Wouldn't trade climate for jobs


A recent letter to the editor writer voiced support for the Gateway Pacific Terminal by citing information in the glossy company publication, calling opponents "naysayers." They include scientists, doctors, teachers, pastors, college students, Indian tribes, etc., as well as ordinary citizens like myself. The permit calls for only 269 permanent jobs (read it online). No mention is made about the number of jobs that would be lost. Compare this with the negative impacts -- 18 more 1.5-mile trains per day (on top of new ones for oil and possibly propane and butane), with their diesel fumes and coal dust and extended wait times at crossings. Over 200 more huge ships would come into our beautiful waters yearly. We would have a six-story uncovered coal pile on the shore, and they propose using our precious water to try to keep the dust down. Many people can attest to the dust emitted from the terminal in Canada. The coal would go to China, adding to their pollution. Recent articles in The Herald cite the National Climate Assessment report indicating the negative effects of climate change already affecting us. Why do anything to add to this dismal picture? If wanting to protect the wonderful area where we live makes me a selfish environmentalist, then I welcome the title. Our economy is improving, and we do not need these jobs.

Patricia Vavrick


Bellingham Herald is pleased to provide this opportunity to share information, experiences and observations about what's in the news. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We encourage lively, open debate on the issues of the day, and ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.

Commenting FAQs | Terms of Service