I have chosen to support our provincial native thrust that hopes to prevent Enbridge from continuing with building pipeline through Aboriginal lands and B.C. lakes, rivers, and streams.
Media slants, in an effort to always supply â€œboth sides of a story,â€ are running and publishing opinions of those supporting this idea: that BCâ€™s native bands should realize how good for their bottom line it would be to allow the pipeline.
Possible destruction of B.C. native land for an opportunity to reap some type of short-term economic reward runs counter to native spirit which emphasizes the continuation of the people and the right of our children and our childrenâ€™s children to have clean land, fresh water, and breathable air.
There are now and will continue to be demonstrations, messages, and several court battles representing B.C. native bands that look to stop Enbridgeâ€™s ongoing pipeline construction altogether.
Citizens hoping for a â€œbeautiful B.C.â€ to pass on to new generations understand that unintended war, but war nevertheless is being waged against our earth, water, and sky under the guise of economic realities.
Consider the ongoing devastation due to an Enbridge oil leak more than two years ago in Kalamazoo, Michigan. That spill poisoned not only the river water, but was so dangerous that people were issued public health warnings to stay away from the water, and to restrict breathing fumes in the air.
Hereâ€™s a kicker: years earlier, Enbridge knew that that particular spot on the pipeline was susceptible to cracking, yet did nothing about it. The U.S. National Safety Board said Enbridge had a â€œculture of defiance.â€
Many family homes in the area had to be completely abandoned.
If you believe itâ€™s better to let Enbridge lay its pipe because â€œitâ€™s good for the economy,â€ the lines being laid right now were manufactured 38 years ago, and are the same type of pipeline that ruptured in Kalamazoo.
In American pipeline safety expert Richard Kuprewiczâ€™s opinion, the pipeline poses a â€œhigh risk of rupture,â€ adding to his comment with, â€œThat means a very high probability, much more than a 50/50 chance; probably within five years or sooner.â€
Added to this probability is the still-higher risk of moving â€œdilbitâ€ or tar-sands oil (bitumen).
If this concerns you, there may be something you can do to help protect our environment. Do not allow others to take verbal potshots at the very people who visibly are doing their best to support keeping our environment in the best possible shape for those who live in and love B.C. These people (most notably B.C. native people) are standing up for the environment and taking a chance on encountering governmental or societal resistance for daring to not fall into line with the truncated concerns of big business.
It is not too late to reclaim B.C. for people.
Eli Bryan Nelson, Langley