Recently, Port Metro Vancouver purposed opening a coal terminal at the Fraser Surrey Docks. Since then, concerned citizens from all over the lower mainland have joined to raise awareness of the potential hazards linked to this project. Their cautions are justified: as it stands, the threat of immediate and long-term pollution from the project is very large.
While some have made great arguments for the $15 million investment, local residents, predominantly from Surrey, New Westminster, Burnaby, Delta, and Richmond are asking to see a comprehensive assessment of the possible long-term health and environmental implications that would follow the resumed activity at the docks.
They are rightly cautious about the abundance of coal dust and diesel emissions that come with coal transportation, considering there has not yet been a comprehensive study to identify potential health risks of the project.
As the demand for coal goes up, so will pollution along the Fraser River.
Robin Silvester, president and CEO of Port Metro Vancouver, claims he is satisfied with the current Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), which states that dust will not pose a health risk.
But many officials, such as Dr. Paul Van Buynder of Fraser Health and Dr. Patricia Daly of Vancouver Health, believe otherwise. They say, in a letter to the docking company, that Silvester’s report “does not meet even the most basic requirements of a health impact assessment.”
This project is not the right way to grow the economy. Supporters of the project argue that the docks could allow for both an increase in local jobs and economic growth in the area. Jeopardizing both the long-term health and the comfort of the surrounding communities, however, will not balance what we gain from the Surrey coal docks.
Even if the initial reactivation has minimal impacts, as the demand for Canadian coal goes up, so will the amount of fugitive dust, diesel, and noise along the Fraser River. In 2013, in fact, coal shipments increased by 17 per cent, up to 38.2 million tonnes, according to several local news sites.
The communities situated along the Fraser River are home to many families who shouldn’t be forced to live in such industrial areas — it’s not hard to understand why some are considering leaving.
The call for a public, comprehensive report remains crucial to families across the Metro Vancouver area, and that call is perfectly justified.
As many organizations, such as the British Columbian Nurses Union, the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, multiple MLAs, and school boards, lend support to those fighting Port Metro Vancouver, it is hard to anticipate how the project will end.
Certainly, no matter where we mine for coal or where we choose to transfer it, there will always be pollution. However, we can at least control how close that pollution is to such a huge population.
Moving the docks further from the city will address health concerns and improve the day-to-day life of thousands of people. Facilities such as coal transfer docks belong in sparsely or unpopulated areas of the country to minimize discomfort and inconvenience.
Canada should invest in its people first, and its resources second. This proposed project stands for the exact opposite.
