Re Quinsam Coal: letter to editor

The Editor,
Dear Sir,

I went to the City Council meeting on September 21 to hear what our
representatives were going to say about Quinsam coal's expansion
plans.
I assumed they'd be against expansion, not only because it directly
threatens the health of the Quinsam River, but also because we're
talking coal, the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive form of energy
available, and it makes no difference to the planet where its burned.
Surely our council has heard of climate change, right?
But what I heard was not encouraging:
1 the Quinsam is already under threat from, among other substances,
arsenic and acid released by the present mine.
2 the expansion would extend the mine's life for only a short time, and
increase the risks of fish-kills and a dead Quinsam exponentially.
3 the organization responsible for approving the expansion is the same
one that permitted the present mine to increase metal and acid
concentrations beyond acceptable limits.
And the councillors? They were being asked to demand that a "complete
environmental assessment" be done, which seems kind of obvious.
But Councillor Moglove wanted to know why such an assessment would be better than the process the government and industry want. What proof was there?  And another councillor was pleased to hear that the presenters weren't against coal mines per se: after all, there were jobs involved. The councillors wanted to hear "the other side" before then maybe asking for a "complete environmental assessment".
Excuse me?! Were these people elected by the coal mine? Don't they get
the issues at all? Isn't a "complete environmental assessment" the very
least we should demand?

Yours very sincerely,

(Published in Campbell River Mirror, October 1, 2010 and in the Campbell River Courier-Islander on October 29, under the headline, "You would think the coalmine elected city council".)