Skip to main content
//empty //empty

Beyond being a terrible tragedy, the events at Lac-Mégantic are also a warning of things to come. For the events themselves we will need to wait for the investigations to run their course and make their recommendations. However, there is a larger lesson to be learned.

Put simply, for each day we move forward into the twenty-first century, we concurrently move into greater technological dependency and complexity. All the while we do this within a context of legacy systems, dated technologies and aging critical infrastructure.

The gap that defines the interface between our dependencies and our responses is growing. Accordingly, the probability of more failure and more severe events is increasing.

Story continues below advertisement

There are two ways that we can meet this reality. The first is as we do now, reactively. That is, rather than building on lessons learned, rather than rethinking obsolete risk models, rather than constantly upgrading our infrastructures, we continue to respond after the fact. Here, in the context of tragedy, I note with interest that there is no lack of promised commitment with respect to money, technology, or, legislation.

The second response is to rethink something that, except in the context of tragedy, has little interest or traction in the course of our daily lives. Without this context, few are interested in takeing ownership of the lessons that should have been learned, or in making those changes that should have been enacted to prevent these very same tragedies.

We need to take away from this event the urgent need to be proactive. Here we commit our expertise to addressing the growing gap noted above. Here we direct our expertise to anticipating and mitigating. Here we need to spend dollars before the fact to improve and address changes that will prevent or mitigate more accidents waiting to happen.

The cost of this latter approach is certainly cheaper in dollars than cleaning up after the fact. Far more importantly, not only would this reduce our risks, it would save lives.

Walter Perchal is on the faculty of the department of Disaster and Emergency Management at York University.

Report an error
Due to technical reasons, we have temporarily removed commenting from our articles. We hope to have this fixed soon. Thank you for your patience. If you are looking to give feedback on our new site, please send it along to feedback@globeandmail.com. If you want to write a letter to the editor, please forward to letters@globeandmail.com.

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff. Non-subscribers can read and sort comments but will not be able to engage with them in any way. Click here to subscribe.

If you would like to write a letter to the editor, please forward it to letters@globeandmail.com. Readers can also interact with The Globe on Facebook and Twitter .

Welcome to The Globe and Mail’s comment community. This is a space where subscribers can engage with each other and Globe staff.

We aim to create a safe and valuable space for discussion and debate. That means:

  • Treat others as you wish to be treated
  • Criticize ideas, not people
  • Stay on topic
  • Avoid the use of toxic and offensive language
  • Flag bad behaviour

Comments that violate our community guidelines will be removed.

Read our community guidelines here

Discussion loading ...

To view this site properly, enable cookies in your browser. Read our privacy policy to learn more.
How to enable cookies