would like to know exactly what kind of health effect is considered “significant” and what the odds are of it happening.  Would the environmental effect from an accident, similar to the coal spillage that recently happened in Burnaby, be considered as “significant”?  Or not?  A more in-depth, independent study must be done.

I also disagree with Mark Gordienko’s statement that the transportation of thermal coal is a critical part of our economy, since the coal being transported originates in the U.S..  The horrendous pollution from burning coal overseas does not stay there, it is detrimental to the entire planet, including us!  Would that be considered a “significant” effect?

Leslie Slack

Delta

We encourage an open exchange of ideas on this story's topic, but we ask you to follow our guidelines for respecting community standards. Personal attacks, inappropriate language, and off-topic comments may be removed, and comment privileges revoked, per our Terms of Use. Please see our FAQ if you have questions or concerns about using Facebook to comment.