Received today. Please also note: as environmental standards are lowered, both the federal Conservatives and BC Liberals always wish to frame the issues as great economic benefits of projects versus small environmental risks. The reality is, however, that most of the projects they're currently supporting have not only large environmental risks, but net NEGATIVE ECONOMIC IMPACT for BC as well. The only winners are just the mostly foreign-owned producers, export corporations and the power-brokers of the political parties that are selling us out.
If anyone cares to go a bit deeper into the ECONOMICS of various environmentally damaging projects promoted by them:
(1) Regarding Enbridge Northern Gateway bitumen, it quickly becomes apparent that ENG is a TOTAL LOSER for British Columbia, because (as Enbridge intends, and stated in its application) ENG will cause a dramatic rise in the price of all liquid hydrocarbons, due to demand from the hungry Asian markets that ENG would serve. This huge increase in the price of those liquid hydrocarbons used by all British Columbians FAR OUTWEIGH any small tax benefits from ENG to BC.
According to the print version of that sick ENG promotion in print, on TV and online: "Over 30 years, more than $1.2 billion in tax revenue for BC can be used to strengthen public services."
Using a rounded BC population of 5 million people (4.6M, according to the StatsCan population clock today, which will only continue to rise over the decades), simple math shows that:
(1.2 Billion)/(30 years x 5 Million people) results in $8/person-year, or as often stated, $8 per person per year, in tax revenue.
Assuming that this tiny benefit ever actually shows up, it will be completely overwhelmed by the increase in price that the project will cause, to the point that any possible tax benefit will be eaten up in your first tank of gas in the year.
After that, with more expensive fill-ups for all the rest of the year, and with higher costs for all commercial transport in British Columbia necessary for the infrastructure all businesses and residents depend on, it's clear that, quite apart from the inevitable spills, Enbridge Northern Gateway would have a huge NEGATIVE ECONOMIC impact on BC.
(2) Similar issues exist for the Kinder-Morgan crude pipeline expansion, to the point that both union and management of the Chevron Burnaby refinery (which supplies much of Metro fuels) have stated that either (a) their costs will increase with the K-M expansion, resulting in either higher costs for all BC consumers, OR (b) they will simply go out of business, resulting in even higher costs as we then export crude to the US and Asia, and then buy back the refined products.
(3) The "third rail" on energy export - LNG Liquid Natural Gas export has similar issues with inflationary pricing of domestic natural gas (which will negatively impact both families and all businesses in BC), but in addition, and depending on how the BC Liberals sign sweetheart contracts with the foreign owned LNG export companies, BC electricity rates are bound to dramatically rise as well.
How LNG export will play out on electricity remains a moving target, with Christy Clark now just making up stuff day to day including a redefinition of the "greenness" of burning natural gas to make electricity to cool and compress natural gas for export, but we should all realize that since BC Liberal policy is also to continue to sell BC Hydro electricity to new bulk users at only one-third of Hydro's purchase price from private power companies, with families and small businesses making up the difference in our electricity bills, the potential negative impact of LNG export consuming a major proportion of the electricity currently used in the province will also far outweigh any benefits.
(
Poll
3 (5.9%)
Author
Topic: Enbridge Northern Gateway Project (the Enbridge thread) (Read 11908 times)