March 19, 2009

75 Comments

Backlash Against the Green Economy in BC

by Tzeporah Berman

“You mean they want to ban all renewable energy companies from your province?”

This is the point when I sigh inwardly during conversations with colleagues from outside B.C. these days. The backlash against renewable energy in B.C. has become a case study in international global warming discussions – a case study in proxy campaigns against climate solutions. The sigh is equal parts embarrassment, resignation and me preparing for the inevitable next questions.

Those next questions are either ‘how did B.C. go so quickly from North American climate hero to hotbed of backlash?’ or else some variation on ‘is the fossil fuel industry orchestrating this?’

Ironically enough, considering the fossil fuel industry’s efforts at deny-and-delay tobacco strategies, I know of little evidence they are major players in the B.C. backlash. It seems possible that they are simply gobsmacked by their good fortune as an alliance of politicians, a BC Hydro union, resource nationalists, and wilderness advocates do their work for them.

A friend of mine aptly calls it the “fossil fuels forever campaign.” The backlash ranges from efforts to keep fossil fuel plants on line, to eliminate energy conservation measures like two-tiered pricing, an “axe the gas tax” campaign to abolish the carbon tax, an “anti-IPP” (Independent Power Producer) campaign to ban renewable energy companies from the grid, campaigns to stop smart meters and the building of a smart grid, “wilderness” campaigns (in quotes because some do not to distinguish between intact areas and those already industrialized) to stop run-of-river hydro, wind farms, biomass and other renewables.

British Columbia has always been famous for its insular and bizarre politics and this situation fits that mould perfectly. The politicians can’t resist populist hot buttons about cheap energy, a union puts ideology ahead of job creation, the wilderness advocates seek to “protect” active logging zones (with all the associated clearcuts, roads, airstrips etc.) whose remaining integrity is quite surely doomed by the perpetuation of our fossil fuel dependence. And it is all happening as if B.C. were an island cut off from the wider world of climate change and the global race for a green economy.

This is how they demonstrate in DC these days. In BC, they protest renewable energy.

The tumult is all the more bizarre considering it is only a couple of years since B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell was awakened by climate scientists to the approaching catastrophe. After a first term that was decidedly anti-environmental (remember when BC was the only jurisdiction in the world not to have an environment ministry?), Campbell vaulted into partnership with California’s Governator, broke with Ottawa and Washington and decisively ended North America’s intransigence on global warming. Yet today, even as the Obama team is studying and adopting the Schwarzenegger-Campbell template (the Western Climate Initiative, the BC carbon tax), airwaves and public meetings in BC abound with calls to reverse conservation measures and freeze renewable energy projects.

As the players gear up for the oncoming provincial election, it seems clear the stage is set for a real fight over whether B.C. should maintain a leadership role against global warming. And the question has to be asked, if “Supernatural British Columbia” can’t add a few cents to a litre of gas or the price of electricity, if B.C. can’t implement smart meters or puts a moratorium on renewable energy, then what hope is there that we privileged (spoiled?), industrialized nations will lead a charge to save the developing world from drought, starvation and inundation?

The most inexcusable factor in the backlash against the green economy in B.C. is that its campaign strategists read the same reports as the rest of us. They can use a calculator. They know full well that we are in an urgent race against the clock, that we need to replace fossil fuels which are three-quarters of B.C.’s energy consumption (less than a quarter is presently hydroelectricity and other emission-free sources), that a failure to do so is a moral crime against much of humanity and half the species on the planet.

They know that implementing all of the proposed (and imagined) conservation, carbon restrictions, and renewable energy projects only begins to meet the task at hand. Even if we built wind in the Peace, run-of-river in Bute, a dam at Site C; even with all the distributed renewables and aggressive conservation, we would only begin to supply the electric cars, homes and clean industry of tomorrow. That’s obvious from some basic math.

To vote against cap & trade or carbon taxes, or to campaign against renewable energy companies being allowed on the grid or against energy conservation, is to act against the reports of the Nobel Laureates on climate science and policy. It may stick in the craw of environmentalists like me to say so, but we need to be grateful to the previous generations that built the mega dams and gave our generation such a head start towards a clean grid which could become the basis for a green economy. Those who fought big hydro dams back in the day did not have the knowledge of global warming that we have now, but we are lucky environmentalists lost most of those fights. And we must not make the mistake of acting against emission-free power in the face of all the science available today.

We specifically need to follow the best practices of every other jurisdiction in the world that is having success in decreasing dependence on fossil fuels and building a green economy including Ontario (with its admirable new Clean Energy Act, widely supported by business, labour, environmentalists, farmers…), Manitoba, Germany and now even the U.S. under the Obama administration — by supporting renewable energy companies (a.k.a.: Independent Power Producers).  To think that the state alone can shoulder the finances or has the capacity to go it alone at the scale needed, is not supported by any empirical evidence on earth.  I also think that it is simply the wrong conversation. In a recession, with “the spectre of a warming planet” looming over us (yes, I’m quoting Obama’s inaugural address), I personally don’t care if renewables are built by Martians.  We need to get it done right but we need to get it done.

Of course there are always going to be good projects and bad ones, good policies and poorly-designed ones. There remains an important role for good old fashioned environmental watch-dogging to weed out dodgy proposals like the Western Canada Wilderness Committee and others have done on the Pitt. But environmental leaders must stand against transferring that public mobilization into outright climate denial — blanket opposition to all renewable energy projects, energy pricing, or campaigns to fight every major wind farm, run-of-river or tidal operation that comes along.

Instead we need to communicate honestly with the public about the climate imperative. And I think we should be using our new leadership role to articulate the principles that good projects and policies must follow. Ensuring that First Nations are front and centre in the new economy and that we uphold our moral and legal obligations to rights and title.  Ensuring that we avoid siting projects in intact ecosystems and protected areas. Pressing government to clarify which regions will be open to energy projects and transmission corridors, to deny projects in valley bottom salmon habitat and to conduct adequate assessments of cumulative impact.

To say that all run-of-river projects destroy rivers and are not ‘green’ is absurd.  I’ve been up to Toba/Montrose with the Klahoose.  I’ve seen how Plutonic’s operations are reopening tributaries and cleaning up the mess of crushed culverts and downed bridges that logging left behind.  The same would hold true for other heavily logged areas like Bute Inlet. I was fully prepared to see impacts on the river and was pleasantly surprised to find that, contrary to the horror stories circulating, the water diversion is high up near the glacial outflow, above waterfalls (fish barriers) where there are barely even nutrients in the water.  The salmon habitat and water flows remain intact.  Most people won’t know this because it turns out I am the only environmentalist that has bothered to take the Klahoose up on their invitation to go and see it for myself.

The bottom line is that we should certainly not be opposing the Haida, the Hupacasath, the Klahoose and the many other First Nations who have spent decades protecting their territories and are now doing an admirable job finding sustainable development for their communities in the green economy.

On the contrary, this ought to be our historic moment to rally a broad coalition of society behind the scientists, First Nations and workers. To stand for green jobs in a clean economy, to push government to move faster, to shift our entire posture from “stop, slow down” to “do it now, go faster.” Especially in a recession, if we are to have any hope of government shutting down fossil fuels, we must demonstrate that large scale clean energy is a viable economic and job-creating engine with broad public support. How? For starters, British Columbians should get involved in the new initiative planning the next 30 years of transmission and generation. And I urge all Canadians to pressure Ottawa to renew funding for ecoENERGY for Renewable Power which was left out of the last budget.

Given the urgency coming out of Copenhagen this past week, there should be no suggestion of slowing down carbon taxes and conservation measures or putting a moratorium on renewable energy projects. We may not yet know the precise correlation between carbon emissions and human deaths or species extinction (NASA’s Jim Hansen recently estimated a single new coal plant would be responsible for 400 species), but we know the correlation is direct, we know we have waited too long for a graceful transition and we know that we, the privileged rich countries must lead aggressively or doom our fellows.

On a clear day from the tallest hill near my home, I can see the places where local activists ran off a proposed wind farm, ran off a tidal energy proposal and are trying to stop run-of-river projects. But I can also see where the local First Nations are partnering with renewable energy companies. I can imagine the province using its natural gifts, connected by a smart grid, to run a zero carbon society. It could yet become another bright spot in our planet’s emerging geography of hope.

• My last post was What is the Next Generation of Environmentalism?

Email This Post Permalink Share This

75 Responses so far...

1. Run of the River « Advancing Sustainability in the Built Environment says:

   May 2, 2009 at 2:29 pm

   [...] ZeroCarbonCanada.ca » Blog Archive » Backlash Against the Green Economy in BC. [...]
2. sonya friesen says:

   April 22, 2009 at 10:38 am

   wow,great debate. I don’t argree with some of the things you seem to be selling,guess that means i’m one of those” eco lunatics ”as a previous writer on your site catergorised us. First let me say i fully support a carbon tax regardless of politics.! I think it is great you have really got the province talking about globel warming realities.How about a huge tax rebate for those not owning a car?Lets ask the Premier? Interesting to note ,Obama is also chosing cap and trade,perhaps its all about how you regulate it??maybe like the banks? I would think how the B.C.Liberals regulate their spending of carbon tax dollars is also relative to the question, how green is it? Lowering our carbon emissions is the urgent action needed.But to support all non carbon emitting energy ,regardless of  all other environmental impacts because of the urgency to slow globel warming ,seems upsidedown to me.Mainly because nuclear power could possibly win that argument.Your blog and Andrew ’s, definitely speak truths we have to deal with,,act now ,,,is the one i can really agree with.Most people that i would call “environmentalists “are very aware of many of the facts you know , i would define myself as one because i spend most of my time questioning the impact my daily actions have on the environment. I try to maintain balance with solutions that do not come in black and white ,but i do not have to emmerse myself in the very science of global warming daily as i’m sure you do……..zero carbon emmision is the answer ,,,how we get there is a valid  complex debate .This is not just a debate in b.c.,california is also having debate around solar systems privately on homes,or systems within communities ,or huge arrays supplying larger populations…who owns them etc…my point B.C. is no different from anywhere,power struggels over power ,no matter what kind are going to be continuing .greed for money within that power will allways drive it…if you would now  like to encourage those of us who have  lived off the grid,supported small run of creek micro hydro systems,solar  systems, wind, tidel , thermal etc…to buy into the lie that this  liberal goverment is supporting ror projects and g.e.’s investment in plutonic because they care about slowing global warming.i simply can’t! or an even bigger stretch that they the liberal government ,and corperate big business with the help of First Nations of course will ensure that the environment in and surrounding all 500 creeks and rivers staked by ipps will be high on the priority list when the green light turns on.Even if i beleived,  for example ,as i do in  the Klahoose first nation having influence within plutonic and goverment ,to push for high enviromental standards within toba inlet, their rightful territorial home ,i do not believe we or the First nation’s peoples of b.c. no matter how well intentioned have enough information , experience with ror ,paid manpower , etc…to just go ahead as enviromentalists and fully support all ror because . why??? this the only alternative power that is viable?,energy conservation first wouldn’t be as affective? water isn’t the new oil?,First nations peoples are finally given some rights ,to protect ,or develop their own territory so if i ask for a moritorium on ror  i’m opposing first nations only option for investing in their future ,,,,am i really??? and not to mention the all time favourite human justification,,  jobs ,,,the truth that i see is…..because our gov. no matter what party must by law engage in land claims negotiations is only involving first nations because  they have to ,,,and thats because the first nations are rightfully insisting that they do,,,also private corperations know how to open that back door to all development in remaining wilderness areas ,with a checkbook ,,,,environmental organizations simply try knocking! What is really going on ?? What agreements did environmental organizations have to make with Gorden Campbells gov. and First Nations within  and outside the great bear  rainforest to ensure some of the  forests could be protected from logging .Was it jobs  = run of river in all inlets not in the pristine category ? We (the so called environmentalists ) do not have to represent jobs ,we speak i thought for the other species on the planet that do not have jobs . We humans  have the job agenda pretty well represented outside the environmental community, can we inside please at least agree to speak for them ,lets call them” what’s left”,the remaining speices after all those jobs. so we do not have to speak for the liberal gov. or theNDP,lets try speaking for the environment really.First start with conservation!!!Not a doubt in my mind ,,solar hot water ,working with demand hot water systems,turn lots of lights off,give up the hot tub , keep your freezer frozen full,for 5 months of the year no refridgeration is really neccesary ,cold storage works vented to the outside, insulate,!!!!! bus, train, walk ,  grow a garden, shop local,then lets move quickly towards renewable energy, working with systems close to where the power is needed, and provide the most power for the time of year it is needed, lets get some facts straight, who really needs the power? and what for? Well planned because it will benifit the future of all the planets species ,not based on jobs ,or fast money for the likes of G.E. ,or B.C. election campaign greenspeak.My points may seem neive to you ,don’t get me wrong ,i have spent much of my past envirospeak balancing the need for sustainable jobs ,ie. ecosystem based forestry with secondary industry keeping the logs here in b.c., closed pen salmon farming,alternative green energy,on and on we go …. but frankly i’ve tipped over ,tired of constant job justification to allow  for stating the obvious. STOP!  I understand your position to work with current economics and force the direction it takes ,what happened to(” small is beautiful”), to challenge political parties so called green plans, but i repeat those of you specially David Suzuki have great influence when you speak. I am asking it to be staight up. The facts are ,we do here in b.c. consume too much of everything ,there is no better direction than to cut that in half ,it will not provide tons of jobs ,we are going to have to live a very different lifestyle.Let the politicians bribe the people with visions of gold,,just by turning the switch to green .I would ask you to try turning it off.
3. Dana Kagis says:

   March 27, 2009 at 12:38 pm

   As Tzeporah has mentioned, we DO need to do both: fight for the bad while supporting the good.  I am not going to throw my hat into the debate surrounding IPP’s, BC Hydro, private vs. public here, though.  After reading through all of the comments in this thread, I feel as though I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to make an informed comment.  I appreciate everyone else’s remarks, however, and will continue to educate myself on these issues.

   I *will* however make a shameless plug regarding a topic that is near and dear to my heart.  In terms of fighting the bad, I think ALL British Columbians should be aware and opposed to the possibility of Coalbed Methane extraction in this province (which, incidentally, has been banned in many states in the U.S. due to its destructive impact).  My family and much of my extended family have a lot to lose in this fight – namely, the complete destruction of the quality of their water table. 

   More information:
   http://cbmvi.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=59&Itemid=1
   http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/group.php?gid=5736698412&ref=ts

   Cheers,
   Dana
4. Backlash against Green Economy - 47 « Lead the Way BC says:

   March 26, 2009 at 3:12 pm

   [...] against Green Economy - 47 Interesting post at one of my new favourites, Zero Carbon Canada. It’s a long one, so I cut it a bit. Read the [...]
5. Backlash Against the Green Economy in BC « Advancing Sustainability in the Built Environment says:

   March 25, 2009 at 6:36 am

   [...] ZeroCarbonCanada.ca » Blog Archive » Backlash Against the Green Economy in BC.   [...]
6. Yagin says:

   March 24, 2009 at 7:46 pm

   Murray says:  “Your claim that IPP cost of production is not higher than BC Hydro is not true either. BC Hydro’s cost of production is less than $10 MWhour while the cost of IPP power in the latest call is expected to be $120 MWh. Hydro can borrow at much cheaper rates than industry, and when the 25 year amortization of capital costs is paid BC Hdyro owns the facilities. Why do you think ALCAN and Teck Cominco find their power generation so profitable? ”

   Wrong.  You are selectively looking at the heritage mega-dam production – which is actually $6 a MWh (and not $10).  That is not the average cost of production which is much higher.  The mega-dams have no interest payments to their account.
   You need to compare their MARGINAL COST OF PRODUCTION.  I.e. what it costs for Hydro to build a new plant.
   The verdict is $110 for Aberfeldie (a ROR by BC Hydro) and $160 for Site C.  Comparing apples to oranges is what you have done.
   The $120 is not the “latest Call”.  It is a survey of renewable production in the province.  Wrong Again.
   Hydro’s cheaper cost of borrowing is because its cost overrun risk is on the ratepayer.  Not because it is competent.  This is simple finance.
   Yes BC Hydro gets to own the facility because it CHARGED the rate payers for that –
   You mean you think they get it for free?
   While IPPs DO NOT CHARGE the ratepayers for the capital and DO NOT pass the risk onto the ratepayers. 
   ALCAN finds it so profitable because NDP gave it a perpetual water license, and being mega corporations they can browbeat BC Hydro and they dont compete in the Calls.  This while about a 100 IPPs are competeing tooth and nail for 3000 GWh by offering 17,000 GWh.
   No such thing as free lunch Murrey.
7. Linnea says:

   March 24, 2009 at 8:30 am

   Hey,

   Change obviously hurts, and BC has been moving forward for a while; it was time for a backlash.  Why aren’t we environmentalists helping people cope with the change (intellectually, culturally, symbolically)?

   By the way, feminists learned about backlash a looooong time ago.   Every revolution forwards has a reactionary kick as people feel the fear of change.  Ride it, keep on going, and things will come around.  Don’t waste your time arguing among yourselves about who caused what; you didn’t cause anything.  Change is hard, and people get really mean when they feel cornered. 

   Regards
8. Michael Maser says:

   March 23, 2009 at 10:36 pm

   A viable option to mega-scale run-of-river is Tidal (current) energy. 
   As an industry it’s presently where wind energy was at around 20 years ago, with the first commercial projects being deployed and coming on-grid. BC has the equivalent of Niagara Falls or Alberta’s tar sands to generate ultra-high density, emission-free FIRM (predictable) tidal energy, from the currents sloshing through Discovery Passage and Johnstone Strait each day (where the transmission grid is often within site).
    
   BC Hydro and the Energy Ministry is thoroughly aware of the potential, so is the Premier’s office, likewise the NDP – all have been aware for years (look no further than Hydro’s 2002 Green Energy report on tidal current energy to confirm viability). Yet we’re not turning on a light bulb from this renewable resource and technology that has been endorsed by Greenpeace UK (the UK being the location where tidal current has vaulted to the head of the green renewables pack). 
    
   Tzeporah, it’s time to raise your voice in support of developing and deploying tidal energy. Likewise all the green energy advocates who wish to protect wilderness.? 
    
   If you want to learn more about this burgeoning industry go to the (BC-based) Ocean Renewable Energy Group website: http://www.oreg.ca
    
   - Michael Maser
   Blue Energy Canada (www.bluenergy.com) 
9. Murray says:

   March 23, 2009 at 5:15 pm

   Yagin:

   You seem to defend Jaccard’s so-called ‘peer review’ on the basis that it is called a ‘peer review.’ Calling something a ‘peer review’ and actually being a peer review are two completely different things.
   1)    A peer review is not paid for by a party with a financial interest in the finding of the review.
   2)    It also is done in a double blind process where the reviewer does not know whose work he is reviewing nor does the author know who reviewed him/her.
   3)    Jaccard had a well know stand on the issue long before he did the IPPBC paid-for ‘peer review’ (Public Relations in this case) and his pro-privatization stance has been well known since the 90’s.
   4)    Calvert and Schaffer did not submit their book or study respectively to a peer review process, and a ‘peer-review’ process usually the author is aware that he will be placed under this scrutiny.
   5)   Jaccard’s language in the PR paper for IPPBC gave the impression that he personally hated Calvert, which is not usually a characteristic of peer review (ever).
   6)  Shaffer has responded to Jaccard and the recent BCUC hearing IPPBC was afraid to attack him, or submit the Jaccard ‘peer-reveiw’ as evidence to refute his claims, which were entered into evidence.

   And yes Yagin, I read Jaccard’s PR paper and it was a joke. Even to someone who knows nothing about the issues being reviewed can see that it is a personal attack against Calvert that is so ridiculous it can be dismissed outright. Calvert’s main thesis, that power generation in BC is being privatized, remains true despite Jaccard’s 39 claims in the paper that Calvert is talking about a conspiracy theory. Calvert never mentions this and the privatization is consistant with BC liberal policy in health care, liquir stores and BC Rail to name a few. 1/3 of BC Hydro has been privatized by giving the administration to Accenture.

   Your claim that IPP cost of production is not higher than BC Hydro is not true either. BC Hydro’s cost of production is less than $10 MWhour while the cost of IPP power in the latest call is expected to be $120 MWh. Hydro can borrow at much cheaper rates than industry, and when the 25 year amortization of capital costs is paid BC Hdyro owns the facilities. Why do you think ALCAN and Teck Cominco find their power generation so profitable?

   I am not sure about BC Hydro’s cost of the Aberfeldie project, but I do know that BC Hydro is charged 5 times the rate of IPPs. This is no significant amount and Could account for a large part of the cost for power there (if your facts are correct, which from reading your posts and your weight in Jaccard’s ‘peer-review’ I am presently dubious)

   I am not sure where you got the info that Ashlu is $55 MWh because the terms of the EPA’s that Hydro signs are secret and not allowed to be disclosed even by FIO requests. They only divulge the average rate for power paid in the calls EPAs not the individual prices.

   Finally Yagin, your resorting to name calling any and all that disagree with you as ‘extremist’ or ‘right wing’ and ‘left wing’ and spewing lies shows the weakness in your arguments. Why are they right wing or left wing, other than you saying so. Even if you are right and the labels apply, why would so many left wing and right wingers unite to oppose the BC Liberal Energy Plan. Maybe because it is just bad.
10. Rod Marining says:

    March 23, 2009 at 3:10 pm

    Support for IPP’s among BC enviro groups now stand around 3 For IPP’s & 73 Against.  Why?  It is because the process is badly flawed.  Read this science base front page Vancouver Sun news report;

    ‘Green’ energy threatens B.C. rivers, report warns

    Run-of-river power proposals that divert streams feared a significant impact on wildlife habitat

    By Larry Pynn, Vancouver SunMarch 23, 2009 12:01

    Fish stocks are being threatened by run-of-river projects, although they are described as green energy power projects.

    Half of B.C.’s 10 most threatened rivers are at risk from so-called green energy projects, according to an annual report released today by the Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C.
    Mark Angelo, rivers chair for the council, said the public is concerned about a flood of private run-of-river power proposals all over B.C. in the absence of a comprehensive provincial strategy that considers cumulative impacts.
    Bute Inlet, which ranked eighth on the council’s list, is the site of a Plutonic Power proposal involving a record 17 stream diversions, 445 kilometres of transmission lines, 314 kilometres of roads, 142 bridges, 16 powerhouses, and a substation.
    “Looking at Bute Inlet, that’s a footprint that far exceeds what people think about as a green project,” said Angelo, noting that even a small project in the wrong place can have significant impacts.
    The Flathead River in southeast B.C. ranks first on this year’s list due to proposed coal mining and coalbed methane development. It placed second in 2008 and first in 2007.
    The B.C. Liberal administration has championed private power projects to the point of passing legislation that removes the ability of local governments to stand in their way.
    “A lot of people feel alienated from the process,” said Angelo, an Order of Canada recipient who also heads the B.C. Institute of Technology’s fish, wildlife, and recreation program.
    He said the province’s environmental assessment office is designed mainly to help industry make a project work. Environmental concerns relate not just to infrastructure, but potential changes to stream flows and temperatures and insect production that could affect fish survival downstream.
    The Peace River ranked sixth on this year’s list and is threatened by BC Hydro’s power dam proposal for Site C, a stretch downstream of Hudson’s Hope that holds important farmland, wildlife habitat, and archeological sites.
    The low-flow Kettle River near Grand Forks ranked second, in part due to a Cascade Heritage Power Project run-of-river proposal in Cascade Canyon.
    Other run-of-river projects: Purcell Green Power’s plan for Glacier/Howser creeks, third on the list, near Kaslo; and Kleana Power Corp.’s plan for Klinaklini River, 10th on the list, southeast of Kitimat.
    The upper Pitt River placed first last year on the council’s list due to an independent power project that would have run powerlines through neighbouring Pinecone Burke Provincial Park.
    The province turned down the project after a groundswell of public protest.
    Around B.C., rivers are threatened not just by power projects but by urban and industrial development, water extraction, sedimentation, drought, pollution and mining.
    Angelo said it is impossible to “separate the health of our fish stocks from the health of our rivers.”
    Others on this year’s list: the Fraser River, fourth, for urbanization, industrial development and pollution; Brohm River, a productive steelhead stream near Squamish, fifth, for development and excessive water extraction; the Coquitlam, seventh, for excessive sedimentation and urbanization; and the Coldwater River and other Thompson River streams for water extraction and development.
    The council solicited nominations for the 17th annual list of most endangered rivers from its member groups, which, in turn, boast close to 100,000 members, as well as from the general public and resource managers.
    For more information, http://www.orcbc.ca.
    lpynn@vancouversun.com
    http://www.vancouversun.com/Technology/Green+energy+threatens+rivers+report+warns/1417712/story.html
11. Diana Sonderhoff says:

    March 23, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    THANK YOU SO MUCH at last some one tells the truth. There has been so much hysterical opposition to the IPP’s while global warming is the real threat.
    Having a family member trying to go forward with a really green IPP and getting
    attacked for it has been a really disheartening experience. The inaccuracies that have
    been repeated constantly even when they have been pointed out has made me lose faith
    in the so called environmentalists and in our will to to really combat climate change. The anti green power fanatics have unfortunately contaminated such groups as Western Wilderness and even the Greens. Where can one go for real climate change leadership when those we used to trust have lost their common sense and global perspective?
    Anyway keep up the good work!
12. Ryan says:

    March 23, 2009 at 8:45 am

    Thanks for your responses Yagin.
    
    
    1.       EA process. Terms of Reference have been around for much longer than 2006. They are an attempt to standardize the process but in themselves they do not make the process any better. The process is worse from a community stand point as there are not time limits to review project application data that are much too short. Do you really think it is reasonable to review years worth of studies in just 45 days? The process has also reduced the opportunity for meaningful public participation. No with the new Federal amendments to the Navigable Waters Act, it will be even worse as federal involvement will be more limited. The EAO is overworked, understaffed and underfunded. They do not have the capacity, nor do other government agencies, to adequately review the mountains of data provided by project proponents, and it is even worse that they are given short time lines to do the review.
    2.       Water licenses. Yes they have time limits. But like other tenures it is a political decision if they are renewed or not. History is on the side of government pretty much always automatically renewing these licenses.
    3.       I have a very limited understanding of NAFTA. I am a biologist, not a lawyer. But enough people have raised the issue that I feel it should be addressed. What is wrong with ensuring that the water ownership issue is addressed proactively and not at a later date when a problem arises? NAFTA in itself is an anti-green agreement, but that is a different argument.
    4.       Consumptive water licenses are specific to the watershed in which a project is proposed. Can not simply give it a number. In the Cascade Heritage Power Project the EAO recommended that an Order in Council be given to create a water reserve to ensure that future consumptive water licenses could be establish given that there are 100km or so of upstream international users, mainly farmers and municipalities, and that the Kettle River experiences water shortages almost every year.
    
    
    5.       From the EAO EPIC I roughly count that about 7 RoR have been approved and 17 projects under assessment (but many include multiple diversions, so closer to 40 under assessment). No idea if this number included projects that are deemed too small to be assessed, so it potentially could be lowballed. In addition the number of water licenses that have been applied for is something like 500+. I know you will dismiss this part, but this number equates to the potential number of future projects. Obviously we have no idea how many of those licnese applications will actually end up being developed – likely not many, but the potential is there.
    
    6.       Simultaneous conversations regarding the EA process is wrong in my mind as the potential impact from these, and other projects, are very hard to undo once done. So if not done properly now, we get to live with the impacts forever.
    7.       I have no involvement whatsoever with the NGO groups you are talking about. I am a biologist and owner of an independent environmental consulting company. My point was that a single visit to a facility does not equate to an understanding of the situation. Respect is indeed earned. And to me many of the IPP proponents have done a pretty bad job in that regards. Instead of coming to local communities and actually working with them, they attempt to force project on us. Instead of being willing to accommodate our concerns and local values, they ignore them and lobby the government to change regulations. Instead of being open and honest about the projects and the process, they use underhanded techniques. This is obviously just my experience and I hope is not representative of all the projects, and I doubt it is.
    Finally, I really, really hope that one day the government will wake up and start doing this right. Start actually involving communities that will be impact. Start actually making the projects give real benefit to communities after the construction period and beyond the small number of permanent employees. And start doing some proper provincial planning to figure out where these things should go and where they should not. RoR has the potential to be an excellent source of clean power; I have no doubt of this. But let’s do it right. After almost a decade they are obviously not doing it right as the public continues to get more and more concerned. Hundreds of small community groups have started to oppose projects. I think that most of this opposition is not to the project, but to the process that is
13. Andre says:

    March 23, 2009 at 7:03 am

    Here are some facts (and opinions) regarding the Impact Assessment process applied to Plutonic’s projects.

    For the cumulative effects assessment, BCEAO instructs power companies to ignore damage that was done in the past and to set their baselines to present conditions. How can you ignore the fact that damage from previous logging contributed to the reduced salmon stocks in these rivers? Won’t any damage from these projects incrementally affect these residual populations? What does cumulative mean if you needn’t worry how new damage adds to past damage?
    The same myopic logic is applied when companies are instructed to consider future projects in their cumulative effects analysis. To quote the Bute project Terms of Reference:”Projects that are conceptual in nature…may be insufficiently developed to contribute to this assessment in a meaningful manner.” This may seem reasonable, but it proved meaningless during Plutonic’s East Toba application. In it (submitted in 2006), Plutonic stated that:
    ‘’PPC … envisages additional run-of-river development in the Bishop and Homathko drainages, to the north of the Toba Valley, as well as one project on the Upper Lillooet River … However, these projects have not been developed beyond the conceptual stage, and have not yet been determined to be viable. Through discussion with the BCEAO and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency, it was determined that these conceptual projects are considered speculative at this point, and do not constitute projects reviewable in this CEA.”
    In other words, don’t consider these future projects in your analysis. The following year, in 2007, Plutonic presented its plans for three large plants in the Upper Toba, and in 2008, for 17 plants in the Bute Inlet project. How could these projects have been considered speculative a couple of years earlier? Did Plutonic suddenly get busy and quickly moved them from “conceptual” to “full description”?
    Indeed, it seems they did not. In November 2008, Plutonic’s CEO was quoted as saying:
    “Today’s submission [of the Bute Inlet project] is the culmination of four years of planning, engineering, consultation, permitting and licensing (Globe and Mail, November 25, 2008)”
    Insofar as the company was concerned, these were long-standing, carefully planned projects. Plutonic was disingenuous when it agreed with government agencies that their planned projects were speculative. To any onlooker, these government accommodations exceed the bounds of prudent practice: they reveal a deeply flawed process.
14. Oemissions says:

    March 23, 2009 at 1:30 am

    The Greens policy has long been clear.
    What is not clear is the NDP position. Carole James was/is against a carbon tax.
    Since they are the victors or runner ups in the forthcoming election, how clear is their policy.
    Many complaints about the Carbon Tax came from rural BCers .I live in a so called rural area. We recently had a bus added. During the Christmas and big snow period, the ridership shot up in almost a straight vertical line then fell again. So if its easy to take the bus then with all the snow, isn’t it even easier when there is no snow?
    This need to drive,habit of drivin drives me crazy. The roadsare now overcrowded. The town is a polluted sea of vehicles. The noise is horrendous but even conservationists,”environmentalists” chose to drive rather than take the bus.
    Same goes for ferries. We should be having  foot passenger only ferries.
    And  buses and trains should be meeting them.BC FERRIES and Translink fail to coordinate trips.
    The point is: people will change their light bulbs but they won’t get out of their cars.
    That’s the convenient truth. And it doesn’t seem to matter to them how much noise,stress, polution and social costs this entails. I gave up my auto for an electric bike and a bus pass but boy! do I ever have ROAD RAGE.
    79 people per day are injured in auton acidents each year. The #1 cause of death for our youth is auto accident related.
    Where is Health Canada on this.?
    And ofcourse when it gets cold and there is more snow they ask: so what’s all this bunk about global warming?
    Interesting too that the rise in car sales this January was attributed to recent Asian immigrants.
15. Eric Doherty says:

    March 22, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    
    Tzeporah,
    You have identified a very important point. Almost everything discussed here is within the frame of ‘business as usual’. You wrote:
    “But here’s the thing: these are ‘business as usual’ — pretty much every country in the world is building roads and bridges and exploiting whatever fossil fuels they can.”
    But that is the tragedy of the Gateway freeway megaproject; it does not represent business as usual in Metro Vancouver. It represents a huge leap backwards to the discredited freeway schemes of the 1950s that were dealt a resounding defeat in the early 1970s. While jurisdictions around the world wake up to the reality that Vancouver got it right in 1972, the provincial government is now trying to force freeway expansion on us despite the strong objections of residents, the regional district and some municipalities. (More info on Gateway is available at http://www.livableregion.ca)
    Just look to the south, people in Seattle just went through a multi-vote process that saw a supposedly balanced freeways and transit plan defeated, and a transit-only plan called Sound Transit approved. This is not enough, but it is the kind of thing that is happening to create green jobs under ‘business as usual’ – even in the US. On transportation policy, BC’s policies could only be called business as usual compared to the Bush administration.
    But under ‘business as usual’ adding low-carbon electricity to the US grid does not necessarily reduce emissions. It may just result in higher energy use. This is similar to building freeways and transit at the same time, it can result in higher emissions that just building freeways without any added transit. (Because in the North American context a significant amount of transit serves park and ride lots which stimulate automobile dependant sprawl in the same ways as freeways do.)
    We could probably get some kind of reasonable assurance that added generation will displace coal fired power plants, maybe very quickly with a single jurisdiction such as Alberta. But I don’t think that assurance exists yet with the US. If you want to talk about fuel switching in BC to reduce emissions, lets find the best way forward, but I see no plan to do so in any significant way so far.
    You wrote in your original post that “this ought to be our historic moment to rally a broad coalition of society behind the scientists, First Nations and workers. To stand for green jobs in a clean economy”.
    A strong green jobs coalition is needed to push the needed changes forward. But if you want to be part of an effective coalition you need to take a hard look at the business pages and the history of BC.
    You seem to be saying that the public sector does not have the financial backing needed to build new hydroelectric facilities and upgrade the grid in the way necessary – “To think that the state alone can shoulder the finances or has the capacity to go it alone at the scale needed, is not supported by any empirical evidence on earth.”
    BC Electric was nationalized (and re-named BC Hydro) so the province’s financial might could be put behind a massive expansion of generation and the grid. Private financing is now enormously more expensive than government borrowing. The Highway 1 freeway expansion is no longer being privately financed – it suddenly became far too expensive. And governments around the world have suddenly re-discovered that they can borrow and lend trillions at the drop of a hat.
    You can make good arguments that some generation facilities should be privately or cooperatively owned and operated. For example, very small (nano) hydro developments are usually only practical if maintained and operated by someone who lives nearby. However, there is no reason that the vast majority of larger generation facilities could not be financed and operated by BC Hydro and various levels of government (including first nations). Pretending that the public sector lacks the capacity to finance low emissions generation is just going to convince people that Power Up is more concerned with promoting privatization than with reducing emissions. I am fine if you prefer private ownership, or just think it is the reality given the ideological bent of the present government, but Thatcher’s ‘there is no alternative’ line is kind of stale in 2009.
    The reality is that we need to go well beyond business as usual; and the same financial crisis that has made private public partnerships (P3s) prohibitively expensive makes this much easier. Many alternative paths have opened up; for example it is much easier to talk about re-directing welders from expanding the tar sands plants to building wind turbines now that most tar-sands expansion plans are on hold. The same holds true for automobile workers and proposing a shift to making buses.
    Yagin’s comments also illustrate why I think the line Power Up is taking is not particularly productive. Yagin wrote “I see wrong with the Gateway project as in 10 years 1/2 the cars on it will be electric.  And the transport busses will have to remain diesel because Lithium Ion does not have those capacities yet.”
    Tzeporah, your own post refers to the massive amount of new generation needed to power things such as electric cars without mentioning transit. The fact is that we are toast if we stick with the ‘business of usual’ path of an automobile dominated society. The electric car and clean coal are like unicorns, they don’t really exist despite being nice ideas. Ten years ago hydrogen powered cars were going to be the save all, where are they now?
    If we want to quickly and radically reduce emissions as is absolutely necessary, we need to do it with proven technologies such as light rail cars and the electric trolley bus. Fewer cars and much better transit service may not be business as usual, but it is the kind of change we need. Interestingly, one BC government report estimates that transit expenditures produce almost three times as many jobs in BC per dollar spent as automotive expenditures.
    Hmm three green jobs for the price of one blacktop job – maybe we don’t need to try bringing business as usual back.
    Eric
16. Yagin says:

    March 22, 2009 at 9:30 pm

    Randy says:  “First of all if you had read Jaccard’s so called ‘peer review’ and knew what a peer review was, you would understand that that Calvert has been not been debunked in the least.”

    Here is a link to Jaccard, as you seem to be unaware of Jaccard’s critique.

    
    Jaccard:  “Calvert’s book is best read as a political propaganda tract rather than as an independent, unbiased analysis.”
    
    http://www.ippbc.com/media/IPPBC%20News%20Release%20M%20%20Jaccard%20Assessing%20BC%20Electricity%20Policy.pdf

    Have you been to any of Calvert’s talks Randy?  What he spews out is extremist hyperbole and falsehoods – insults to intelligence and disrespect for the audiance as dupes.  Despite multiple corrections he continues to spew the same lines and lies.

    He claims that IPP cost of production is higher than BC Hydro.  This is completely wrong.

    The marginal cost of production by BC Hydro at their recently completed run of the river project, Aberfeldie, is $110 a MWh and it cost ratepayers $5 million a MW to construct.

    The Ashlu Creek private power IPP projects production cost is only $55 a MWh and cost $3 million (none paid by ratepayers) to construct.  BC Hydro’s EPA entitles it to buy Ashlu power at $55 for 40 years, and then BC Hydro resells that to the hapless consumer at $80 a MWh.  To add insult to injury, BC Hydro subsidizes the mining and pulp-paper industries by charging them only $35 a MWh.

    Is there any wonder that the lobbyist group JIESC that is hired by industry is lobbying BC Hydro to continue buying coal fired electricity?  And then JIESC has allied itself with the BC Hydro COPE 378 union run BCCPP.

    So you can see that Calvert is unknowledgable about such basic facts – to say the least.  And WCWC by aligning itself with this propaganda artist, is actually doing a disservice to its own believers.  Of course WCWC which does not tell us how many large doners its got and where its considerable money comes from, will have no compunction aligning with any union paid activist, even rightwing Socred boss Raif Mair.
17. Yagin says:

    March 22, 2009 at 6:33 pm

    Ryan says:  “The current EA process has gone backwards. It is not “perfect yet” – it is getting worse.”
    Can you elaborate on that.  The process has become actually a lot more demanding, for example by the institution of a new step (Terms of Reference) that came into effect in 2006.
    Ryan: “You know very well that as once given water licenses, like forestry tenures, are rarely give back to without some strong political will and often with compensation to the company.”
    Wrong.  The tenure has a term – co-terminus with the EPA. 
    Once the EPA expires, as the the only buyer is BC Hydro, the IPP must re-enter the BC Hydro tender process.  If no EPA is attained, there is little chance to export power as Powerex and BCTC make the cost of export so high that it is uneconomic.  And power rates in Washington are not higher than BC anyways.
    The renewal of the license is not guaranteed and depends on the statutes in effect at that time, and on government policy.  Effectively it is BC Hydro that decides who gets those EPAs and their corresponding tenures.
    Comparing this to the forest industry where there are a huge number of buyers, vs. the monopsony of a single monopoly capital BC Hydro buyer dictating prices and terms is simply wrong.
    Ryan:  “we also really have no idea what the NAFTA implication of the license may be as to my knowledge it has never been challenged.”
    So what does NAFTA say?  Do you know if there is an issue in the proper context, or this is just designed for the propaganda effect and cheap criticism?  NAFTA deals with all trade and not just power.  To selectively bring it up in this context sounds like an anti-green agenda to me.
    Ryan:  “So, if in the future individuals, industry or municipalities find that they need to acquire a new or increase an old consumptive water license upstream of a project, the proponent’s license takes precedence. ”
    Do the math Ryan, and stop nitpicking and grasping on straws.  Consumption does not even account for 1% of water diversion.  Unless of course you are talking about a tar sands operation at Christina Lake making for the ”future industry”.  This water-consumption criticism is beyond ridiculus.  If that 1% issue is a defect in the law, well then get it addressed.
    Give us numbers Ryan – how much water do you think needs to be diverted for consumption?
    Ryan:  “There are so many projects under works that what is the point in stating a conversation regarding cumulative impacts while simultaneously allowing numerous projects to be developed?”
    Give us numbers Ryan and cut the rhetoric.  How many projects are getting constructed?  No I dont want to hear about the tens of PROPOSED projects, 5% of which see the light of the day – tell us about projects in construction.  And what is wrong with simultaneous development?  Bute will not receive an EPA – so you can count Bute Inlet 17 creeks out.
    Numbers Ryan – numbers.  Don’t debase this debate.
    Ryan:  “have to spend the countless hours in p[public meetings and pouring over all the documents trying to get a straight answer from the proponent”
    When WCWC and other activists who spend countless hours at public meeting are continuously and shamelessly lying and pushing untruths about this industry and often other renewable industries like tidal), why do you think the proponent will give the anti-green energy activists any respect and take them seriously?
    Respect must be EARNED – Ryan.

    Tzeporah – this comment board software is one of the worst I have seen.  Did you know that if you forget to check the “policy” switch, that you will lose your comment?  I have lost countless comments.  Try it.  Also italics as text is not nice, and it doesnt accept html and many many other issues.  Please change the board server.
18. the nutshell paragraph » Blog Archive » Bye bye, Karzai? says:

    March 22, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    [...] What’s happening to Canada? Even as the US crawls out of its disastrous neo-conservative era, Canada seems determined to mimic America’s mistakes. Take, for example, the minister of state responsible for science, who won’t confirm his belief in evolution… or the Conservative Party’s attempts to hijack student groups… or the immigration minister’s decision to ban a British MP from Canada over his left-wing views… Or British Columbia’s latest zeitgeist on energy: Fossil fuels only, please… [...]
19. Laurie says:

    March 22, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    Regarding comment policy: It is not always easy to draw a defined line about an issue without sometimes aiming at an individual, especially if you are trying to correct an error or a perceived one. 
      Iain Trevena in his letter says that you (Tzeporah) visited the Bute site. I understood that you have only been to the Toba site for a brief visit and not Bute. Is this correct? If you have not been to Bute how can you make a decision about somewhere you haven’t been. Even making a decision that everything is okay with the  Toba project after a day tour without spending weeks/months there doesn’t make you an authourity on the project. (People have been given tours of bad projects or countries where minorities are mistreated and come away saying, “what is the problem”). You are shown and told what they want you to see and know.
      I have looked at Plutonic Powers website and when I see the pictures of what is going on in Toba, from my perspective I see a massive carbon footprint from all the machines operating, camp operation, helicopters, planes, boats, trees cut down, 225 barge loads to date of manufactured, industrialized towers, pipes, etc. http://www.plutonic.ca/s/ActivitiesPhotos.asp How many years is it going to take before this carbon debt is paid off and the power it gives is considered clean energy? 
      In this months National Geographic the  article on ‘Saving Energy it starts at home’ says that for everyone  to be equible in the amount of carbon a family should use a day is 30 lbs.  One gallon of gas alone amounts to almost 20 lbs of carbon.  By producing more energy without cutting back on personal consumption is going to put us further into carbon debt. People will just say, “today is okay I will cut back tomorrow”. They should be weaning back now because when it does hit them they will have to go cold turkey and the energy addicts will go into withdrawal. 
      I have recreated and worked in Bute Inlet for over thirty years and know many others who have done so as well, both from the logging and the environmental perspective. Bute has been heavily logged but it has also greened back up quickly so is paying off its carbon footprint. If Plutonics Bute project goes ahead the carbon footprint that it will create will take alot longer to pay off than the past logging.
      You, Tzeporah, seem to insist that something has to be done right now to stop climate change. I agree as do many others whom you say oppose any sort of development, but many of these mega projects are not clean green energy. Clean technology projects closer to communities and existing transmission lines is what we should be looking at.
      Even the IPPBC fact sheet says that what is required of a RoR hydro power project is ‘potential sites must have nearby transmission access’. You think that over 450 KM of transmission lines is close? 
      From the top of your hill do you feel the impact of the winter outflow wind from Bute Inlet or do you fly south for the winter?
20. Ryan says:

    March 22, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Tzeporah – I am all for supporting the ‘push for more’, but let’s do it properly. To me much of the statements the government is putting out regarding CC is akin to the Shock Doctrine – using the climate emergency to push though whatever they want. I am all for creating more renewable power, and really do not have much or a problem with private involvement. But as long as the current way in which it is being done, I’ll do all that I can to oppose many of them.
     
    To put a blanket ‘good is outweighed by the bad’ on these projects is incredibly naive. Have you actually looked at some of these proposals in detail? How about the Glacier/Houser project where the proponent has decided that since BCTC or Fortis will charge them to wheel their power through existing power lines, they propose to create 100km or so of new lines directly over the Purcell mountain range, though Mtn. Caribou habitat on the edge of the reserve. Instead of operating as an actual RoR, the water diverted from the multiple creeks will never return to them; it will be discharged into the Duncan Reservoir.
     
    Once again, these are some of the main reasons why many people are opposing these things. We are not opposing renewable energy! Period. Please stop saying that! We are opposing the process to create renewable energy in BC because the process sucks, the government has removed all meaningful local involvement, and the government has not done any planning to determine where suitable locations for these facilities are.
     
     
     
    Tzeporah Berman
    March 19, 2009 at 6:20 pm
    Eric, good points and good to be having a discussion about pushing harder on carbon reductions.
    I agree with what you’re saying about the things BC is doing in the wrong direction. In fact I’d add the ramp up in oil and gas and the ongoing desire for offshore drilling.
    But here’s the thing: these are ‘business as usual’ — pretty much every country in the world is building roads and bridges and exploiting whatever fossil fuels they can. This includes countries that are leading on conservation or renewables or carbon restrictions. Germany is doing great on ramping up renewable energy companies and still pumping out big energy hog cars.
    There are 2 sides to the leger. Stop the bad and start the good. BC is doing better than everywhere else in Canada on starting the good. (maybe Ontario has beaten BC with their new Green Energy Act). But especially in these early baby steps days, the good is way outweighed by the bad.
    If we wait for politicians to get pure before acknowedging what good steps are being taken, we’ll wait a very long time. And we will not create the social license for them to move faster on the good. If we wait until the ledger is balanced, it never will be.
    So I think the nature of this time in history is we have to do both — campaign against coal plants, new fossil development, bad transportation etc. And simultaneously campaign for more good — praise the conservation measures, the carbon tax, the renewables plan and push for more.
    Its not as easy as straight oppositional campaigning but I think its what we have to do.
21. Ryan says:

    March 22, 2009 at 12:43 pm

    Tzeporah – these statements indicate to me that your understating of the RoR EA process is based on the last couple years and you have not been following this issue for very long. The current EA process has gone backwards. It is not “perfect yet” – it is getting worse. IPP vs forestry tenure is probably the worst comparison you can make, You know very well that as once given water licenses, like forestry tenures, are rarely give back to without some strong political will and often with compensation to the company. As well, we also really have no idea what the NAFTA implication of the license may be as to my knowledge it has never been challenged. So what is wrong with the public and many groups asking that the government figure these, and many other, issues out before allows all of these private developments? I have no problem with private ownership, but I have a serious problem when it is not well thought out and totally disregards and public concerns. This it not the way forward for me.
     
    Regarding your first statement. This is not entirely correct. If a project is proposed in a community watershed, such as the Cascade Heritage Power Project in Christina Lake, then the volume based water license that the proponent requires, even though non consumptive license, restrict future additional licenses. So, if in the future individuals, industry or municipalities find that they need to acquire a new or increase an old consumptive water license upstream of a project, the proponent’s license takes precedence.
     
    Regarding your last two sentences. This is the entire reason why many people are calling for a moratorium. There are so many projects under works that what is the point in stating a conversation regarding cumulative impacts while simultaneously allowing numerous projects to be developed?
     
    Finally; it is great that you took the time to go visit one of the project sites; the Bute. But it is a bit of an insult to those of us whom have been involved in the projects for the last decade or so for you do make one visit and then make very public comments based on it. All these projects are different. If you ever have the opportunity to actually live in a community where a project like this is proposed in the middle of your community; have to spend the countless hours in p[public meetings and pouring over all the documents trying to get a straight answer from the proponent and figure out what is going on, or feel the enormous frustration of a so called public consultation process that has eliminated the input of local government, that does not give any weight to local concerns or opinions, and a process that does not even have the ability to say no to a project. Maybe if you experience this then you will truly understand why there is such opposition. Until then you are another one of a growing list of big name people talking about something they have little to know experience in.
     
    “Tzeporah
    March 20, 2009 at 9:37 am
    Ken,  First of all there is no connection btw turbines in Toba or Bute and drinking water.  You are right we face increasing global conflicts over drinking water (see the work of Thomas Homer-Dixon on environmental collapse and increased conflict) however, BC’s energy plan doesn’t give away drinking water rights.  or water rights ‘forever’.  I think we need to take a page from Monbiot here and ensure more rigour in the analysis. thats part of why I am engaging in this debate because there is so much misinformation out there about the tenures/leases to IPP’s.  IPP’s get a tenure for a specific period to create a project on a river  (not unlike logging tenures on public land that no one calls ‘privitization of forests’ by the way).  In addition the IPP’s have a requirement that they maintain the water flow.  The technology doesn’t allow for containment dams. They get the right to spin a turbine.  They have to sell the energy back to (public) BC Hydro and they cannot sell the water.  To be clear the set up isn’t perfect, the process and policies are not perfect yet and we need to be having a conversation about how we create clearer best practices and address cumulative impacts. I feel like that important conversation is buried by the blanket opposition to renewable energy co’s whether wind, tidal, RoR, whatever.”
22. Roger Stevens says:

    March 21, 2009 at 8:53 pm

    COPE is fully on the wrong side of the green energy debate — just look at their website or new election attack ads or read the transcripts from the BCUC hearing this month. They called for Burrard Thermal (formerly the biggest CO2 polluter in the lower mainland) to be fired up!!! Renewable energy build to be stopped and imports (from AB coal) to be used instead!!

    Their election site is openly against energy conservation pricing and against the carbon tax and against smart meters (this one makes me think they have totally lost their minds — even the American Republicans wouldn’t be so crazy as to oppose smart meters). They are fully reactionary on these issues with no global warming context at all.  I could go on with examples but I hope anyone who cares about climate and energy will just go look for themselves.
23. Randy says:

    March 21, 2009 at 8:42 pm

    Yagin:

    your comment: When WCWC extols and sells John Calvert, totally debunked and dismissed as a hack by Nobel prize winning Prof. Jaccard, and where his book is freely handed out by COPE 378 anti-green energy BC Hydro union — does that generate respect?”

    Is ridiculous. First of all if you had read Jaccard’s so called ‘peer review’ and knew what a peer review was, you would understand that that Calvert has been not been debunked in the least. The IPPBC paid for media ’study’ was more of a personal attack on Calvert than any refutation of his arguments.  Jaccard lost a lot of credibility with his peers after pulling that stunt.
    Secondly, labelling COPE 378 as anti-green energy is gutter slinging of the worst kind. The Joint Industry Electrical Steering Committee, who is also opposed to the BC Liberal “Green Plan”might be called that, as they suggested returning to coal generation to lower costs. But I have yet to see anything from the COPE 378 union, WCWC or any of the others that suggest they have an anti-green energy stance. 

    Maybe you should take a time out.
24. Randy says:

    March 21, 2009 at 8:29 pm

    
    Andre:
     
    Thanks for your 2 cents worth. It provides a perfect example of highly ideological rhetoric, which is both ahistorical and unrealistic. Your statement:
    ” The fact that they take chances, apply hard work and expect a reward for it, as their profit, does not make them pathologically-irresponsible.
    Labels like Corporation and Free-market confuse issues. It is all about people making decisions. Those individuals that carry a sense of responsibility will act responsibly; those that do not will screw you if it’s to their benefit. This applies whether these people work for industry, government, or First Nations; whether in a Capitalist or Socialist country.”
     
    is full of logical inconsistencies that are all too common with liberal (as in the philosophical and economic sense, not the American progressive one) thinking.
    Fist of all, my criticism said nothing of persons themselves being pathological, rather the profit making imperative of the private sector institutions that make perfectly decent people behave in ways they wouldn’t if it was all about individual decisions. I am sure there is nothing fundamentally different from people who work for Union Carbide as Plutonic Power or other corporations. The same person who in one situation might make decisions that led to the deaths of 100,000 Indians, as was the case with Union Carbide, can also make decisions to generate ‘green power.’ They are both constrained by society and the institutions they operate in, and in this case they are profit-making institutions.
     Your sense that the captains of industry or small businessmen take risks and should be rewarded for taking them(although you don’t state that directly, I am assuming you would agree). The stress you put on individual decisions and risk belies the fact that many people take risks and make individual decisions every day and are not rewarded. Look at the state of many of the World’s poor. By the liberal view, they just have made the wrong decisions, didn’t take risks, and that is why they are poor. 
    By the same ideological stress on the individual, the assumption is that the private power companies in BC are taking risks and should be rewarded. What risks are they taking? Are they risking their lives? (maybe the workers, but not the shareholders) Are they risking their personal fortunes? Not if they have incorporated into limited liability companies. In fact many of them will get lucrative contracts to supply power at well above market rates or what it would cost a public utility to make. BC Hydro is forced to buy from a limited number of companies who do not face any real competition from other sources. If BC Hydro was able to cost out the developments and bid against them this might be more competitive, but they have their hands tied. (maybe this is because of the energy companies ‘risky’ political donations to the BC Liberal party, running at several hundred thousand dollars now)
    BC’s public model was created by a highly ideological capitalist leader who thought that overall, society (a capitalist one) would be better off by not leaving the electricity sector to private profit generation. Fear or lack of understanding of what ‘labels’ like Corporations and ‘Free market’ mean, is what gets in the way of understanding what the public/private debate is all about. They certainly don’t ‘confuse’ the issue, just the people who don’t really understand what they mean.
     
    
25. Yagin says:

    March 21, 2009 at 8:25 pm

    Andre:  “I feel that we should work together wherever our opinions meet and respectfully disagree where they don’t. That respect will make it possible to keep working together, despite differences. Conversely, lack of respect and hard lines will prevent us from working together whenever there are differences, however insignificant.”
    I have heard too much of this “respect” thing, which is used to bludgeon dissenters into silence.  So I will not remain silent.  This issue also came up on BCSEA and was let to pass.
    Respect has to be EARNED,Andre. 
    Please do not equate pseudo environmentalist organizations such as Wilderness Committee and Save Our Rivers, with that of BCSEA and Zero Carbon.  Just because an organization may have a core group of activist leaders and “Believers”, does not make it deserve respect.
    When WCWC says IPP projects of 49 MW or less DO NOT NEED an environmental permit — does that generate respect for them?
    When WCWC says there will soon be 575 IPP projects constructed, when the going rate is only 3 a year, does that garner respect?
    When WCWC a supposedly progressive organization (actually it is “neo-progressive”, but that is a different philosophical matter) makes alliance with an ultra-rightwing former Socred boss and a nationalist, Raif Mair, fired from his job under unknown circumstances, does that garner respect?  Is this Nationalism making alliance with Socialism?  When did we last hear about this – can I ask?  Is that earning respect?
    When WCWC extols and sells John Calvert, totally debunked and dismissed as a hack by Nobel prize winning Prof. Jaccard, and where his book is freely handed out by COPE 378 anti-green energy BC Hydro union — does that generate respect?
    Sorry Andre – but respect is not a right but a privilege to be EARNED.  When WCWC ejects dissenters from its meetings, that does not put them in the respect side of my ledger.  Equating all groups and organizations, democratic, open, liberal, plural, or not as equal, of deserving the same level of respect – that I find too simplistic to be of truth or value.
    The fact that WCWC is an activist organization does not give them a monopoly on the discourse or make them holier-than-thou.  In fact activists are sometimes the worst participants in this debate because they make an ideological and religious-like cause out of an issue which is science-based to its core.  Differences in values can only be resolved through open debate, empirical reasoning, and compromise on our values.  The fact that one party is closed, has no method of engagement except through propaganda, activism, and religious-like guilt stoking, and then happily censors dissenters (yes, go and post dissent on their facebook – see what happens) – shows that they are unsuitable to address our complex issues that can only be addressed democratically.

• Join UP
• Donate
• About
• Privacy Policy
• Disclaimer