Nimby's, extremists and anecdotal evidence? the claim that opposition to Raven is comprised of nimby's and extremists and evidence is anecdotal is a typical red herring--making outrageous charges to draw attention away from issues that need to be addressed.
anecdotal evidence like the Auditor General's 2011 report, like the BC Government permitting hundreds of Chinese coal miners who will work for less wages, like the Chief Inspector of Mines order to Quinsam to clean up sulphate and arsenic poisoning of Long Lake, like the more than 5 billion taxpayer dollars spent so far on reclaiming watersources contaminated by acid mine drainage and the billions needed to restore sites identified as high health risk, like the First Nations and BC Shellfish Grower's scientific studies that verify AMD and Greenhouse emissions will negatively affect a highly lucrative shellfish industry, like studies submitted by UBC, the Environmental Law Clinic, and Ecojustice that collectively conclude an abandonment of government transparency and departments to live up to their mandates and ascendancy of big business?.
If these sources are anecdotal, I wonder what category Raven will not harm the environment or fish habitat in particular, or Raven will provide 350 jobs for the l7 years duration of mine life falls into or the claim denied by DFO and BCSGA that there are studies to protect the health of shellfish. Fantasy or just garden variety greenwashing to sell a very harmful product to the public?
the choice is not NDP, Conservative or Liberal: the choice is to protect Air and water from coal time toxins. Surely there are better places to invest.