My inbox started filling with unusually nasty emails Monday after former politician and radio host Rafe Mair said in a blog posting that I deserved to be taken to the woodshed and have my mouth washed out with soap.

According to Mair, I com-mitted the sin of ignoring the "mathematical certainty of accidents and the appalling consequences that will follow" in a column that he says essentially supports the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline.

In the column I mused on how science and technology has changed our assessment of risks in marine transportation. While I can see how the notion that it should be possible to lessen the risk of marine accidents in the future as we have in the past would be viewed as favourable to the project, it was by no means an endorsement.

In fact, the column didn't address the pipeline at all - the safety, utility and economics of which are a whole other matter.

But such is the nature of the debate over the Enbridge proposal in this province. In the eyes of too many on both sides, this is war. In times of war, there is no room for the subtleties of intelligent conversation or reasoned debate. Anything that undermines the main thrust of a preconceived position for or against the proposal for a $5.5-billion pipeline to transport bitumen from the Alberta oilsands to markets in Asia and California is held to be treasonous.

In this climate, pipeline opponents view Enbridge as an evil empire run by fat cats who care nothing about the environment, the rights of native people or the future of the planet.

Supporters see opponents as the worst kind of NIMBYists, the not-in-my-backyard folks who are secure in their own energy needs and opposed to anything that carries any risk from which they don't profit directly.

In fact there are a lot of issues involved in this mammoth project that deserve to be discussed, regardless of whether the Enbridge project goes ahead. Not the least of these is how we assess such proposals, both in the offices of governments and the court of public opinion.

In that vein, we have to think about who "we" are. Are we Canadians, keepers of what Premier Christy Clark calls Canada's gateway for the good of all Canadians?

Or are we British Columbians, concerned primarily with our own wealth and well-being? Should we care whether Alberta can get its oil to markets outside of Canada?

That matters in assessing whether the risks - and there are risks and always will be - are outweighed by the benefits.

If the "we" in the equation see ourselves only as British Columbians, very little risk will be acceptable.

If we are Canadians, then the benefits that accrue from selling Canadian oil overseas are more likely to offset the risks involved. What kind of a country are we and what does it mean to be Canadian?

We also need to look at the risks inherent in not going ahead.

One of the arguments against mining the oilsands and shipping bitumen - a heavy crude oil - is the contribution it will make to global warming.

A similar argument has also been made against the plans for a natural gas pipeline and LNG terminals for offshore shipping.

Rarely mentioned, however, is that the comparison isn't between Alberta bitumen and nothing, or imported natural gas and nothing. Markets will find other energy sources.

In China, that alternative is often coal. So compared to nothing, "dirty" oil is pretty bad. Compared to coal, not so bad.

Again, I'm not arguing that the Enbridge Northern Gate-way Pipeline should go ahead. I don't know whether it's economically viable or environ-mentally sound.

I don't know whether any project of this magnitude can be contemplated while so much of the terrain over which it must pass is tied up in often competing native land claims.

But I drive a car. I fly in air-planes. I heat my house and buy food and clothing and other goods that require energy to produce.

So I don't think it's my right to dismiss any proposal to produce or deliver energy out of hand.

If that earns me a trip to the woodshed in Mair's opinion, so be it.

cmcinnes@vancouversun.com