said by zod5000:
lol. I think the opposite. Having it go through BC they risk damaging some pretty sensitive rainforest ecosystems as well as coastal ecosystems.
This is always the same argument BC'ers have to say. Nothing new here.
It's not like BC isn't heavy into mining, petroleum, fracking, and have literally lakes of waste that are diked up and crumbling and that can go at any time with a minor earthquake and devastate entire area's at any time, *as is*.
It's nice to pretend BC has none of the above. eh?
Sad reality is that all this and more is already there. Now be good Canadians and take Alberta's oil instead of shouting "Not In My Back Yard".
So before any more BC'ers try to say it could do this or that, it's best to know about your own environmental issues and the reality you have now which is a greater danger at this very moment than this plan on paper.
Besides, who are these people to say BC's marine ecosystem, or some forest that can recover, is more worth saving than that of the St. Laurence or the water-table throughout Ontario and Quebec?
BC=NIMBY tree huggers ignoring their own environmental catastrophes waiting to happen at any time that pale in comparison to this.