I guess you donot know it in an area very close to the Fraser that will be covered with water if we have a flood during the spring freshet that last happened in 1948.
I realize you like to differ on what many environmentalist say which is your choice of course but that does have some good results as it makes us work harder to bring these issues to the public's attention. Many people will not post their thoughts as they know they will under attack that many environmentalists suffer from many directions on every issue.
As I have said before, things could be a lot worse if we were not arround. 
Keep your posts coming.
It’s not that I like to differ on what many environmentalists say, but I find it ironic that many initiatives pressed for by environmentalists (i.e. recycling of toxic materials, alternative fuels, alternative energy using biofuels, etc.) for years can be later killed by environmentalists. For instance, some years back a gasification facility was proposed to be built in Kamloops in the Mission Flats area. The proponent was from Manitoba and they thought they secured a good site in Kamloops. The purpose of the facility was to dispose of creosote railway ties (a big problem identified by environmentalists and the railways) safely that would otherwise find their way into a landfill where the materials inside could leach into the ground. The technology is not new, but the type of gasification being proposed was.
Gasification is a process that converts organic or fossil fuel based carbonaceous materials into carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide. This is achieved by reacting the material at high temperatures (>700 °C), without combustion, with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GasificationAccording to MOE, the emissions from this facility would be the same as from a wood burning stove. The permit that was in place would have had the most stringent monitoring regime of any industry in the city. The facility was going to start out as a feasibility study where if things did not go as planned in the permit it would have been discontinued. However, local environmentalists gathered enough local opposition against the project and killed it. They had their own website set up to oppose the project, held numerous rallies in town and had a PhD chemist from a liberal arts university in the eastern US who specializes in giving presentations for these types of protest come here to talk to city council and the media. The public was told that their health was at great risk with all these diseases and other illnesses brought up. Google was working over time with all these studies being pumped out showing how bad this was for citizens; however, many were either not relevant or unfair. The methodology was being falsely labelled as “incineration” by environmentalists, but it was not conventional burning. The project was totally misrepresented and the proponent vilified in the end. The province did their due diligence and put together a very good permit, but there was too much local opposition. Following the public town hall meeting, where opponents basically heckled the proponent or anyone that had a difference of opinion, it was lights out for the project.
Looking back, the proponent likely contributed to this bad public relations by not engaging the public earlier with the plan and methodology to get ahead of the protest. They underestimated environmentalists’ ability to mobilize opposition and didn’t sell the project like they should have. One thing I have learned over the years is that you can have a smart scientist with a great project and great science, but if he/she cannot sell it to people then it does not matter how good the science is. However, although the public could have been engaged better much earlier it does not mean that the facility was a bad thing. Despite this, once the protest gathered momentum and started to make people fearful for their health it was too little too late for the proponent to turn the tide.
It was thought that this type of facility could potentially generate electricity if proved successful. Funny thing is that a gasifier has been currently operating for sometime immediately north of the city core in Heffley Creek at Tolko. Whatever happened to those creosote railway ties? Did the proponent build somewhere else? Not sure, but it would be sad if these railway ties were leaching away into the ground instead of disposed of in a much safer manner because if this is the case then what did environmentalists really gain? Merely pushing the problem somewhere probably didn’t solve the problem. That is more NIMBYism. If the result is actually worse than what was being proposed to solve the problem then how is that much better for the environment? This is one of the main criticisms I have with environmentalists, and although they have good intentions, they are not always right. Simply saying “No” is not a constructive answer because we all recognize that things like recycling of toxic materials are important. When I read what you provided in that website (not all about potential flooding) it basically tells me that protest will likely follow that recycling facility wherever it goes.
Chris, the thing is that people that might think different than you (or other likeminded) can still care about the environment just as much; however, when they see the two examples that have been presented they start to question if the goals of environmentalists are truly being met after a successful protest…..and are we (meaning all of us) and the environment much better off because of it.
Author
Topic: Important Issue On The Fraser River (Read 15608 times)