Fishing with Rod Discussion Forum
Fishing in British Columbia => Fishing-related Issues & News => Topic started by: sean_salmon on March 31, 2009, 03:15:30 PM
-
http://saveourrivers.tv/bute_video.html (http://saveourrivers.tv/bute_video.html)
-
I wonder ??? whether the Green Party actually has a chance to get a few seats this year let alone a majority. Otherwise it is a scary thought either way - Liberals or NDP.
-
So long Gordo don't let the door hit your my friend on the way out 8)
-
No time to watch the whole thing now but have it bookmarked-Thanks for posting.
-
Thanks for posting this link, I was given a copy by Damien who filmed it but but I had not watched it until now.
Please send the link to others so the message gets out to your friends.
This and so many other things this government has done behind closed doors shows their true colors.
Change is in the air.
-
Took the time to watch it through and now I see-the whole export issue was one that was cloudy in the past but it's becoming clearer all the time. >:(
-
Where do you propose to get your electricity from?
-
Where do you propose to get your electricity from?
Johnny-that's the question I asked in the past and it's a fair one.
But watching that video in it's entirety (and doing some internet searching) one learns that BC is a net exporter of electricity.
That's right we produce enough for our own needs and make money on what we sell.
Now the rub is that electricity can't be stored efficiently-once these dams go in where will the power go?
And we all know that it'll flow south-this is all about supplying hydro generated electricity to California not meeting our needs now or in the future.
Yes BC makes good money exporting hydro power-should we dam every last river cut down every last tree so we can have more and more and more and more money?
How much do we need anyway?
This is all about Gordon Campbell's most heartfelt desire-to sell everything he can to his yanqui pals.
So many people today have Money as their God and the BC Liberal party is one of them-everything is money everything that can be sold must be sold because Money Is God/Money Is Life.
Once everyone has enough Money-or Campbell's pals have enough Money they can laugh all the way to the bank over their bullsh*t slogan BC the Best Place on Earth. ::)
I have to stop typing now I'm going to go and throw up!
-
Good post SS. Thats the Liberals through and through. :(
-
The main thing to note is the first pre-election poll has come out to show the NDP is trailing by only 6%... Please forward this to everyone you know, so they can see what is really going on in BC...
The liberals have to go, before too much damage is done. We can still stop this.
Cheers,
Nicole
-
Today's Vancouver Sun
California rejects B.C.'s green power claims
State senate says run-of-river hydro projects here are too big to qualify under its renewable energy bill
By Scott Simpson, Vancouver SunApril 2, 2009
British Columbia's effort to promote its hydroelectric energy exports to California as green power is failing.
The California senate last week rejected calls by electrical utilities in the state to amend a renewable energy bill to incorporate power from sources such as run-of-river hydro from B.C. as part of their obligation to generate 33 per cent of retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2020.
Pacific Gas & Electric, in particular, sees B.C. power as central to a $4-billion B.C.-to-California transmission system upgrade carrying an enormous quantity of supposedly green power -- equivalent to half of B.C.'s present generating capacity -- to the state by 2016.
PG&E's promotion of supposedly green B.C. power is a central aspect of the provincial government's plan to develop the province as a major exporter of renewable energy.
However, the presence of a willing buyer who can pay premium prices for green power is critical to B.C.'s initiative, particularly in the massive California electricity market.
Western Canada Wilderness Committee national campaign director Joe Foy said the California senators' decision confirms his group's misgivings about run-of-river power.
The wilderness committee is a vocal opponent of the large-scale drive to develop run-of-river power resources under the umbrella of BC Hydro's power acquisition mandate on the premise that it's causing unnecessary damage to streams and forested areas.
"Once again this so-called run of river, this river diversion power, has been been judged and been found not to be green," Foy said. "The environmental footprint is too big.
"They tried to wiggle it past the Californians and were unsuccessful. Californians had a closer look."
The senate opted for a regulation that disqualifies hydro projects producing more than 30 megawatts -- new B.C. projects are typically 50 megawatts or larger. The senate bill is now being reviewed by the California state assembly and a final decision could be months away.
The wilderness committee obtained a letter to the assembly from B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner who is attempting to assure legislators that power from this province is subject to a thorough environmental review.
"The only reason we're buying it [in B.C.] is that we are being forced to buy it. I think the only one who sees it as green power is our own government," Foy said.
In an interview, Penner said he wrote the letter to counter allegations raised by environmental groups which are urging California legislators to hold firm to their existing standards.
Penner said California's decision to increase its use of renewable energy was "laudable."
He said he wrote the letter to detail, in four single-spaced pages, the extent of environmental scrutiny to which run-of-river projects are subject in B.C.
"There was what I believed to be a misinformation campaign, spilling over from the ideological debate here in B.C. about having the private sector involved in renewable energy," Penner said.
"I wanted to set the record straight. I had seen some e-mails about what people were saying about British Columbia and it was not true. I felt we needed to stand up for British Columbia."
ssimpson@vancouversun.com
Read Scott simpson's BLOG at ww.vancouversun.com/energy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
I don't believe a word of it-the same people who drove that once mighty economy into the sh*tter are now saying they are green 'n clean. ::)
Money talks and when they need cheap power you know where they'll look......
-
The B.C. Liberal party is making huge sums of money for the government through these "IPP's" and since they are all about Free market economy and private farnchise it will continue until they are given the boot...
if you follow the legislation and policy making from 2001 onward there is a deffinite trend...2002 B.C. hydro's new "vision", later on bill 30 to remove municipal powers in decision making...and if you take a close look at the budget the Federal conservatives snuck in there much wanted ammendments to the Navigable Waterways Protection Act...public resource's are being privitized...at least it is limited to only 3 or 4 ne hydro contracts a year(to my knowledge, at least, was told this by a b.c. liberal friend)
fact is that down the chilliwack river valley there are applications to start hydro projects on slesse creek, tamahi crek, pierce creek, borden creek, post creek and more. from what i have heard the hydro station proposal for post is almost located on top of lindeman lake. i know, personally, that the coho go about a mile up post creek and then stop. but the rerouting of water might change this.
run of the river, in my humble and worthless opinion, is not a terrible concept, just in the right area's and in the right hands. why do these stations have to be privatly run? B.C. Hydro was pidgeonholed into this since 2002, can't we reverse this?? B.C. had, in 2001 the third lowest Hydro cost in Canada...rates had not gone up since 1993...we were making tons of money from Alberta and elsewhere. B.C. Hydro was working. just recently it was announced that there will be a 14% increase on power charges. my fear is in resting control of our waters to private companies and corporations.
Whatever comes of the tendencies of our political parties we will not know until it comes to pass. my fear is that with cases of canadian companies flip the developments over to american ownership after having been awarded the projects we bring NAFTA into the question, especially chapter 11. i also presume we will have to wait and see what the new definition of "Navigable waterways" is as of the new ammendments, and whether the vedder river and others like it will be taken off the protected list, hence up for private enterprise...
-
also..i just personally hope everyone knows the difference between the B.C. Liberals and the Federal Liberals...to much different parties to be sure...
P.S. the ads are already pretty spiteful and hilarious, aren't they Vote Smart B.C. sign?? And those "Gordon Campbell want to kill your grandma" ads were immature but yet priceless. can't wait to see what they bring out for the actual election...
-
Demand for electricity is going to go up not down. All those "green" electric vehicles need to get their juice from somewhere. Whether we are an importer or exporter now is somewhat irrelevant. We will need more power if we are going to use less oil for vehicles. And every bit that we export reduces the American's reliance on coal and natural gas fired power. How would a large coal fired plant look just across the border? How about a large nuclear site? Hydro power may not be perfect, but in my opinion, its better than a lot of the alternatives.
-
You guys are out of your minds if you really believe Carole James is a better alternative!!
-
Hydro power is great, in my opinion....also wind and solar are sweet too...i even charge my trolling motor battery with a mini solar panel i keep in my boat...but why private? why "rent" or even "sell" a public resource instead of having total control of how its run? in the event that B.C. hydro pisses us all off, which has happened in the past, there are ways to pressusre a crown corporation effectively...a private company has rights that can be equal to the publics at times, especially a foreign owned private, or one that has foreign investors.
make it public, then we can have a certain amount of control and sovereignty over our waters...public isn't perfect, but its better than the alternative...
-
You guys are out of your minds if you really believe Carole James is a better alternative!!
So we should just be happy as we sit on our duffs and watch the province be sold for a few trinkets. BRILLIANT!.
How many lies are we willing to accept?
The BC Rail whopper?
The "" 2 fish" that have escaped from fish farms?
"I will not tear up legal contacts"( How many millions did that lie cost?)
Open and transparent government? yeah right.
Closing seniors homes?
Shutting out municipalities by overriding their choices?
Not allowing BC Hydro to develop power generation?
Huge raises and a gold plated pension plan for MLA's but squat for minimum wage earners?
Tax cuts? ( Top 2% income earners got the most)
The carbon tax? (Try living up north)
Pay and play parks?
The highest rate of child poverty in Canada?
Increasing tuition fees so that education is unaffordable to the average family?
Guaranteeing loans to private companies to build bridges?
The Convention center over runs?
This is only what comes to mind. There's bushels more.
Time for a change.
-
You guys are out of your minds if you really believe Carole James is a better alternative!!
So we should just be happy as we sit on our duffs and watch the province be sold for a few trinkets. BRILLIANT!.
How many lies are we willing to accept?
The BC Rail whopper?
The "" 2 fish" that have escaped from fish farms?
"I will not tear up legal contacts"( How many millions did that lie cost?)
Open and transparent government? yeah right.
Closing seniors homes?
Shutting out municipalities by overriding their choices?
Not allowing BC Hydro to develop power generation?
Huge raises and a gold plated pension plan for MLA's but squat for minimum wage earners?
Tax cuts? ( Top 2% income earners got the most)
The carbon tax? (Try living up north)
Pay and play parks?
The highest rate of child poverty in Canada?
Increasing tuition fees so that education is unaffordable to the average family?
Guaranteeing loans to private companies to build bridges?
The Convention center over runs?
This is only what comes to mind. There's bushels more.
Time for a change.
Yep.
-
I apologize if I seemed verbose or rude in the above post, but there's way too many issues that need to be raised and heighten some awareness about. My adopted home is being sold off in increments.
One other point- Where does NAFTA sit in the "ruin of the river" projects? It could end up with us losing everything to out of country companies and having no control over our own resources. Wake up before it's too late.
-
Bottom line here folks is "WE are a net exporter" of energy. TO the sum of almost 1 billion dollars into our govt(us)
every year. We dont need ROR projects that "CANT STORE ENRGY" ???
Our existing dams can be upgraded to boost our reserves. Don't fool yourselves ROR projects are for one thing only
and thats the US market.
Let them screw up their enviroment not ours.
Carole James is certainly a better alternative than thiefing Gordito.
Novabonker is right through NAFTA we could lose control of our resources. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!
Bluesteele
-
OK here is a thought. Post up what solutions the NDP has put forth. Do they even have a solution? All I hear from Carole James everytime I see her is how bad the Liberal government is. She never has an answer for anything. She is all talk but no action. Thats all she has done since she has been the leader of the NDP party. Does she even have her own opinions? I usually vote Liberal and this time I have mixed feelings but I will not vote NDP as long as she is the leader. If the NDP is to be taken seriously they need a strong and vocal leader with strong opinions and solutions in which she does not.
I have sent emails to both parties in regards to my concerns in the things that matter to myself and my family. In all my emails I always got responses back quicker from the Liberals ( even a couple phone calls from them )
-
Brian did you ask them about fish farms, run of the river projects, cut backs in the Ministry of Environment or the CNR sell off?
If so I would be interested in what they said.
-
Do they even have a solution? bbronswyk2000
All I hear from Carole James
Does she even have her own opinions?
I will not vote NDP as long as she is the leader
I usually vote Liberal
....Sounds a bit bitter especially toward women. Lighten up and maybe even vote against your gut instinct. You might be pleasently suprised. :)
-
OK here is a thought. Post up what solutions the NDP has put forth. Do they even have a solution? All I hear from Carole James everytime I see her is how bad the Liberal government is. She never has an answer for anything. She is all talk but no action. Thats all she has done since she has been the leader of the NDP party. Does she even have her own opinions? I usually vote Liberal and this time I have mixed feelings but I will not vote NDP as long as she is the leader. If the NDP is to be taken seriously they need a strong and vocal leader with strong opinions and solutions in which she does not.
I have sent emails to both parties in regards to my concerns in the things that matter to myself and my family. In all my emails I always got responses back quicker from the Liberals ( even a couple phone calls from them )
Well maybe you would see some action if the NDP was voted in? Hmmm..Liberal solutions lets see PRIVATIZE. Well Yes the Liberal govt IS BAD ! Too bad you cant see further down the road
then one woman. The way I look at it is she is what we have and if you at all care about this provinces you cant do any worse than Gordo. IF you want to wait for just the right charasmatic
leader might be a while. Reality is shes the leader and one should look at the OVERALL picture.
I can guarantee one thing vote the Liberals back in and kiss the fish goodbye.
Just my 2 cents
-
Do they even have a solution? bbronswyk2000
All I hear from Carole James
Does she even have her own opinions?
I will not vote NDP as long as she is the leader
I usually vote Liberal
....Sounds a bit bitter especially toward women. Lighten up and maybe even vote against your gut instinct. You might be pleasently suprised. :)
Ya bitter towards women. What a smart comment. Lets see my best friend is a women ( was my mother who passed away from cancer at 56 years old ), my wife is a woman, my clients are mostly women. Way to be observant troutbreath.
I dont judge anyone of any race, color or sex. I take people at face value. A spade is a spade. Maybe with your insight you can find out what Carole James has up her sleeve. You have any information that might make myself or others change their vote who dont buy what she is selling?
I am a small business owner and dont trust the NDP with the way the economy is right now. The Liberals have helped the small businessman a great deal by cutting taxes substantially. That is the bottom line right now, if we dont have money their is no food on the table for my wife and three kids. Do you have kids? A wife? People you need to take care of? The election is not just about the fish or the rivers, its about much more than that.
-
Yes it is also about hospital wait times, lack of nurses, homelessness, cost overruns such as the new Convention Center, long lineups at the food banks that the public has to donate to in order to feed the hungry and Telethon's to raise millions to support Children's Hospital. Patrick Kinsella's involvement in the sale of BC Rail while earning $297,000 is another bad sign especially as he has been involved in Liberal elections for the party. These are a few of my reasons I donot think the present government is doing a very good job. Some may differ and can defend these actions, I cannot.
As well never forget the health of our river systems and the fish are a strong indication of how good a job we are looking after these waterways.
No government is perfect but I feel the present one needs to be changed.
By the way I had a seat on a local Liberal riding Association for nearly 8 years, attended Liberal conventions and was sign chairman for the 2001 election.
I finally resigned about a year ago as I could support all I saw going on. :( :-[
-
I respect what you say Chris and always have. I just think a person needs to vote for what is right for them. In this time of uncertainty I just have to vote where I feel it will help my family. I just dont feel that Carole James and her NDP party will help my family during these economic times. You know how much I care about the rivers. I would have been to the cleanup this past weekend if I was on the mainland. I was always there when I lived there. I care as much as the next person ( were you at the cleanup Troutbreath? ) my family just comes first right now until we get out of the mess of the economy.
-
OK here is a thought. Post up what solutions the NDP has put forth. Do they even have a solution? All I hear from Carole James everytime I see her is how bad the Liberal government is. She never has an answer for anything. She is all talk but no action. Thats all she has done since she has been the leader of the NDP party. Does she even have her own opinions? I usually vote Liberal and this time I have mixed feelings but I will not vote NDP as long as she is the leader. If the NDP is to be taken seriously they need a strong and vocal leader with strong opinions and solutions in which she does not.
I have sent emails to both parties in regards to my concerns in the things that matter to myself and my family. In all my emails I always got responses back quicker from the Liberals ( even a couple phone calls from them )
To start with do you know how much public debt has increasedunder the liberals?9From 30 billion to 47 billion when we recorded surplus budgets) Have you taken a mortgage out to take a ferry? Why is BC Ferries no longer required to submit to public disclosure? Why did I just have to wait 2 and a half YEARS for hernia surgery?( I darn near lost my small business over that) Who got the biggest tax cuts? (Hint- It wasn't you or me) Did you read the list of lies and deceit I posted above? Can I add raw log exports? Or the shambles the forestry industry is in? Allowing a tree farm tenure to be turned into sub dividable lots near Jordan River? How about the "mining rights" that allow any company with the mineral claim to come on YOUR property and plunder away? The answer to the crime wave on our steets is reduce court services?The election gag law? Can you really support that?
Finally how about the denial that there was even an economic problem until it was rammed down their throats? Just until a scant few months ago, the Liberals were still claiming a surplus?
I too used to be a Liberal supporter, but I can't in good conscience give my stamp of approval to selling our souls for a few shiny coins. Also, I'm not trying to cajole you, but my goal is to look at what's gone on the last 8 years and really think if that record deserves another 4 years to sell us out.
-
With my wife working on the mainland and me and the kids living here on the island I know all too well what the cost of the ferries are.
Anyways its been fun debating politics but if I want to keep my business going I better be going to bed. Gotta be up by 4:30am to teach my first class in the morning.
Just remember not to let these things bother you its all in a good debate. Life is too short to worry too much. Live life to the fullest each and everyday. I think I will take my kids to the local river tomorrow that is void of steelhead. It used to be a very productive river in the 80's
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/bbronswyk2000/Island%20Life/Family%20Outings/20090379.jpg)
(http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y227/bbronswyk2000/Island%20Life/Family%20Outings/20090367.jpg)
Good night
-
Nice family pictures. Sometimes I feel like moving back to Duncan that I left 46 years ago. Visits back are too infrequent even though I now can travel free on the ferries from Tuesday to Thursday. ;D ;D
Good debate is great as we all learn from them. It is too bad so many governments are not as transparent and open we are on this forum.
-
Take a look at the recently amended BC laws covering environmental review of projects. River diversion schemes less than 50 MW are exempt from review. 50 MW is pretty big. Nobody is minding the store!
-
At least they are taking a second look at this as they received a lot of concerned from the caucus of continuing with this, for now!!!
Statement on Recognition and Reconciliation Act
VICTORIA - Premier Gordon Campbell, Minister of Aboriginal Relations and Reconciliation Michael de Jong and the First Nations Leadership Council: Regional Chief Shawn Atleo of the BC Assembly of First Nations; Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, President of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs; and Grand Chief Ed John of the First Nations Summit made the following statement this weekend regarding the status of the Recognition and Reconciliation Act:
"Over the past several weeks many important issues, concerns and questions have been raised about the Discussion Paper for Implementing the New Relationship and the concept of a new Recognition and Reconciliation Act.
"This is the time for us to make this important and historic transition in our government to government relationship and we need to take the time to make sure we get this right.
"As the parties to the discussion paper, together we need to take the time for consultation and further discussions before tabling this bill."
The Premier and Minister de Jong will continue to engage with the business community on this important initiative.
-
Published today.
Craig Orr: What is your government doing for wild salmon?
By Craig Orr
In early 2008, some 340,000 cubic metres of prime gravel was scalped from the top of a large bar in the lower Fraser River near Chilliwack. All this was sanctioned by the federal and provincial governments under the pretext of flood control. But qualified hydrologists who reviewed the largest single Fraser River gravel removal in history found no evidence of the sort. One of government’s own consultants concluded that “It does not appear that large scale gravel removals...are effective in lowering the flood profile.” Another even claimed government was deliberately misleading the public.
See also
David Suzuki: Run-of-river power projects may offer green energy solutions
Gwen Barlee: Private run-of-river power projects make no sense in B.C.
Steve Davis: Independent power producers generate green energy and jobs in B.C.
Anglers, conservationists, and others who cared about the Fraser were up in arms. “Flood control” measures were said to be nothing more than “gravel grabs” done at the expense of valuable fish habitat. Science and common sense suggested that some of the most productive chinook salmon habitat left on Earth had been destroyed, along with a vast stretch of prime pink salmon spawning gravel. Concerns were also raised over threatened sturgeon.
A moratorium in place since the late 1990s to protect Fraser River salmon and sturgeon habitat was lifted by the provincial government early this decade. Liberal environment minister Barry Penner and ex-solicitor general John Les both campaigned for the lifting of the moratorium, and shortly after, the province and Fisheries and Oceans Canada signed a five-year deal authorizing the removal of massive quantities of gravel, with more than 420,000 cubic metres up for grabs in 2009 alone.
None of this bodes well for the future of the lower Fraser River, one of the world’s last great salmon rivers. Perhaps one day when humans look back on how we mistreated our once-bountiful salmon resource, the name “Spring Bar” will resonate sombrely with those wondering how we could have allowed the squandering of so much with so little resistance.
But Spring Bar is sadly just one blotch in a much tarnished tapestry of neglect, abuse, and betrayal of wild salmon and public interest. When it comes to our rivers, we are currently engaged in the greatest fire sale in history. Private power corporations have staked claim to the water flowing in more than 700 rivers and creeks, and mere citizens are told to be quiet and be happy because this is all good for them. Government and industry PR teams tout the benefits of “green hydro” projects and actively downplay the impacts of such developments.
In truth, citizens have been all but shut out of decisions on the merits of privatizing and developing our rivers, including the massive project proposed for the Bute Inlet, where Plutonic Power hopes to divert water from 17 rivers and build a gigantic web of roads, pipes, and transmission lines. The resulting public outcry and show of concern has thus far prompted little deviation from business as usual. Projects are still reviewed individually, under narrow terms of reference, and with no consideration of cumulative impacts or of the other values that British Columbians associate with rivers and wild places.
And if the assault on freshwater habitat weren’t enough, consider the plight of our salmon in marine waters, where both the federal and provincial governments continue to champion the growth of industrial aquaculture. The public controversy over the impacts of aquaculture has intensified since 2002 when the provincial Liberals lifted a seven-year moratorium on fish-farm expansion—also the same year in which Broughton pink salmon collapsed by 97 percent. Stories of sea-lice impacts on juvenile wild salmon and collapsing pink salmon stocks are common media fodder. These now-familiar yet always-painful stories serve to reinforce concerns of myopic and destructive government policies, but calls for funds to transition the industry go unheeded.
Back on land, a Forest Practices Board study of 1,110 road crossings over fish streams in 19 B.C. watersheds finds that less than half of the crossings offer salmon safe passage. Still, industry pressures government to “modernize” laws to make it easier to develop in and near salmon habitat. Management of our forests is dealt a serious blow with the cutting of 800 jobs from the Ministry of Forests—nearly half in enforcement and compliance—during the first Liberal mandate, and the relentless gutting of environmental enforcement in favour of industry-led “results based” self-regulation.
This all begs the questions: Why is our wild salmon heritage treated with seeming contempt by government? And can we do anything to elevate the level of care and concern, before it is too late? Programs like the federal Wild Salmon Policy and the provincial Living Water Smart program may offer hope, but only if adequately resourced and mandated. Nongovernmental organizations, weary of years of inaction and damage, are also trying to work with industry to reduce sea-lice impacts on baby salmon now making their way past salmon farms. Such offerings may not be enough, though, given the human record, including a well-documented history of what one scientist sadly terms “resource management pathology”.
Our wild salmon resource, while much abused, remains a remarkable world treasure. If we don’t wish to see it squandered, we will all need to become more engaged in saving it. After all, it is people, not salmon, that give governments a mandate.
Craig Orr is the executive director of Watershed Watch Salmon Society.
-
Today's Vancouver Sun
California rejects B.C.'s green power claims
State senate says run-of-river hydro projects here are too big to qualify under its renewable energy bill
By Scott Simpson, Vancouver SunApril 2, 2009
British Columbia's effort to promote its hydroelectric energy exports to California as green power is failing.
The California senate last week rejected calls by electrical utilities in the state to amend a renewable energy bill to incorporate power from sources such as run-of-river hydro from B.C. as part of their obligation to generate 33 per cent of retail electricity sales from renewable sources by 2020.
Pacific Gas & Electric, in particular, sees B.C. power as central to a $4-billion B.C.-to-California transmission system upgrade carrying an enormous quantity of supposedly green power -- equivalent to half of B.C.'s present generating capacity -- to the state by 2016.
PG&E's promotion of supposedly green B.C. power is a central aspect of the provincial government's plan to develop the province as a major exporter of renewable energy.
However, the presence of a willing buyer who can pay premium prices for green power is critical to B.C.'s initiative, particularly in the massive California electricity market.
Western Canada Wilderness Committee national campaign director Joe Foy said the California senators' decision confirms his group's misgivings about run-of-river power.
The wilderness committee is a vocal opponent of the large-scale drive to develop run-of-river power resources under the umbrella of BC Hydro's power acquisition mandate on the premise that it's causing unnecessary damage to streams and forested areas.
"Once again this so-called run of river, this river diversion power, has been been judged and been found not to be green," Foy said. "The environmental footprint is too big.
"They tried to wiggle it past the Californians and were unsuccessful. Californians had a closer look."
The senate opted for a regulation that disqualifies hydro projects producing more than 30 megawatts -- new B.C. projects are typically 50 megawatts or larger. The senate bill is now being reviewed by the California state assembly and a final decision could be months away.
The wilderness committee obtained a letter to the assembly from B.C. Environment Minister Barry Penner who is attempting to assure legislators that power from this province is subject to a thorough environmental review.
"The only reason we're buying it [in B.C.] is that we are being forced to buy it. I think the only one who sees it as green power is our own government," Foy said.
In an interview, Penner said he wrote the letter to counter allegations raised by environmental groups which are urging California legislators to hold firm to their existing standards.
Penner said California's decision to increase its use of renewable energy was "laudable."
He said he wrote the letter to detail, in four single-spaced pages, the extent of environmental scrutiny to which run-of-river projects are subject in B.C.
"There was what I believed to be a misinformation campaign, spilling over from the ideological debate here in B.C. about having the private sector involved in renewable energy," Penner said.
"I wanted to set the record straight. I had seen some e-mails about what people were saying about British Columbia and it was not true. I felt we needed to stand up for British Columbia."
ssimpson@vancouversun.com
Read Scott simpson's BLOG at ww.vancouversun.com/energy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I phoned and emailed numerous people including the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources to express my concerns for R.O.R. projects as part of the 10, 000 voices campaign http://www.10000voices.org/ (http://www.10000voices.org/). I requested to speak with the minister and was put through to one of his staff whom tried to make it blatantly clear to me that there was no way power would be transported to California for various reasons. He acted as though what I was suggesting could not possibly materialize. This was last week and now I read in this article that not only was the government aware that this was most certainly a possibility but they were lobbying for it. So I was intentionally mislead by a representative of our current government. That's the problem with zero accountability.
-
BB I usually agree with just about everything you say but as a business owner myself I'm looking at the big picture. It's not going to matter if I have money in my pocket if I have no way to get out and enjoy it when our land is being raped and turned into a business in itself. That is what our "pro business" govt has proven it's mandate is so far. I'm proud to be able to contribute taxes from my earnings as long as those tax dollars are spent with some visibility and accountability. This is NOT something I think you can say we have with the liberals. Where my tax dollars go and what is happening to the province in general is FAR more important to me than how much I pay in taxes at the end of the day.
-
I sincerely hope Obama makes the mistake of reopening NAFTA when Prime minister Harper is no longer Prime minister....or re-opening it at all for that matter... maybe then we could have some real regulations on water usage...right now we are left entirely open to exploitation...
-
Thanks to the Liberals for lifting the moratorium
-
River Privatization Just Produces Power That We Don't Need
Written by Rafe Mair
Saturday, 11 April 2009 19:29
As I make my way around the province I find the following the greatest area of misunderstanding (a misunderstanding fostered and encouraged by the government and the private river people) to be that private power will help take care of BC’s energy needs..
When lawyers see a statement like “fish live in water therefore I must visit the North Pole” they call it a non sequitur; literally “it does not follow”.
The Campbell government and the power producers have a pronounced a classic non sequitur in the private power debate. They say “British Columbia needs or will need power therefore we must have private 'run of river' projects.”
Remember that electricity in bulk cannot be stored and must be used as it is created. BC Hydro "stores" electricity by creating a reservoir behind its dams which can be used to turn their generators. For all intents and purposes, private river plants do not have the ability to store significant amounts of water. In fact they boast of the fact that they don’t create reservoirs. They must, then, rely upon the quantity of the river flow. The amount of energy produced by private power must come from the Spring run-off; when the height of the river drops, as it does after run-off, little if any electricity can be created.
It does not, then, follow that if we need power we can use private river projects because the vast majority of power created by private projects comes at the same time BC Hydro’s reservoirs are full thus have no use for private river power.
In short, the only use for private power is export which is what Donald McInnis, CEO of the Plutonic/General Electric partnership freely admits.
The new minister of Energy, Blair Lekstrom, has said this in a letter to several newspapers: NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreement) “is not part of our energy mix”. This abysmal ignorance should alarm us all. Whether or not we get involved with NAFTA is not a matter for Mr. Lekstrom to decide but happens automatically when you ship power over the border. It must be realized that NAFTA is calculated to help the corporate world. TIt's not a matter of whether or not NAFTA applies but HOW it applies. For the minister to have made such a statement shows either abysmal ignorance or egregious arrogance or both and it indicates one more time that the Campbell government has no time for honestly putting its schemes before the public.
If Gordon Campbell is re-elected the enormous Bute Inlet project of Plutonic/General Electric will be approved – 17 rivers involved – and with that precedent there’ll be no way to turn down future private power applications. BC will be in the business of being the biggest supplier of energy in the western United States and river after river will become suppliers of that power. The profits of that power will not go to the people of BC but to shareholders, like Warren Buffet at General Electric.
-
Export? Wouldn't that concept include getting paid?
According to comments in a Sept 2008 Hydro Peace River Site C report, California still owes BC Hydro $400,000,000.00 for power used since 2001. Worse yet, California is appealing the bill because BC didn't create the market.
??
In case you want to read the 316 pages, they can be found at:
http://bchydro.com/etc/medialib/internet/documents/policies/pdf/site_c_-_round_1_stakeholder.Par.0001.File.Site_C_Appendix_1_Stakeholder_Meeting_Notes.pdf
-
Thanks for this, it gets more interesting the deeper one looks into these matters.
I just spent a couple of hours more reading and watching the videos at the Saving Our Rivers web page, gets more disturbing each time you watch more. I just sent Mr. Penner and Mr. Les our area MLA's the link and asked them if they had watched and read the web page info and to reply to me the concerns that have been brought up.
I hope for a response but after I wrote the letter to the editor of the Chillwack Progress re the gravel issue and reading their response to me in the following paper I donot expect one but at least I tried to get an explanation. Hopefully to distill my fears of the environmental damage and sell out to the USA these projects seem on the surface to be doing.
I will keep you posted if I get a response. :-\
-
Thanks for this, it gets more interesting the deeper one looks into these matters.
I just spent a couple of hours more reading and watching the videos at the Saving Our Rivers web page, gets more disturbing each time you watch more. I just sent Mr. Penner and Mr. Les our area MLA's the link and asked them if they had watched and read the web page info and to reply to me the concerns that have been brought up.
I hope for a response but after I wrote the letter to the editor of the Chillwack Progress re the gravel issue and reading their response to me in the following paper I donot expect one but at least I tried to get an explanation. Hopefully to distill my fears of the environmental damage and sell out to the USA these projects seem on the surface to be doing. Although, with the election looming you might hear what you want, take it with a grain of salt.
I will keep you posted if I get a response. :-\
Good luck with that reply Chris and I mean that in all sincerity. Sadly, with the present autocracy I find a lot of concerns and cares are brushed aside unless one chooses to polish the ruling party's apple. It seems you either get a form letter response or some rambling pile of male bovine excrement from a flunky if you choose to contact the MLA's or Ministers. And with the huge increase in the Public Affairs branch, they have lots of writers on staff.
-
Go to their office and ask for a Mr. Onderwater. He will relay your concerns to both Mr. Penner and Mr. Les...
Even better, if you believe that wont work, visit them at their church's in town...im sure they cant weasle their way out of the issue at that point...
or at an all candidate's meeting, assuming they attend one, bring up the question and concerns their, the election is about to "Officially" begin...soon they wont be able to hide from the issues...
just some ideas how to get their attention or answers....take them or leave them...
-
.
I will keep you posted if I get a response. :-\
This is a response I received today. Any Comments?
THE REAL STORY...ON CLEAN ENERGY
April 12, 2009
The NDP and their friends in big labour are mounting a dishonest campaign about the BC Liberal Government’s Energy Policy in an attempt to vilify the private clean-energy sector and their contribution to our economy.
Meanwhile, one look at the NDP scheme to put an end to clean power development shows that Carole James has no energy plan for BC - other than sacrifice thousands of jobs and billions in investment to pursue their dishonest ideological agenda.
Here are the real facts.
NDP CLAIM: The government is privatizing B.C. Hydro
THE FACTS:
This is simply a not true.
In fact, the only government that ever considered selling BC Hydro was the NDP in the 1990s.
The BC Liberal Government was the first government to pass legislation to ensure BC Hydro remains publicly owned.
Significant public investment in expanding BC Hydro continues to occur. Between 2001 and 2010 we will see nearly $9 billion in investment in public BC Hydro assets – more than double what was invested between 1991 and 2000.
It is the BC Liberals that committed to seriously examining the construction of the Site C dam in northern B.C. – the largest hydro project to be considered in a generation.
All this has taken place while BC Hydro rates remain among the lowest in North America.
NDP CLAIM: The Government is privatizing rivers
THE FACTS:
This is completely false.
All rivers in BC continue to be publicly owned and the province retains ownership of water at all times.
In fact, it was the BC Liberal government that passed legislation to ban bulk water exports and put 40 years limits on water licences.
The NDP promoted private, run-of-river hydro projects when they were in government citing the job-creation and environment benefits they produce.
When the NDP left office there were 17 private independent run of river projects operating in BC, today there are only 15 more.
With over 290,000 rivers in the province, run-of-river proposals are on about 0.03 per cent of our rivers. When leases expire, the water rights and any private development revert back to government ownership.
This industry has already fostered $2.4 billion in private investment in our communities and created 1,100 jobs, with billions more in potential investment to come.
NDP CLAIM: BC doesn’t need more electricity.
THE FACTS:
Because of the NDP’s failure to invest in new electricity generation in the 1990’s BC is currently a net importer of electricity. As a result we currently rely on “dirty” electricity generated in the United States and Alberta to keep our lights on.
BC Hydro’s electricity demand is forecasted to grow between 20-35 per cent over the next 20 years.
We expect the industrial load to increase significantly as BC’s economy continues to grow.
Putting a moratorium on clean power projects as the NDP have said they will, will force BC to continue to rely on dirty U.S. power – eliminating thousands of jobs and billions of investment.
NDP CLAIM: BC Hydro isn’t allowed to build new power.
THE FACTS:
Completely untrue.
It was the NDP in the 1990s that prevented BC Hydro from investing in needed infrastructure resulting in BC becoming a net importer of dirty electricity from the U.S.
Between 2001 and 2010 we will see nearly $9 billion in investment in public BC Hydro assets – more than double what was invested between 1991 and 2000.
Furthermore, it was the BC Liberals that instructed BC Hydro to seriously examine the construction of the Site C dam in northern B.C. – the largest BC Hydro project to be considered in a generation.
All this has taken place while BC Hydro rates remain among the lowest in North America.
NDP CLAIM: IPP’s are making electricity more expensive.
THE FACTS:
Not true.
BC Hydro contracts with IPP’s through a competitive procurement process to ensure only the best and lowest cost projects move forward.
IPPs are responsible for all project development costs, reducing financial risk for BC Hydro ratepayers.
All IPP power is contracted at a set price further reducing risk for Hydro ratepayers.
All contracts require review and approval by the Independent BC Utilities Commission to ensure they are in the ratepayers' interest.
As a result BC continues to have some of the lowest electricity rates in North America.
This industry has already fostered $2.4 billion in private investment in our communities and created 1,100 jobs, with billions more in potential investment to come.
NDP CLAIM: IPP’s do receive proper environmental review.
THE FACTS:
Wrong.
All IPP projects require extensive environmental scrutiny. Any project over 50MW must go through a detailed environmental assessment process, and even smaller projects have to go through no fewer than 11 provincial approval processes and up to six federal approvals.
If impacts to fish can’t be adequately avoided then projects will not be issued a licence. This is in part why over 150 water licences applications have been rejected or abandoned since 2001.
All IPP projects contracting with BC Hydro are required to have net zero greenhouse gas emissions.
IPP’s are developing innovative clean energy projects in every coroner of our province including wind, tidal, geothermal, run-of-river, and biomass.
-
insightful post Chris i hope this opens some peoples eyes.
-
A comment from an old Socred:
Hi Everybody, Rafe here.
I received an email from a man saying that he has a tough time bringing himself to vote NDP and asked for my comment and here it is. I hope you find it of interest.
Please pass this on to your address book so that we can provide information where the media will not.
Let me take a moment to answer your question which is one that has troubled a lot of people including myself.
When I was in government (1975-80) I was Minister, first, for Consumer and Corporate Affairs. During that time I passed more consumer legislation than anyone before or since including licensing Car dealers (with six of them in caucus setting their collective hair on fire) forced the Banks to acknowledge and obey BC laws for the first time, forced serious reporting changes to the Vancouver Stock Exchanges for which they have never forgiven me, licensed Travel Agents and made them create a fund to bring home passengers stranded by bankrupt charter companies and so on.
As Environment Minister I stopped the government killing of wolves, stopped exploration for and mining of uranium and went to Seattle and negotiated the saving of the Skagit River from a raising of the Ross Dam which Seattle was permitted to do under a 1941 deal with the BC government.
As Minister of Health I brought in the Homecare program and Palliative Care.
I tell you all these things because there is no way in the world I could have ever done these things for the public of BC had Gordon Campbell been Premier.
The political ground has shifted dramatically and the present day version of the old Socreds is, I think, the party Carole James leads. I know that there are supporters of Ms James that are hard line lefties just as when I was with Bill Bennett there were supporters and indeed members of Caucus who were near fascists. That sort of thing will always happen in a two party system.
If it were 1975 all over again, I'd support Bill Bennett (the best premier BC ever had, in my view); in 2009 I will support Carole James.
Now as to the point that Campbell "cleaned up the mess". Perhaps, but let's be fair and observe that the NDP were struck by the "Asian 'flu" and in fact balanced the budget in their last year. It's also interesting to note that under the Liberals the Vancouver Convention Centre is over budget $400 million, more than double the cost of the "fast ferries". For a fuller account of the Liberals financial record may I refer you to my forthcoming article, next Monday, in www.thetyee.ca.
Now let's look at 2009. This election, for me, boils down to a single issue - the environment and the plans by Campbell to deface and destroy the province I was born in and love and where 7 out of 8 of my grandchildren live. The energy policy, in which no one but industry had a hand in formulating, will ruin an ever increasing number of rivers, not to look after BC's energy needs, but mostly, American requirements, I have nothing against Americans and in fact have often been accused of being to lenient with them, but I don't want to see us sacrifice our environment rivers so they can preserve theirs. This policy is government by the North America Free Trade Agreement and our experts tell us three things-
1. once an American company has access to our water for any reason, it can use it for any reason Including selling bulk water exports.
2. Once an American company has tenure on a Canadian water and is using it, that tenure cannot be terminated either by contract or legislation.
3. Once we are exporting energy, we cannot reduce that supply to the US without reducing our own usage by a similar amount (this is the "Proportionality Clause").
Moreover, the profits which BC Hydro now pays into our treasury will go as dividends to shareholders of Companies like General Electric, Ledcor and Axos. BC Hydro, forced by this government to pay huge amounts for energy that they can't even break even with when they sell it, will bankrupt BC Hydro for which we paid a high environmental price 45 years ago but which has since then given us regular power at 1/10th the cost they pay in California. Dr Marvin Shaffer at SFU calls this new business technique "buy high, sell low"!
If Campbell is returned we will be, like Bre'r Rabbit, stuck to the American Tar Baby.
There is but one other choice, vote NDP.
But will this not mean the financial ruination of the province?
I don't believe so for a moment. But let us assume for the sake of argument an NDP government made a balls up of the economy. That can be repaired by a new government. However, once we have established the Campbell Energy Plan for another four years that will be the end of BC Hydro and the end of hundreds of rivers. FOREVER.
I cannot allow that to happen without giving it the fight of my life.
I, a former Socred minister, with the same core values I had then, am supporting and will vote for Carole James.
Sincerely,
Rafe
Please take the time to look at www.saveourrivers.ca and get the bigger picture
-
ok so i was aware of this...
"This policy is government by the North America Free Trade Agreement and our experts tell us three things-
1. once an American company has access to our water for any reason, it can use it for any reason Including selling bulk water exports.
2. Once an American company has tenure on a Canadian water and is using it, that tenure cannot be terminated either by contract or legislation.
3. Once we are exporting energy, we cannot reduce that supply to the US without reducing our own usage by a similar amount (this is the "Proportionality Clause")."
but what i am wondering is where in NAFTA these conclusions are drawn. i have been told that it is mainly under Chapter 11 that much of this is born out of..if so what part of chapter 11?? if you haven't noticed the document is MASSIVE!!! so if anyone could provide somewhat proper citation for this i would be deeply grateful. thanks.
-
I think bulk water exports would be pretty tough to pull off, since the water licenses typically have clauses in them about minimum allowable flows in the river, and only allow for diversion of the flow, not removal. What goes in at the top, must come out at the bottom, and go back into the river. This is why the power projects are normally located at an impassable obstacle for fish, so that the area of the diverted flow does not affect them.
-
Re: NDP and enemy to green power by Steve Davis (Progress letters, April 20)
Let's hope Mr. Davis is right and the NDP would in fact destroy this fraudulent industry.
Mr. Davis acts like his industry is "investing" in BC, when we are underwriting these private power projects with our commitment to purchase the power from them at 20 times what we make it for on our own public dams. ($30 billion of our money already - and that's just the tip of the iceberg. The GE / Plutionic proposal for what would be the largest private hydro power project in Canadian history in Bute Inlet, would cary approximately a $20 BILLION contract all on its own. All our money.) Not a fair comparison - our public power costs and this new exorbitant private river power? It is when we don't need and can't in fact use this private river power, because most of it comes at the precise time of year when our public dams are full to brimming over. Which means we will be forced to export virtually every watt - at a substantial loss.
Indeed, this "market-driven" industry and government have come up with a new savvy business principle they'd like to share with us: "Buy High/Sell Low." We buy it for $80-120 MWh and are forced to dump it onto the spot market for less than half, yielding a debt cycle that will ultimately bankrupt our historic public power utility - the legacy of that far left wing socialist WAC Bennett.
The economic consequences to this program couldn't be more grave for British Columbians, especially at a time like this:
1. Astronomically higher rates for consumers (get used to paying California style rate - 4x what we pay today)
2. Astronomically higher rates for industry - meaning widespread job loss in already hard-hit communities
3. Higher taxes for all British Columbians as we lose the approx. $700 million/year dividend our pubic power utility has put towards our schools and hospitals
4. The long term cost of giving away our most valuable and vital resources - our energy and our water: PRICELESS
Mr. Davis gives the impression we should be thankful to his industry for absconding with our rivers and tens of billions of our hard earned dollars. And he shows the opinion he has of our intelligence when he tries to pass this power off as environmentally sound. Thank you St. Steve! There's nothing green about this stuff - though there will be plenty of carbon credits attached to further enable pollution from the tarsands. I invite readers to visit SaveOurRivers.ca to see my videos detailing the impacts of these projects and to read articles from some of Canada's top ecologists, biologists and energy experts about the folly of this program.
We never asked for this program, we were never consulted about it, we never gave our consent. And we we tried to be involved in the process through our local government, Bill 30 came in and took away our rights.
This is a scam. The biggest we have ever seen.
I have another take on the position taken by Mr. Davis (former Vice President of Ledcor Power): His industry is destroying our public power utility, economy and environment.
Let's hope he's right about the NDP.
Damien Gillis
Filmmaker - Save Our Rivers Society
-
All the Liberals have left the house! (and now work for IPP's) Belly up to the trough!
Geoff Plant, former BC Liberal Attorney General @ Renaissance Power.
Mark Grant, BC Liberal executive director@ Rupert Peace Power.
David Cyr, former Assistant to BC Liberal Minister Mike de Jong @ Plutonic Power.
Robert Poore, worked under the Provincial Revenue Minister of the Province of BC @ Plutonic Power.
Tom Syer, who has held a variety of senior positions in the BC Government including Gordon Campbell’s Deputy Chief of Staff @ Plutonic Power.
Bill Irwin, after holding key positions in the BC Ministries of Land and Water, and Crown Lands @ Plutonic Power.
Bruce Young, has held several high profile positions with the BC Liberal party and lobbied his own party on behalf of Katabatic Power @ Atla Energy.
Stephen Kukucha, former senior policy advisor for the BC Ministry of Environment @ Atla Energy.
Bob Herath, former Assistant Regional Water Manager for the BC Ministry of Environment @ Syntaris Power.
Paul Taylor, after his work as President and CEO of crown corporation ICBC as well as high level positions in the BC Government@ Naikun Wind Energy Group.
Michael J. O’Conner, former President and CEO of Crown Corporation BC Transit @ Naikun.
Jackie Hamilton, formerly held various BC Government environmental assessment and regulatory management positions @ Cloudworks Energy.
-
I believe it was #4 out of 5 on the liberals goals, as per their pamphlet. " To create a world class fishery "
I think they failed the fishery part, nevermind the "world class" part.
I will vote the NDP...............I'm not into shoving rivers into concrete pipes.
-
ooops- Screwed up my post- It was supposed to be about 143000 speration pay and 9000 "retraining" allowance.
-
And another giveaway from the Liberals to a company that has Rich Coleman's brother in an executive position. I used to live near Jordan River and it was a pretty special place.
The University of Victoria's Environmental Law Clinic has asked the provincial auditor general to investigate the government's decision to allow Western Forest Products to take private lands out of tree farm licences on Vancouver Island without public consultation and without demanding compensation.
The law clinic, acting for the Sea to Sea Greenbelt Society and supported by organizations ranging from unions and First Nations to ratepayers and recreational groups, wants an opinion from Acting Auditor General Errol Price on whether the public has suffered an economic loss and whether environmental protection and public recreation is being compromised.
"On the face of it, it doesn't seem to be very prudent management," said Calvin Sandborn, the clinic's legal director.
"It doesn't seem to serve the public interest. It's great for Western Forest Products, but not for the workers and local residents and environmentalists and people in urban planning and surfers and First Nations."
In January, Forests Minister Rich Coleman announced that WFP would be allowed to remove 28,283 hectares of private land from three tree farm licences on Vancouver Island, without paying compensation -- a previously recognized principle.
The province did put conditions on the deal, including a three-year ban on log exports from the lands, First Nations access, protection of community watersheds and protection of Roosevelt elk and black-tail deer winter ranges.
But, those conditions apply only as long as WFP owns the land, according to a letter from Coleman.
Under tree-farm licence arrangements, when a company has privately owned land in a licence -- as in this case -- it agrees to follow stringent logging rules. In exchange, it gets guaranteed access to timber on Crown land.
Since WFP has taken those lands out now, the law clinic suggests it should be forced to financially compensate the government for that privilege.
"In the past, both government and industry have recognized that, if the public loses the benefit of having private lands contained in a TFL while the licensee continues to harvest on the TFL's Crown land, compensation to the Crown is appropriate," the law clinic paper says.
The private lands question came to a head this week with WFP's conditional sale to developer Ender Ilkay of more than 2,000 hectares of land in several parcels west of Victoria -- around Shirley, Jordan River, Jacob Creek, Muir Creek and the Sooke Potholes.
Sales of the spectacular waterfront and forested land, including the Jordan River townsite, campsite and surfing beach, are a windfall for the forestry company, according to the law clinic.
"Government's apparent failure to obtain compensation from WFP and to adequately protect public interests threatened by the deletions suggests there has been uneconomic, inefficient and ineffective management of public resources," says the audit request.
Sandborn said he does not know whether removal can be reversed, but, special bodies could be set up to control development and protect the environment.
"This is Victoria's wild coast experience and the province has a responsibility to protect that as a public asset," he said.
Assistant auditor general Morris Sydor said the information is being reviewed to see whether it will be pursued.
At a packed public meeting with Ilkay and WFP chief operating officer Duncan Kerr in Shirley Monday night, speakers accused Coleman of betraying the public trust.
"There's an elephant in the room who isn't here," said environmentalist Vicky Husband, referring to Coleman.
Malahat-Juan de Fuca NDP MLA John Horgan said he asked government about the lack of consultation and compensation.
"The elephant said he had no need to consult because the law provided for deletion," he said.
Kerr, in an interview yesterday, said the sales are needed to improve the company's balance sheet.
"The name of the game in business is: If you have an asset that contributes to your core business, you operate it. If it doesn't contribute it doesn't make sense to hang on to it," he said.
WFP needs to invest in mills on the coast to keep the industry viable, he said.
Kerr would not say whether more land from the 12,000 hectares that WFP has removed from the TFL on southern Vancouver Island will be put up for sale, saying it depends on the business climate and land values.
-
This may sound like a dumb question but why is there no Progressive Conservative Party in BC. I have lived in Alberta my whole life and travel to BC frequently so I should know this but I don't. I was just wondering if anybody knows.
-
This may sound like a dumb question but why is there no Progressive Conservative Party in BC. I have lived in Alberta my whole life and travel to BC frequently so I should know this but I don't. I was just wondering if anybody knows.
There is a BC Conservative party. Here is the link to their website: http://www.conservativesbc.com/ (http://www.conservativesbc.com/)
-
Then why are they not considered before the Green party? The PC's have done a pretty good job in Alberta up until Ed got the helm.
-
Then why are they not considered before the Green party? The PC's have done a pretty good job in Alberta up until Ed got the helm.
They are a new party, I believe since mid 2008 and I don't think they have candidates running in all ridings.
-
I thought this letter has some food for thought.
IPPs: green or greenwash?
While Raincoast Conservation acknowledges the urgency of addressing climate disruption, we do not support large scale run-of-river power projects as a solution.
IPP advocates don't appear to understand the broader ecological problems well enough to foster the dramatic changes needed to transform entrenched cultural imperatives that are the fundamental issues driving this crisis.
Specifically, the unsustainable consumption of resources by a culture that believes in limitless economic and population growth will never be curtailed by continually meeting growing demand.
If we are serious about controlling carbon emissions, we should first diminish energy consumption through measures that recognize conservation as an energy resource.
For example, the public subsidies flowing to companies like Plutonic Power, as well as revenue from the carbon tax, should be redirected into initiatives such as expanding public transit and green retrofits of homes and commercial buildings. Transportation and buildings are identified as two large sources of greenhouse gas emissions by the B.C. government's Climate Action Team.
We also need to replace carbon-emitting energy production with renewable energy that is environmentally sustainable, shrink or eliminate industrial forestry to preserve carbon sinks and limit the release of greenhouse gases, as well as institute a carbon pricing system that will significantly reduce fossil fuel consumption.
To be effective, renewable energy needs to replace non-renewable sources, not augment them. In other words, the non-renewables must be taken offline when green energy comes online.
The B.C. government, however, is moving in the opposite direction as it pursues all manner of fossil fuel development, from offshore oil and gas to coalbed methane. The province is also supporting the construction of the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline that would carry some of the world's dirtiest oil from Alberta's tarsands to the B.C. coast for export to hydrocarbon-hungry markets abroad.
Within this context, the government is attempting to convince the public that the province is doing something substantive to address climate change by opening up our coast to widespread IPP development.
Conservation science is clear that most forms of energy production have environmental consequences, even "micro-hydro" projects that are considered low carbon emitters. Scale often makes the difference between sustainable regional solutions and large energy projects designed for profit and export.
Consider Plutonic Power's proposed IPP for Bute Inlet. The draft terms of reference fail to establish a clear framework for a thorough environmental assessment that would identify potential impacts. And while the energy that this IPP produces might be "clean" in terms of carbon emissions, the power project does not come near to being green, sustainable or low impact. The threats to terrestrial, aquatic and avian species and their habitats illustrate how these run-of-river mega-projects require a sober second look.
Five species of Pacific salmon, as well as winter and summer-run steelhead, spawn and rear in reaches or tributaries of the 17 rivers proposed for water extraction and diversion; Plutonic is proposing to divert between 77 per cent and 95 per cent of the mean annual flow from those 17 rivers and tributaries, with potentially harmful consequences for salmon at every life stage.
Now is the time for intelligent planning, before poorly conceived energy developments cause large-scale environmental damage.
Raincoast Conservation is calling for a moratorium on independent power projects, along with the establishment of an expert panel of scientists, who aren't suffering from what UVIC's Michael M'Gonigle calls "climate myopia" and grasp the broader ecological crisis. We envision such a panel would be mandated to distinguish between benign and harmful IPPs and to identify areas that should be off-limits to energy development as part of a rational and transparent planning process.
Chris Genovali
Executive Director
Raincoast Conservation
-
It is killing me to watch what could happen in B.C. from a back seat. I am no longer a resident but I care about the province and everything that makes it what it is.
I have written to the Federal Ministers regarding the salmon fishery but alas my replies are kind of benign, the provincial folks do not reply to Alberta addresses apparently.
I have followed Rafe's battle and signed what petitions I can but I know the battle is in your hands, I hope you can win the day.
Perhaps even one term of NDP will be enough to dethrone Gordon Campbell from his party and they can stop and start listening to all of you.
The issue I see both there and here, is the sound of potential jobs has to be a large "sway" factor for many voters in this time of closed mills and recession. Good luck folks!
-
Vancouver Apr 29, 2009
The Wilderness Committee and Sierra Club BC today released a Freedom of Information document which shows that a comment made this week by Environment Minister Barry Penner regarding the number of rangers in BC Parks is wildly erroneous.
Minister Penner, responding to criticisms regarding recent park ranger staffing cuts, said in a media interview two days ago that the number of “rangers on-duty for the spring and summer will likely drop from 225 full-time equivalent positions last year to about 200 in 2009”.
The FOI document reveals Penner exaggerated the number of ranger positions by over 300 percent. According to the document, there were just 63.8 full-time equivalent ranger positions in BC Parks in 2006/07 even before the latest round of cuts – just a fraction of the 225 full-time equivalent ranger positions Minister Penner erroneously said existed.
The document also shows BC has just 10 regular full-time equivalent park ranger positions year-round – a 60 percent decline from 2001 when there were 26 regular full-time equivalent rangers.
Recent information provided by the BC Government and Service Employees’ Union reveals the most recent cuts will reduce current park ranger positions by an additional 40 percent – leaving less than 50 full-time equivalent rangers positions to patrol 13.5 million hectares of protected areas.
“I am amazed at the numbers Minister Penner put out. Park rangers are becoming an endangered species in BC,” said Gwen Barlee, policy director for the Wilderness Committee. “There are fewer regular full-time park rangers left in BC than there are Vancouver Island marmots which are in danger of dying out altogether.
-
Received this today.
I am a free enterpriser, a federal Conservative with deep roots in the Reform movement.
I cannot support Gordon Campbell’s Liberals in this provincial election because of their complete indifference to quality of life issues here in South Delta.
• The industrialization of irreplaceable farmland to serve the interests of Port Metro Vancouver.
• The construction of “industrial strength” power lines through Tsawwassen after an election commitment not to do so.
• The promotion of rail and road infrastructure for the Gateway program that gives no consideration to quality of life issues across the Lower Mainland but particularly in Delta, Surrey and Langley.
From a provincial perspective I cannot support Gordon Campbell because he is giving away and putting at risk the public assets of the province for which he is only the present custodian.
• Run of the River Hydro projects which will destroy the remaining wilderness areas in British Columbia and commits us to higher than market prices for the power generated.
• Campbell’s unequivocal support of net cage aquaculture has put at risk precious runs of wild salmon.
• The Recognition and Reconciliation legislation proposed by Mr. Campbell will give about 30 yet-to-be created native groups aboriginal title to over 95 percent of the province. These groups will have veto power over development and will receive the lion’s share of revenue that flows from what’s now Crown land, money that currently goes to the provincial treasury.
• The giveaway of the UBC golf course and other valuable properties to buy peace with native-agitators during the Olympics.
• Campbell’s sale of BC Rail at a discounted price to CN after adamantly denying during an election campaign that he would sell it.
The Gordon Campbell government has not been the prudent manager of the province’s fiscal affairs that his supporters would have us believe.
His ill-considered carbon tax will mean higher fuel costs for all drivers with commuters and residents of the interior and northern parts of the province taking the biggest hit. It is estimated that a long-haul trucker in B.C. will pay $6,000 a year in carbon taxes by 2012. Home heating costs will also increase with the biggest impact on the residents of the north and interior of the Province.
Cost overruns on the Trade and Convention Centre and Campbell’s disregard for the economic upset experienced by the Cambie Street merchants during the RAV line construction paint a picture of a detached Premier who cares little for how he gets there just as long as he gets there.
The Gordon Campbell Liberals would have us believe that only they are capable of governing British Columbia and managing its economy. That no longer works for me. A vote for the B.C. Liberals means they can continue to disregard our legitimate concerns with impunity.