Pipeline Debate: North Vancouver Reader Slams Politicians' Blindness
Reader Criticizes One-Sided Pipeline Political Debate

A reader from North Vancouver is calling out Canadian politicians for what he describes as "wilful blindness" in the ongoing pipeline debate, arguing that focusing solely on benefits while ignoring potential environmental costs is a disservice to the electorate.

A Lesson from Grade 9 Science

In a letter to the editor referencing a recent editorial page featuring two views on pipeline issues, John Consiglio of North Vancouver drew a parallel to basic scientific principles. He recalled learning in Grade 9 that every action has an opposite reaction and that chemical reactions create byproducts.

He contends that this reality is well-illustrated in the piece by Bruce Reid, which discusses the unintended effects of a major spill, but is completely neglected in the "single-minded political" piece by John Rustad.

The High Cost of Wilful Blindness

Consiglio revealed his personal opposition to the pipeline is rooted in the consistent tendency of politicians across the spectrum to exclude the costs from the conversation. To inform his position, he researched the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in 1989.

He found that the cleanup and associated costs were in the vicinity of $10 billion, with much of the affected area still not returned to its pre-spill productivity decades later. He encourages other readers to consult sources like Wikipedia and use their own discretion on the matter.

An Insult to Voter Intelligence

For Consiglio, this selective presentation of facts is more than just misleading; it's an insult. "I take it as an insult to my better judgment," he wrote. This approach of wilful blindness has more often turned him against projects rather than in favour of them.

The context for this debate includes Canada's Oil Tanker Moratorium Act, which legally prohibits oil tankers carrying more than 12,500 metric tons of crude or persistent oil from stopping, loading, or unloading in a designated moratorium area.

The letter was part of a larger section that also included published reader opinions on involuntary mental health treatment and the need for support for those suffering from the rare neurological illness Progressive Supranuclear Palsy (PSP).