Shame on you

I was unfortunately late and ended up in the hallway between the pool and the meeting room. I missed a lot of what was going on, and was disturbed by the mob mentality. When are people going to catch on that BP was invited by our elected provincial govt. What disturbed me, besides the exploited children, which was absolutely disgusting by the way,,,,, go back to your trailer park,,, was a man at the back of the room that got the crowd going by stating that scientific info was wrong. I saw the same man approach the BP rep,,, after the room was empty and state , and I quote "sorry, it's just part of the game". I asked the BP guy what that meant and he told me the info was solid, the guy was just showboating. When will the citizens of fernie stop following the mob mentality, and start thinking on their own?

it isn't a mob mentality it is simply that a lot of people in town disagree with BP - hence why the council has issued an objection.

As a history and politics student i was always taught to question, and you have to remember who paid the scientists to produce the report - they aren't going to bite the hand that feeds them.

And don't forget what percentage of the vote did the provincial government get? i think you will find it wasn't 50% + 1. Hence they their request doesn't speak for the majority.

I appreciate you commenting on the mob mentality. Glad that was not the intent, but I would suggest the 4 RCMP officers standing beside me would disagree.

I think we will have better luck convincing BP that the mist mountain project is a bad idea then we will our provincial government.

Have you ever questioned those who provide the data for environmental groups like Wildsite? Or does that fit right in with your ideals and you don't feel any need to be questioning?

Where do I state that I support wildsight? I merely indicated that people in town aren't happy and the BC government don't have the support of the majority of the population.

But in answer to your question yes all data should be questioned, the key thing with regards all data is determining who you trust.

And actually i think you will find that there are other individuals eg William Marsden who how have questioned the entire Albertian petrochemical industry and have firm evidence that CBM production affects the water quality in an area.

Don't forget BP wnt to be here for one reason and one reason as alone - they want to make a tasty profit. Or maybe they are being altrustic?

Who do you believe?

I wasn't able to attend the meeting last week so I can't comment on the specific behaviors mentioned. But if governments actually listened to public opinion then people wouldn't need to resort to disturbing tactics. Unfortunately the government rarely changes course based on reasoned arguments and a respectful public debate expressed via letters and quiet dialog. It usually takes a groundswell of public opinion, loud protests and a level of outrage to stop an unpopular project from proceeding. It was only after very heated public meetings and protests last month that the Environment Minister pulled the plug on that proposed hydro development on the Upper Pitt River. The project likely would have been quietly approved if the local people hadn't been as vocal as they were.

Recall the "War of the Woods" in the 1990s. Moresby Island, the Valhalla Wilderness, Clayoquot Sound, the Carmanah Walbran and Stein Valleys. These areas saw widespread public protests and the often outrageous acts, such as illegal blockades and hundreds of arrests. But it was these acts of civil disobedience that prompted changes to clearcut logging practices and the creation of several new protected areas. Sometimes you have to engage in "disturbing" behaviour to get the government and corporations to listen to public opinion.

The studies commissioned by BP were meant to establish baseline environmental measurements by surveying the current state of wildlife, water quality and geology in the Elk Valley. In many cases we may not know just how accurate these baseline measures are. It's nice to have baseline measures but do we know the margin of error in the data? But perhaps worse is that there are no criteria established beforehand for how much impact the Mist Mountain CBM project can have on the environment before we say it's too much. When can we call a stop to the project? If the large mammal population decreases by 25%? or by 50%? How much change in water or air quality can we tolerate? Is it even possible to stop the project once it's been approved, no matter how much change from the baseline environmental measurements are observed in the future? Did anyone ask these questions of BP?

I say shame on people for trusting industry to do the right thing and for believing that our governments will look out for their best interests. Thank goodness we have people willing to question authority and the so-called experts.

Pierre, all great comments but I would suggest to you the last thing folks that attended the BP enviroment meeting wanted, were answers. I found it incredibly humorous how many times people rolled their eyes and commented about "the broken record" answers. Well folks if you keep asking the same questions, you're gonna get the same answers.