Squamish has recently been described by The New York Times as one of the must-visit locations of 2015. CNN deemed Squamish the best mountain town in North America to visit in the summer of 2014. With the wildly popular Sea to Sky Gondola and large events such as the Squamish Valley Music Festival and national kiteboarding championships, it does not seem like a logical step to move again toward industry, especially an industry that could have such vast and lasting consequences on Howe Sound.
Squamish should embrace its new and rising tourist image and face the reality that industry in Squamish is on the decline. Since the closure of the pulp mill in 2006, Squamish has worked hard in redefining its space and new place in the world as a must-see tourism destination, and for the most part, it has largely paid off with international attention now being given to the town. Besides risking tourism, an LNG tanker disaster or pipeline rupture has the potential to destroy much of the aquatic and intertidal life present in the Howe Sound, ironically just as life is beginning to recover from decades of industrial pollution.
With this in mind, which Squamish would you want to live in? The Squamish where we bowed to big oil and shouldered all the risk for an energy company based out of Singapore so that we could make a few jobs and a quick couple million? Or the Squamish that seized its opportunity to become a truly world-class tourist destination while moving to the forefront of climate action to help end humanities reliance on fossil fuels?
We must remember that the decisions of today will undoubtedly affect the lives of generations yet unborn. Let’s leave them with a town that chose to make the right and moral decision, one that embraced Squamish as a place of natural beauty and that realized the value of protecting these places that so many here seem to take for granted.
Riley Peterson
Squamish
