You can sign this...
This is what 300 scientists are saying about the Northern Gateway environmental assessment:
- Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings;
- Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate consideration of key issues;
- Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation;
- Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents; and
- Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these
would be negated by the proponent’s yet-to-be-developed mitigation