At first I thought that the purpose of Stewart Muir’s guest column, Natural gas, especially LNG, isn't the villain of the climate change in The Squamish Chief, piece was rhetoric. But rhetorical writing, by definition, requires the inclusion of facts. That’s why it’s considered an art.
I also considered that the guest column was intended as a parody of the sort of statements commonly written by the resource extraction industry and some politicians. But it wasn’t funny.
Which leaves only questions:
Does “Data from climate oracles such as the International Panel on Climate Change, “ mean that the wildfires, flooding, ‘heat domes’, ‘atmospheric rivers’ and other extreme weather events that we’re experiencing globally were (accurately) predicted through the use of an Ouija board?
Does tanker traffic in Howe Sound constitute “protecting marine wildlife, and restoring previously polluted shoreline”?
Are you unaware of the previous Woodfibre LNG spill that went unreported to the municipality of Squamish for three days?
Does “expectant mothers in Squamish could more likely encounter a sasquatch than face any undue risks from the likes of the Woodfibre LNG plant” and “the fact is that Woodfibre LNG is located 1,300 km from the gas wells that feed it,” mean that the finding of the University of Southern California’s study that “living near flaring is harmful to pregnant women and babies” is OK because it will only affect people who live 1,300km away?
Are you intent on the false narrative that “Natural gas, particularly LNG, serves as an eminently pragmatic transition fuel, evidenced by the coal-to-gas shift in the United States.” despite the scientific evidence to the contrary that has been cited in The Chief more than once since Woodfibre LNG was proposed almost a decade ago?
Do you not understand the consequences of fracking?
Finally, Stewart Muir, CEO of Resource Works Society, are you aware that your statement, “this looks like a turnaround for a premier who only a few months ago could not bring himself to say ‘LNG’ to a room full of LNG supporters” is conjecture?
By all accounts, David Eby is an honourable man who is dedicated to social justice. Before his unfortunate acclimation, the premier stated that we can’t build new fossil fuel infrastructure in the face of Climate Change. Could his relative silence on both the climate and species extinction crises be due to the occupation of the NDP executive by one-time resource extraction lobbyists (i.e. chief elections officer, Elizabeth Cull, and Moe Sihota, Woodfibre LNG lobbyist)?
The bottom line is that we must reform our economic system, which is based on continual growth within a finite sphere, the Earth.
The last time I checked, it would take 1.8 Earths to provide for our rate of consumption. And, we still haven’t met any of the emissions ‘targets’ we committed to since the Climate Summits began.
This is not a partisan issue; when we all next go to the polls, vote for the party that has the courage to speak the truth.
Julie Malcolm
Squamish
