Pipeline safer than other modes of transport

Re: “First Nations lead opposition to controversial pipeline plan,” Aug. 23. While I can see the need for careful scrutiny of any proposal to transport dangerous materials, I think the outburst against pipeline expansion is misplaced.

First, while pipelines can fail, history suggests they are far safer than the alternatives, rail or truck transport, both of which pose a far higher risk of a failure and have a far higher cost of transport.

Second, if we are serious about the evils of transporting and using oil, are we prepared to give up the benefits of this oil? Have we given up our personal car? Do we, as a rule, use alternative, non-polluting, transportation? Do we give up the use of plastics — largely derived from petroleum? Do we raise our own food, rather than rely on transport to bring us food from elsewhere?

We need to provide for more petroleum shipment, but not, surely, when there is a glut on the market. Perhaps, what we ought to be doing is twinning all existing lines, so they can be taken out of service and upgraded. Once that is done, if there is still such demand as to justify further increase in capacity, then it is time to look at a tripling, or possibly quadrupling of capacity, but we should also be prepared to implement alternative power sources — principally electricity.

But first, pick up your chair, and walk. As a species, we developed as walkers, not as sedentary creatures. We will be healthier for it, at the least cost. John A. Laidlaw Victoria