Dear Bloggers,
Today, May 12th., election day in B.C. there is so much at stake. Yes, the global economy is a mess. But we will get through these challenging times. In doing so, we must not abandon our sense of social justice or our responsibility to the environment. I am hopeful for a better British Columbia for all future generations.
Please read the editorial by Maude Barlow http://www.canadians.org/media/energy/2009/07-May-09.html
and view the video BC for Sale http://www.callingfromthecoast.com/
Thank you.
Monday, May 11, 2009
So much at stake
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 opinions/comments:
Not Green, Not Public, Not for Us.
Maude Barlow
With the arrival of spring, and as the BC coastal mountains begin to thaw, many will be watching rivers and creeks with more than just concern for swelling banks. With the rights to hundreds of rivers ‘out to tender’, private power corporations are submitting applications for a stake in the biggest resource pillage since the 1850s gold rush. But these are not the souls who put faith in one lucky strike to reward them with riches. Those applying to divert BC’s rivers through private electricity projects have a slam dunk promise from the BC Energy Plan to reap millions from the back door privatization of BC Hydro - with untold cost to the environment.
The B.C. government claims this private power gold rush is necessary to achieve electricity ‘self-sufficiency’. But British Columbia has been a net exporter of electricity for 7 of the last 11 years. And power from run-of-the-river projects will only be reliable and plentiful during the spring freshet. Something other than self-sufficiency must be the real objective. Something like the profit potential of private electricity exports to the U.S.
A simple web search for Bute Inlet produces poetic language on the region’s beauty: “The remote and pristine Bute Inlet is a deep fjord located amongst the narrow tidal passages at the northern end of the Strait of Georgia. Carved deep into the mountains of mainland British Columbia's west coast, the wilderness and mist-shrouded inlet boasts magnificent coastal scenery and abundant wildlife.” It is on Bute Inlet that Plutonic Power (along with General Electric which will have a 60% controlling interest) has applied to develop a $4 billion run-of-river project - it would be the single largest private power project in Canada. The scale of Plutonic’s proposed development are staggering – 17 dammed creeks, 265 km of roads , 428 km of power lines, 100 bridges and 45 000 hectares of crown land granted. But with an annual output of 2,980 GWH it has been estimated Plutonic may reap as much as $350 million per year. With a 40-year contract they stand to gain $15 billion. In this same area the Integrated Land Management Bureau is considering at least 7 applications to bottle water from the Bute watershed.
Granting hundreds of multi-decade contracts and 40 year water licenses to private corporations to divert rivers and run roughshod over BC’s pristine wilderness simply cannot be called ‘green’. Environmental organizations such as the Western Canada Wilderness Committee have made this point repeatedly. Dozens of other outdoor enthusiast clubs, nature stewardship organizations, tourism operators and other businesses which showcase ‘The Best Place On Earth’ have joined the call for an immediate moratorium on all private power projects until cumulative impacts can be properly assessed. Even the California Senate has determined that private run-of –the –river power from B.C. will not qualify as “green” under the terms of their renewable energy bill. In March David Suzuki and Faisal Moola cautioned that, “Panic (to address climate change) shouldn’t guide policy,” and called for solid legislation and monitoring to evaluate environmental impacts in order, “… to ensure that our solutions don’t lead to the destruction of the very thing we're trying to protect.”
Addressing climate change is of utmost importance. But the current B.C. government has prohibited B.C. Hydro from generating any new energy, including alternative energy, itself. If we’re serious about climate change, we need to free up B.C. Hydro so it can develop new green energy (like solar and tidal) itself directly. We must not base our electricity policy on private projects which put hundreds of rivers and streams at risk and whose profit plans assume electricity exports. Instead, we need to permit B.C. Hydro to work within the public realm to meet social and environmental goals and with local communities and First Nations to build and operate truly green energy alternatives.
Don’t be fooled or confused, the Run-of-River projects should more aptly be called ‘Ruin-of-River’. They are not green, not public and not for us.
Maude Barlow is the National Chairperson of the Council of Canadians and Senior Advisor on Water to the President of the United Nations General Assembly
The Canuks went down, the Liberals are going down, and Yamamotto is going down as well.
Power to the people and power to the mountains, rivers and creeks.
Maude Barlow - the enemy of common sense and reason.
Okay, so if we're into copying long diatribes from others, here's my two-cents' worth, for your edification:
WHAT IF THERE IS NO MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?
By Tom DeWeese
March 2, 2009
Here are some questions every person in the world should be asking their elected officials – especially those supporting “climate change” legislation:
If it is proven that climate change is not man-made, but natural, will you be relieved and excited to know that man is off the hook?
Will you now help to remove all of the draconian regulations passed during the global warming hysteria, since it was all wrong headed and harmful to the economy and our way of life?
Their answers to these questions should be very illuminating as to the true agenda they seek to impose. Is their agenda really about helping to protect the environment, or is it about creating a new social and economic order, using the environment as the excuse?
If they are supporting climate change legislation because of a genuine concern for the environment, then they should now be greatly relieved to know that true science is showing more and more evidence that there is no man-made global warming, and in fact, a natural cooling period has begun.
Last year, 52 scientists authored a much hyped report issued by the UN’s IPCC which said global warming was man-made and getting worse.
But in the past year, more than 650scientists from around the world have now expressed their doubts about the reports findings – 12 times the number of IPCC global warming alarmists now agree it’s bunk.
“I am a skeptic…Global Warming has become a new religion,” says Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly…as a scientist I remain skeptical,” says Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, formally with NASA and called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years”.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in history… When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists,” said UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming,” said U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg.
Top these very few quotes with the fact that 34,000 scientists have now signed a petition saying global warming is probably natural and is not man-made.
Instead, they say the science shows warming actually stopped in 1999. That the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural caused, in part, by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs. The Sun storms have ended and now, a cooling period has begun. That’s it. Done. Crisis over. Man is not to blame.
The world should be rejoicing. No need for expensive green cars, mercury-filled light bulbs, special house building materials, alternative energy, no bird- killing windmills, no special energy taxes, no extra government oversight committees, no more global climate change conferences – and no need for a Climate Czar. Carol Browner can go back into mothballs.
We can finally clean out the ten feet of fuel on the bottom of the forests and prevent the massive forest fires. As apparent in Australia at present. And that will help us reestablish the timber industry and all the jobs that were killed.
We can drill oil and end our dependency on foreigners who hate us. In fact, that stable source of energy and its prices will help restore the auto industry and all of those jobs.
We don’t need a stimulus package – the economy will rebound on its own. We are free. The environment is not in crisis !!
That silence you hear is the news media, which refuses to report what any skeptic has to say.
That silence you hear is the lack of effort on Washington and Canberra to start to pull back from the climate change hysteria.
That silence you hear is from the White House where President of Change, Barack Obama and THE Dudd/Rudd now has an EPA director, a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) director and a full blown Climate Change Czar, all working to impose huge cut backs in energy use, taxes, rules and regulations that will bring an already damaged economy to its knees – all in the name of man-made Global Warming – which doesn’t exist.
That silence you hear is from global corporations which have bought into Al Gores lie and invested heavily in the promised green economy. In fact, their dollars are the only thing green about any of it. Their commercials are promoting the lie and changing our way of life. None of them are about to change any of these policies, simply to accommodate a few scientific facts.
In spite of all the facts to the contrary, in spite of literally thousands of real scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics, Gore just told Congress that the Global Warming crisis is even worse than predicted. Obama said “the science is settled.”
Why? Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It was the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet, by creating a new global economy based on the environment rather than on goods and services.
In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.
We used to call it communism. Now we call it environmentalism. It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. Sourgent. The devastation is the same.
Ask you’re elected representatives how they would react to the fact that global warming is not real ?.
Are they happy and relieved, or do they continue to promote the same insanity called Climate Change?
Their answers will tell you their true agenda.
© 2009 Tom DeWeese - All Rights Reserved
John - these opinions you reference are not necessarily wrong, but they're not complete. You do a dis-service by posting like this and you, like so many who are in opposition to power generation in this manner, are more than likely living hypocritically with respect to this issue.
These projects are going ahead only because there's a need for more electricity generation. Supply and demand dictates this required power WILL be generated and I'm much happier that it's being created through the use of clean energy, rather than via the consumption of fossil fuels or via nuclear energy.
But if you're really against these projects, and if you really want to make a difference rather than just talk about it, focus your efforts on the reduction of electricity usage by you and those around you. Challenge the authors of "all things no" pertaining to this issue to have their own household electrical usage drop below BC Hydro's low-rate threshold.
Then, and only then - will their submissions and subsequent opinions have any validity. Until then, you, and those opposed who have not achieved this goal are simply barking - with no intention of living that which you profess to be good.
And for the record - my household power usage is below BC Hydro's low-rate threshold, and has been for several years. I live electricity reduction, I don't grandstand on it in a misinformed way.
Are we getting our predictions down yet?
I am going with Liberals 47, NDP 38 - I think I am correct that if the NDP were to somehow win tonight, it would be the first time a CCF/NDP party has won without the help of a third party elected members. Some would say that it's just impossible for the NDP to win without the split on the right/center-right. But then some said that Dewey would be President in 1948.
Vincent Santacroce
The Vancouver Canucks will never win a Stanley Cup and never have a Hall of Famer of their own.
Liberals 45, NDP 39, Independent 1 (Oppal loses)
How long will the Premier be around? My bet is 2 years max.
Dennis Bevington
Well Nikko you certainly do have an opinion too. It's fine for you to tell me to reduce and for me to tell others to reduce but I wonder if you bother to tell others to do this. I already do many things to reduce and I can brag about being below the threshold as well. We've had this conversation already by the way.
There are many other ways to produce energy rather than ruining rivers. You know what they are so I won't mention them. Yes we also need to educate on reduction more.
I'm surprised you wouldn't be a little more against this potential travesty. Why would you want to take a chance?
There is no "dis-service" when it could have serious environmental consequences for generations to come.
I forgot to add that Thornthwaite will be around forever. Seymour put up with a non-producing Jarvis for what? 16 some odd years or so. Thornthwaite will set a new record,some 20 odd years of non-productivity. Way to go Seymour. Let the Liberals take,take,take and never give. Right Mr Santacroce?
Dennis Bevington
STV is dead!!
Jane is far too ambitious to sit around at a piddly MLA salary. I suspect she will be gunning for MP before the term is up.
I think Vincent wins.
Rings true, Jane can screw the voters who elected her to MLA by running federally in the same way she screwed the voters who elected her as a Trustee.
Of course, there's no safety net as law requires a MLA to resign before seeking a federal seat.
John - I don't agree that RoR projects are a travesty. Once implemented, they're a good way of using a completely renewable resource to generate the electricity we all demand. They're by no means completely benign to the locations they're in, and the required power lines most definitely leave ugly lines in otherwise pristine forests, but those are things I think we can live with over the long haul.
Keep in mind that our fields were once forests, as were our roads and even our cities. We accept those "environmental scars" as necessary invasions or "uses" of nature for us to live and survive. I place RoR projects in the same category.
I do agree that some of the contractors (perhaps most of them?) that are constructing these things are being disrespectful of the methods they're using, and of the areas in which they work. I think they're taking full advantage of the geography in which they work and of the fact that they're not at all policed for environmental breaches of the contracts or their specifications. I believe that it's this laxy-daisy attitude that's angering most folks, and that anger is then mistakenly aimed at the projects in general.
I'm all for holding the contractors feet to the fire and having them comply with the regulations they agreed to when they accepted the contracts. Further, I think they should be fined and fined large for any and every infraction ad they should pay to have a representative (o more) on-site at all times monitoring all facets of construction. If the Government is failing us, it's in this area, and it's here I'd like to see the nay-sayers focus their collective power.
Let's be clear John - RoR projects, if properly constructed do not ruin rivers. They divert water from non-fish (salmon) bearing streams, route it through a turbine and place the water back into the system prior to the water entering the ocean. No additional heat is added to the water, and enough water is left in the natural stream beds to assure adequate flow and sustenance of life. The water is borrowed, not "stolen" or degraded in any way.
Would I rather these projects did not have to be constructed? Of course I would, and as you pointed out, we both do our part to reduce our reliance on electrical power. But as we've also pointed out, others do not look to themselves first when trying to solve a more global energy issue and instead, choose to blame others. It's these folks I don't have a lot of respect for and when these folks are the one's leading the charge against projects such as RoR's, it weakens the entire argument and does those that are in a legitimate position to protest a huge dis-service. This is where we are today, and this is why I tend to discount the majority of the opposition to RoR projects and in fact, it's what causes me to take a stance which is almost "pro" RoR.
To date, in my (researched) mind, there is no better method of generating "new" electrical power when viewed from a global perspective. But we do need to do more. Yes, every chance I get I push those I know (and those I don't) to decrease their electrical energy consumption. I've personally aimed numerous acquaintances to BC Hydro's web site so folks can get they're usage data and use it to lower their consumption and in my line of work I employ energy saving strategies and products every day in commercial and industrial buildings. I'm an environmentalist, but I'm realistic, and not polarized, and not extreme.
So John - we're not that far apart, except I tend to take the RoR projects apart and instead of disagreeing with the projects in their entirety, I disagree with the methods used to construct them. If we could get the anti-RoR energy focused to fixing those issues, we'd be miles ahead and the overall negative environmental impact of these projects would be drastically reduced.
I have no particular angst for PPP and run of river projects - but the cost of capital used in their financials and the price of electricity these projects are built on seem more than a bit too generous for the private partner.
I think the Liberals have gone overboard with these projects in an effort to bump up the export market at the cost of local consumer and industrial rates.
As these projects come on-stream the cost of electricity will inevitably go up considerably more than it needs to.
So while I don't philosophically disagree with this kind of power generation, I don't think it's a win-win and that the deals negotiated are richer than they need to be for the public good.
If they really ARE needed they could be built publicly at a much lower cost of capital.
Lyle - I don't disagree with anything you've written. I too wonder why these are private and not public (BC Hydro), and I too wonder at the rumoured price that BC Hydro has committed to pay for this power.
Yes, our power prices are going to go up. They have to. But (and I'm pulling numbers completely out of the air here) if 80% of our power continues to be produced by BC Hydro dams at a rate of $0.02, and if we purchase the remaining 20% from local private RoR projects at $0.16, we average out at approx $0.05 - still, not a bad production cost when compared to other production methods.
I'd still MUCH rather have power produced by hydro than power produced by burning NG or coal etc.
All that said, BC Hydro is still far far behind the times in not allowing reverse metering. They claim to be progressive (and in many ways they are), and yet, if you or I put power generation on our homes (solar, wind etc.), BC Hydro will not purchase any surplus power form us. They come up with excuses for their decision, most of them technical, but these are bunk. Power producers throughout the US are starting to set themselves up to purchase surplus power from users - why not BC Hydro?
Take a look at "Mother Earth" magazines from the 1970's. I still have copies that discuss some Oregon and California power companies buying back home generated power with reverse metering more than 30 years ago and have done so ever since. The idea that there is some technical problem with this technology is dubious to say the least.
It is my please to recommend that Mr Santacroce reçeive this years'"Carnac the Magnificent" award for his very accurate prediction.
Congratulations to Barry and Tim.
Dennis Bevington
Oops! Correction. I am pleased to recommend that.....
Dennis Bevington
Thank you Mr. Bevington. If only I could call on that 'gift' when I am choosing which bridge to take home at night.
Say what you will about lower turnout and meaningless elections, it did take Canucks fans' minds off of yet another playoff collapse. In one series, nay, one game and arguably one period, he's gone from Louie the Great to the Great Loooooser. Very fickle fans indeed.
I wanted to make a comment about the low voter turnout. I think we are mistaken in assuming it is apathy alone. I would venture to say that there are a fair number out there (especially in certain North Shore ridings) who knew that a Liberal victory was pretty much inevitable and I also believe there are those who would just as soon defer their franchise to others who feel more strongly than they about who should be governing the province.
I would expect in a Delta South, the turnout would have been higher than 48%.
Vincent Santacroce
Prime Minister Ignatieff....has a nice ring to it, doesn't it.
It sounds expensive.
Nikko,
Wow! - long comment.
We haven't mentioned solar, wind, and geo-thermal power energy production in this discussion. I'd sooner see investment, research, and development in these types of energy production.
Post a Comment