Remember those old outdated images of a black coal fired London? Well China is in the same sorry state these days, and BC is considering increasing that polluting energy source, with credit going to an appointed federal body.
The second of two huge coal transportation projects is now being considered by Port Metro Vancouver. The first would import the dirtiest fuel—coal—from the US through Tsawwassen to Texada Island, increasing marine traffic 20 times more than is current through the strait. The second, which would transport coal from the Fraser Surrey Docks on the Fraser River, has just undergone a very brief (weeks not months) environmental assessment. Although every municipal public body along the mainland route of this transport has rejected the project and its environmental impact assessment (EIA) at this time, the port authority seems dedicated to approve the project. The EIA’s first introductory statement shows its marketing, rather than responsible citizen strategy: “FSD’s existing business has decreased significantly since 2009 and management is looking for opportunities to serve new customers.”
The EIA was published and public comment was invited. The deadline has now passed, but here is my submission:
The EIA does not address many things:
a) it only covers the land areas, not the Salish Sea, the Sabine Channel, and all the people and other species that will be impacted by coal particulates and coal dust blowing and polluting the ocean and the sea-life there;
b) it does not assess the significant increase in marine traffic and its impact on safety for boaters, kayakers, et cetera in the Salish Sea;
c) it does not address the release of coal dust to shorelines along the route from Tsawwassen to Texada. This coal dust in the marine environment will kill forage fish and their eggs, which are already at risk, which feed salmon, whales, herons, eagles, and a host of other lifeforms that are barely able to cope now with existing human threats;
d) this EIA does not address the mitigations that are stated within. For example, there is no mitigation of polluting this important bird area, and North American migration route for sea lions, and multiple birds and fish that will be impacted by coal dust and particulates in the marine environment;
e) there is no mitigation for the increased carbon in the air and increased global threats from climate change;
f) it does not address the human health issues brought to FSD’s attention by the various health authorities.
The FSD EIA lacks the necessary certainty when it relies on 100 uses of the overly hopeful qualifier “expected” to describe desired outcomes of project impacts, such as: “The construction impacts from sedimentation and introduction of hazardous materials into local watercourses, including the Fraser River, are expected to be mitigated.” The document’s weakness is further exacerbated by 118 uses of the falsely used scientific phrase “predicted.” The document is so riddled with indefinite qualifiers describing the impacts of the project that all the conclusions of the document must be doubted.
It’s time to stop being blind to the impacts of our decisions. Do not increase the world’s dirtiest and most polluting energy source—coal—for the benefit of any person’s personal wealth. It is our children’s and other species’ very survival at stake now.
Sheila Harrington is a writer, teacher and conservationist who lives on Lasqueti Island.
