The Leap in B.C. that Naomi Klein & friends should support

41 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport
The Leap in B.C. that Naomi Klein & friends should support

The Leap in B.C. that Naomi Klein & friends should support

The opportunity must be seized

B.C. can be either a paragon for social progress, or it can become ever more the environmental pariah that the current government is fast rebranding our Super, Natural British Columbia.

It is time for Naomi Klein and her colleagues, and for all of the people who support their efforts, to embrace the “Neil Armstrong approach” to giant leaps that might forever change human history.

All eyes are on the door now opening to B.C.’s new political world.

Real change rides on the platform now before us, as it hovers on the next steps that our elected pioneers might take for tangible progress.

With a little luck, a lot of courage, and an abiding resolve to realize the most important objects of our dreams, the Leap that speaks to our better human nature and to our higher aspirations, is perhaps not so very far away.

A new government is so close, we can almost touch it.

The progressive shift we mostly want is so doable, we should all cheer it on, with all our hearts and vocal means.

Let’s do this, if we can, British Columbia

Let’s stand together for the new government we deserve, by standing strong against the one we don’t.

And let’s hope beyond hope that after the dust settles—once all the 176,000 absentee ballots are counted and the recounts are done—we can all anticipate what should come next in B.C., as a meaningful step forward for the world. 

“That's one small step for man; one giant leap for mankind.”

Armstrong said it. In each jurisdiction, we can also take it, empowered as we all are through the gift of democracy.

Martyn Brown was former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell’s long-serving chief of staff, the top strategic advisor to three provincial party leaders, and a former deputy minister of tourism, trade, and investment. He also served as the B.C. Liberals' public campaign director in 2001, 2005, and 2009, in addition to his other extensive campaign experience, and he was the principal author of four election platforms. Contact Brown at  towardsanewgovernment@gmail.com.

http://www.straight.com/news/909816/martyn-brown-leap-bc-naomi-klein-fri...

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It's not at all clear what the authors of this suggest that BC residents should do.

It almost reads like something that would have made sense a few days ago -- vote for this or vote for that -- but right now, BC'ers should be implementing the Leap Manifsto exactly HOW, again??

Rev Pesky

Two parts of the Leap Manisfesto that are pertinent. One, the Leap Manifesto, in it's supporting docukmentation, calls for the building of 270 1300MW hydro dams. Presumably that would include such as Site C.

Two, the Leap Manifesto calls for local control. In the two ridings which are closest to Site C, the Liberals won very large majorities. 76% of the vote in one, and 66% of the vote in the other.

Given these two facts, will the Greens now accept that Site C is okay?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Rev Pesky wrote:

Two parts of the Leap Manisfesto that are pertinent. One, the Leap Manifesto, in it's supporting docukmentation, calls for the building of 270 1300MW hydro dams. Presumably that would include such as Site C.

Two, the Leap Manifesto calls for local control. In the two ridings which are closest to Site C, the Liberals won very large majorities. 76% of the vote in one, and 66% of the vote in the other.

Given these two facts, will the Greens now accept that Site C is okay?

If I might ask, is Site C something YOU have particularly wanted all along?

Rev Pesky

From Ken Burch:

If I might ask, is Site C something YOU have particularly wanted all along?

All along is a long time, because Site C has been in the plan for decades. I don't know that I thought a lot about it over those decades, although I couldn't say that I opposed it, so I suppose one could say I accepted it.

​I do believe it is a 'green' and 'sustainable' source of electricity, which the greens have been asking for. Given that it's on a river that already has two dams, given that it's environmental effect is minimal, given that it supplies base-load power, given that it could supply green power to Alberta, where much of their electrical generation is fossil fuelled (90%), I think it's probably a pretty good idea.

Also given, as I've already mentioned, the support documentation for the Leap Manifesto calls for hydro power in large quantities, one would think the Leapers would be fully behind this project. However, I suspect many Leapers haven't actually read that supporting documentation, and are quite unaware of what it calls for in terms of future energy generation.

The other thing the Leap calls for is local control, and one thing is absolutely clear, that is, the locals of Peace River North and Peace River South, are competely okay with Site C. How else would one explain the massive vote for the Liberals in both ridings when the Liberals are the party most associated with Site C.

As far as the Leap is concerned, Sitc C passes the tests it poses. It's green, it's hydro, it's welcomed by the locals. What more does anyone want?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Peace River North and Peace River South are both Liberal strongholds. They always do really well there.  In Peace River North the Liberal ran on an interesting theme. So according to your local theory any thing polluting just needs to be sited in a Liberal riding and that is proof that it is okay. Site C is the wrong project for the wrong era. We don't need that power and certainly not when my electricity costs are going to rise steeply to subsidize foreign power sales to the US or the LNG industry in Canada.

Richert hopes Davies will take steps to address a number of issues he raised during the campaign, including cumulative effects of industrial development on the environment, the stresses on local social services, and infrastructure needs. - See more at: http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/regional-news/dan-davies-elected-mla-in-...

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think it's a reasonable question.  I assume that "Site C" is not another coal burning plant, yes?

What is it we're supposed to support?  The jump to giant, not-yet-ready photoelectric solar farms?  A holdout for Cold Fusion??

I thought we were actually supposed to prefer hydroelectric.  Even if it's in someone's back yard.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

I think you missed my point above. We don't need the power from Site C for BC unless it is to power either LNG or the tar sands. BC Hydro is basing their projected residential need on a demand curve that has already been shown to be wrong. In the last decade we have gone from a growth curve for electricity use to flatline growth. The NDP proposed an aggresive conservation plan based upon retrofitting and new infrastructure. If we need more power in BC it will be on the Coast where  the people live not up in the Peace River. We have excellent sites available for tidal power and also geothermal and of course wind and solar.  

As for local control I guess it depends on how you define local. Does local mean province wide or region wide or does local mean the people actually affected. The other thing about Site C is it, like many of our mega projects, is opposed by the FN's who have claims on the land.  The truth about reconciliation is that there is none if corporations whether public or private have the final say about development on unceded territories.

Rev Pesky

From kropotkin1951:

Peace River North and Peace River South are both Liberal strongholds. They always do really well there.  In Peace River North the Liberal ran on an interesting theme. So according to your local theory any thing polluting just needs to be sited in a Liberal riding and that is proof that it is okay. Site C is the wrong project for the wrong era. We don't need that power and certainly not when my electricity costs are going to rise steeply to subsidize foreign power sales to the US or the LNG industry in Canada.

But presumably, if the local population was utterly opposed to Site C, they would have made their feelings known during the election. What better time to show your opposition to a giant project in your own back yard? But they didn't, not only didn't, but expressed massive support for the party most closely associated with Site C.

​And it's not my local theory. It is part of the Leap Manifesto, that local democracy should have a strong say in what happens in their area. All I'm saying is that given the election results, Site C seems to have passed that test.

As far as where the power is used, that is immaterial. Presumably one could use wind or solar for the LNG industry as well as hydro, but no one ever asks how that power generation is going to be used. In fact, even if all the power was sold into Alberta, that would lower the amount of fossil fuel electrical generation there (currently at 90% of total), and that would be a good thing, right?

​And I'll just point out that, if you're opposed to higher electrical rates, you'd better hope they don't decide to invest in wind or solar. Ontario is investing in those, and their rates are more than half again as much as we pay in BC.

In any case, Site C passes all of the 'green' tests that one could imagine, and yet for some reason that's not good enough. If you applied all the objections to Site C to any other form of electrical generation, you wouldn't build any more.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

The locals affected by the project have shown their displeasure by launching law suits and court challenges. This project though will affect every resident in BC because of its financial implications so the term local must be either those directly affected or the whole province. 

This is a fucking boondoggle that is unaffordable and the money spent could be better spent on many other green infrastructure projects. The good news for people like you is that Christy's corporate backers will make out like pirates and that is what these mega projects are all about.  

Rev Pesky

From kropotkin1951:

The locals affected by the project have shown their displeasure by launching law suits and court challenges. This project though will affect every resident in BC because of its financial implications so the term local must be either those directly affected or the whole province. 

This is a fucking boondoggle that is unaffordable and the money spent could be better spent on many other green infrastructure projects. The good news for people like you is that Christy's corporate backers will make out like pirates and that is what these mega projects are all about.  

Yes, a small minority of Peace River people are opposed to Site C. That doesn't alter the fact that the large majority or for it. The term 'local' is what it is in the Leap Manifesto. Of course it's true that any project, of any size will affect people beyond the 'locals'. Perhaps they should remove that reference from the Leap.

​As far as the money being spent on 'green infrastructure', Site C is green infrastructure. Again, the Leap Manifesto accepts hydro power as being green, and for sure it is infrastucture. As far as Christy's corporate backer making out like pirates, that would be (and is) true of any project. Governments don't build things, they pay for things to be built. That is just as true of windmills, public transit, public housing, what have you.

​If indeed you are opposed to corporations reaping the benefits of government projects, that is tantamount to saying you don't want the government to build anything (which would include that green infrastructure you talk about). You can't have it both ways.

As far as whether we need the power now, again that's kind of irrelevant. We will need the power, that is almost as certain as the sun coming up in the morning. The problem is that such projects take years of planning. In fact in the case of Site C it has been on the drawing board for decades. If one waited until the power was needed, you would end up with natural gas fired generators, because they're the only quick way of adding base-load electricity to the system.

And you can trust me on this. Your electrical rates are going to go up no matter what happens. Infrastructure has to be maintained, and that is not free. It costs, and those costs keep rising. That is especially true as infrastructure ages. In a sense we have been living in a dream world. We have amongst the lowest electrical rates in North America. If you'd like to know what those rates are, take a look at this document from Hydro Quebec.

Major Cities Electrical Rates

Take a look at page 9 for a comparison based on residential customers using 1000 kWh per month. Interestingly, the cheapest rates in North America are all in places where the bulk of electricity is from hydro generation. Quebec has the best rates, but that's because of an old deal they made with Newfoundland.

Bear in mind also that we're talking about base-load power. Even if other alternatives, like windmills, were just as cheap (they're not), they cannot generate base-load power. In many places they build fossil fuelled  generators as a backup system to their 'green' electricity.

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..fptp elections are not consultations with communities. both the feds and the prov has been avoiding real community consultations like the plague even though it is their obligation to do so. real consultation with communities is specific. this has been shown time and again in the pipeline and indigenous threads. 

Rev Pesky

From epaulo13:

..fptp elections are not consultations with communities.

It is true that elections are not consultations with communities. It's also true that elections give communities the chance to send a message to the politicians.

​If there were widespread opposition to Site C, I doubt the Liberals would have achieved such large majorities of the popular vote in the two ridings where Site C is situated. It is certainly an indication of local sentiment.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..fptp election are meant to divide and polarize. they offer narrow positions. interaction is passive and there is absolutely no obligation to implement promises made.

..consultations can be so much more than that. there is less polarization. it's engaging not passive. power is more equally distributed. it is not a contest but a means of resolving problems. for instance it doesn't matter if your a conservative or communist if the objective is to keep the water or air clean. a whole new world full of opportunities opens up.

cco

Rev Pesky wrote:

Take a look at page 9 for a comparison based on residential customers using 1000 kWh per month. Interestingly, the cheapest rates in North America are all in places where the bulk of electricity is from hydro generation. Quebec has the best rates, but that's because of an old deal they made with Newfoundland.

Churchill Falls is 5,428 MW out of Hydro-Québec's 36,912. Three times as much power comes from the James Bay dams. We have the best rates due to political decisions to keep prices low and to keep Hydro-Québec in public hands instead of selling it off like Ontario's doing, not because we're ripping off NL.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

If seven of my ten co-workers vote for Hawaiian pizza for the office pizza party, I think it's reasonable to at least start with the assumption that 70% of my co-workers approve of pineapple on pizza.  Admittedly, maybe some of them are really primarily interested in ham, and this is the only popular choice that includes ham, but either way, if they're genuinely against pineapple, you'd expect that to be reflected in their choice.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

What a ridiculous excuse for bad public policy. The city of Fort St. John is the centre of BC's oil and fracked gas industry. Its too much of a leap for me to think that they get to determine whether we spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 Billion dollars of public money on a bad project.

I don't care what exactly is in the Leap Manifesto because it was always meant as an starting place for discussion not some sort of revealed word of the goddess. I find it irksome that the right wingers like to use it as a gotcha tool. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
The city of Fort St. John is the centre of BC's oil and fracked gas industry. Its too much of a leap for me to think that they get to determine whether we spend somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10 Billion dollars of public money on a bad project.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but why would an oil-and-gas community endorse hydroelectric power?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the document rev refers to is a theroretical projection showing that transition is possible by 2050. it's true the document uses in some cases dams. rev has been trying to elevate that to the level of a demand or master plan in order to discredit leap. it was never meant to be that.

..while while doing so rev ignors the bigger picture painted by the leap as an inspirational plus document. the leap's focus begins with the rights of indigenous folk. and of course no community has the right or is justified in bringing harm to another in order enrich itself.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Here's what I'm still wondering:  aren't hydroelectric projects "green" any more?  Are they burning dinosaur juice or creating CO2, or what's the problem?

If BC has "more than enough power forever" then couldn't this surplus power be sold to Alberta, if Alberta doesn't have enough green electricity sources of its own?  In the same way that Quebec electricity is sold outside of Quebec?

It's not clear what the opposition to more green, hydroelectric power is.  Is it about those damnable Liberals or something?  Or if not, then what?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..magoo here's one of many posts in the site c thread that you can find here

Liberal pals plundering BC Hydro for tens of Billions

quote:

The goose that lays the golden egg

More recent opponents of Liberal power policy assume that, beyond grabbing the profits to be made flipping IPP contracts, political operatives aimed to cripple BC Hydro to make its privatization palatable. The writer believes that, while this was the initial plan, the guiding parties decided they could gain more another way.

There was no need to privatize Hydro’s assets and liabilities. Instead, they privatized its profits and left Hydro and the public with all the financial risks.

One example is Site C, which will create more unneeded and unaffordable power. No private investors in the world would fund a hydroelectric dam with environmental issues, First Nations conflicts and near zero prospects of profitable operations. But, if the public pays for the dam and sells power to the private sector at a fraction of cost, there are private profits to be made.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
..magoo here's one of many posts in the site c thread that you can find here

Ah, there we go.  I asked: "Is it about those damnable Liberals or something?", and it seems that it is.

But neverminding who you assume will be cashing a paycheque for building this, do you feel that hydroelectric power is a no-no?

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..you asked about site c i assumed because that is what is being discussed. do you assume that all hydro dams are green? you have to look at upstream and down to figure this out. you need to understand what makes this dam not a green one. i provided you with enough info for you to determine that. but you have to work for it.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
you need to understand what makes this dam not a green one. i provided you with enough info for you to determine that. but you have to work for it.

Actually, when I asked, you led with "Liberal pals plundering BC Hydro for tens of Billions", not something about the environmental concerns about this potential electricity source.

So, in that respect, I totally didn't have to "work for it".  You handed it right to me.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..yes i did because what is happening to hydro forms an important part of why site c is not a green project. the snipet i posted says that the power is not needed. so you have this huge construction project that is impacting the enviroment and it's not necessary..unless you consider that it's meant to power the lng industry. it's also flooding land that is being used as a food source. more investment in expanding this source is what locals are calling for.

..i apologize that my last post came across as cranky.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

As we all know Mr Magoo is myopic. His handle states up front his posting style. You can post all the articles and in depth studies you want in threads he posts in but at the end of the day he will just make snide comments that dismiss all the articles while telling people to post it all again since he can't see beyond the end of his nose.  Magoo either reads none of the articles that others post or he is deliberately trolling for reactions not debate.

Unionist

cco wrote:

Churchill Falls is 5,428 MW out of Hydro-Québec's 36,912. Three times as much power comes from the James Bay dams. We have the best rates due to political decisions to keep prices low and to keep Hydro-Québec in public hands instead of selling it off like Ontario's doing, not because we're ripping off NL.

Thanks for the reality check, cco. Public ownership and consequent low rates are one of the great gains of the Quiet Revolution which have not yet been dismantled.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

kropotkin1951 wrote:

As we all know Mr Magoo is myopic. His handle states up front his posting style. You can post all the articles and in depth studies you want in threads he posts in but at the end of the day he will just make snide comments that dismiss all the articles while telling people to post it all again since he can't see beyond the end of his nose.  Magoo either reads none of the articles that others post or he is deliberately trolling for reactions not debate.

I sometimes think that person is here basically to derail or discredit any discussion the NDP bureaucracy sees as being to left-wing for its "comfort zone".

NorthReport

Pipeline politics puts Trudeau’s Liberals in a pickle: Hébert

With public support in B.C. backing anti-pipeline parties the federal Liberals are on their own when it comes to fighting to move oil to the West Coast.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/15/pipeline-politics-puts-tr...

NorthReport

Sunny ways fading as the Liberals hit the halfway mark in their mandate: Hébert

While the parties wrangle, the Liberals struggle to advance their legislative agenda. Not that it is particularly impressive. The spring sitting will mostly be remembered for broken or missing-in-action promises.

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2017/05/03/sunny-ways-fading-as-the-...

jerrym

The costs of the Site C are reflected in the 2014 joint review panel examining its financial, environmental, food, and forgone opportunities of developing alternative renewable energy forms. 

It could also be said that they are short-sighted, sacrificing 80 kilometres of river habitat and 13,000 hectares of farmland for cheap energy. A dam changes a river, disrupting ecosystems that have developed over millennia in harmony with changing seasons and fluctuating water flows and temperatures. A dam stops fish from spawning and messes with the complex interaction of flora and fauna in and along the river.

As food production declines in drought-stricken California, should we be taking valuable agricultural land out of production? The Peace country doesn’t raise many oranges or almonds, but the rich soil and the long northern summer days can produce excellent crops there.

The joint review panel that studied the project fell short of endorsing it, expressing concerns about B.C. Hydro’s estimates. Although the panel noted Hydro has been working on the project for 35 years, it “cannot conclude on the likely accuracy of the project cost estimates because it does not have the information, time or resources.”

The panel was also worried about B.C. Hydro’s financial condition and the utility’s immense deferral accounts, which raised alarms in the auditor general’s office several years ago.

The government coyly pretends that Hydro’s debts are not provincial debts, but British Columbians bear that burden, regardless of where the bookkeeping assigns the debts. The panel said B.C. Hydro failed to prove that the province will need the electricity soon. In its first four years of production, the dam is expected to sell its surplus power for a third of what it costs, leaving ratepayers to pick up the $800-million loss.

The joint review panel chastized the government for not considering alternatives, such as geothermal energy resources, even as B.C. Hydro noted that geothermal resources could be developed to economically produce two-thirds of the power that will be produced by Site C.

A lot could change during the eight years it will take to complete the dam. In the last decade, the cost of solar and wind energy has dropped dramatically. Building the dam is a gamble.

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-count-all-cost...

 

jerrym

The Sierra Club's 2017 report on Site C concludes that it will leave BCers with an enormous debt burden, overproduction of energy for LNG projects that are highly unlikely to materialize, political tradeoffs with the federal Liberals, and corporate giveaways. 

The environmental group says that the $9-billion Site C dam — approved by the government without referring the issue of its need to the B.C. Utilities Commission — is already well beyond its 2010 budget of $6.6 billion.

The cost is likely to balloon further, based on average cost overruns of 70 per cent at other hydroelectric projects around the world, even higher for larger projects, the group says.

The 1,100-megawatt dam on the Peace River in northeast B.C. is meant as a subsidy for industry, Sierra argues, but projects such as the development of LNG export facilities on the coast have largely stalled. At the same time, the province is failing to further the development of green energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal.

“That is a lot of money to spend on a dam that will only be needed if LNG plants are built, which seems increasingly unlikely due to current and projected market conditions,” Sierra states.

“In other words, residential B.C. hydro bills will have to cover personal use plus make up the difference between the huge cost of building Site C and the bargain basement price that LNG and fracking companies will pay for their power.”

Sierra also argues that corporate donations from the Alberta oil sector helped persuade Premier Christy Clark to endorse the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to Burnaby even though she knows that the capacity does not exist to clean up the vast majority of oil in a marine spill.

The B.C. government “got federal approval of the Site C dam and Petronas’ massive Pacific Northwest LNG plant on the north coast and in return, Canada got its pipeline to tide water.”

“The Site C dam is the linchpin that allows the premier and the prime minister to posture as climate leaders while, in fact, increasing B.C.’s emissions and compromising Canada’s international climate commitments.”

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/sierra-club-predicts-costs-of-si...

 

jerrym

Many believe that Site C will cause enormous increases in BC Hydro rates.

 

BC Hydro’s most recent demand forecast, submitted in January to the BC Utilities Commission, predicts a 30 per cent increase in demand over 20 years. But critics say the corporation has got it wrong. BC Hydro is counting on electricity demand to increase at the same pace as population growth, something Harry Swain — who chaired the only recent independent review of Site C — has criticized. “The growth in efficiencies is outpacing growth of population,” he said in a recent presentation. New technology reduces power use, and demand per person decreases, he says.

BC Hydro’s forecasts also ignore basic economic principles, Swain says. As electricity rates rise, people and businesses will use less and invest to increase efficiency. And Swain is confident Site C’s high cost will mean significant rate increases

“If you think prices have gone up, you ain’t seen nothing yet,” he said. ...

Site C is scheduled to be complete in 2024; BC Hydro says its electricity will be surplus to needs for at least its first 10 years of operation. That leaves lots of time to look at alternative energy sources. When BC Hydro reviewed supply options recently, it found that the cost of on-shore wind electricity had dropped by 20 per cent and is expected to drop by another 20 per cent by 2030. It’s now the cheapest supply option. ...

When Site C’s turbines start spinning sometime around 2024, the power will flow into the existing grid, adding up to 5,100 gigawatts per hour. One BC Hydro projection shows that B.C. won’t need the power from Site C until 2036. In the meantime, electricity produced by Site C will likely be sold on the exchange market at daily spot prices. ....

The official budget is $8.775 billion, which includes almost $1 billion in contingency funding for unexpected costs or overruns.  But is $1 billion enough? Comparable modern dams in Canada have run way over budget. Manitoba Hydro’s Keeyask dam is 34 per cent over budget — $2.2 billion. Newfoundland’s Muskrat Falls project costs have almost doubledfrom the original announced price to $11.4 billion. Both are still under construction and behind schedule. More cost overruns are still possible. ... Site C also faces the same challenges in building on difficult ground. ...

On top of the immediate financial costs, there is the lost farmland (in the region’s distinct microclimate even watermelons grow), damage to endangered species and harm to First Nations who will lose a large part of their traditional territory. 

And there is the effect on BC Hydro debt, officially at $18 billion before Site C (though critics of BC Hydro’s accounting practices says the actual debt is much higher). Moody’s credit rating service says BC Hydro’s growing debt, guaranteed by BC, could hurt the province’s credit rating and increase government borrowing costs. And BC Hydro does not expect the project to cover its costs for 70 years, meaning decades of interest payments that will be paid for by BC Hydro customers. 

And critics warn Site C will flood the market with surplus energy, killing demand for alternative energy development.

https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/05/03/Do-We-Need-Site-C-Dam/

 

 

jerrym

By focusing on a single project to meet future energy needs, BC is trapped into an inflexible method of producing energy that cannot be adjusted as energy needs change. 

Paul Kariya, executive director of Clean Energy BC, later told National Observer, that the massive electricity output of Site C means independent producers can’t compete. But he noted that about 100 relatively smaller energy producers have ongoing contracts to sell electricity to BC Hydro, the provincially owned utility, and those will not be cancelled.

His organization representing alternative energy producers including wind, solar, small hydroelectric projects and geothermal, was a sponsor of the online discussion. It wanted the government to diversify future electricity sources rather than focus on a single project. That would allow B.C. to scale production up and down to meet demand and ultimately cost less, he said.

“We say we can do it cheaper,” said Kariya. “Put it out to a competition. Have the utilities commission or some other neutral party decide. We think that’s the right way to do it.”

Heyman called Site C a “white elephant” that should have been reviewed by the The British Columbia Utilities Commission, an independent regulatory agency, before construction started. The NDP has pledged to do so, if elected.

http://www.nationalobserver.com/2017/04/21/news/mega-dam-driving-clean-e...

 

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

..the tsleil-waututh nation has been very involved in doing this re kinder morgan

The Race to Stop Tar Sands Pipeline Financing

On Monday, a coalition of Indigenous leaders and other climate activists took over 12 JP Morgan Chase branches in Seattle for a day of protest against the financing of tar sands projects, including the newly revived Keystone XL pipeline. All 12 branches were shut down for at least part of the day, as was as a 13th branch that activists found already locked down when they arrived. Twenty-six activists were arrested.

Over the past year, tribes and cities, as well as individuals, have divested billions of dollars from banks funding the Dakota Access pipeline. Monday’s direct action was part of a new defund campaign that builds on that one but specifically targets the financing of tar sands pipelines. The campaign is coordinated by indigenous groups including Mazaska Talks and the 121 tribes and First Nations that have signed the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion, as well as by the environmental group 350 Seattle.

This new campaign targets the dozens of banks that are directly financing at least one of four proposed tar sands pipelines: TransCanada’s Keystone XL, Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain, Enbridge’s Line 3, and TransCanada’s Energy East. Seventeen of those banks are listed as “primary targets” at MazaskaTalks.org because they fund all four tar sands pipelines as well as the Dakota Access pipeline, or they’re leading multibank loans to the pipelines.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
As we all know Mr Magoo is myopic. His handle states up front his posting style.

I know, right!

An obvious foreshadowing of me and my opinions.

What about you?  Didn't you honour some Russian guy with your choice of handle?

Quote:
I sometimes think that person is here...

You can't even say my name?  I'm not demanding that you LIKE me, Ken, but even as we disagree I can still address you as Ken.  Frankly, this is sort of weird.   We've both been babblers for years and years, but when you get all sulky then you forget my name.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Yes Magoo you could presume that I have an affinity for syndicalism and believe that mutual aid is human nature at its finest. 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

What about them Russians, tho?

I'm pretty sure I hear more about Russia from you than I do about this "syndicalism" stuff.  If it's relevant that I wear glasses for myopia (which I actually do, in the real world) then what about you and Russia?  Anything we should know about?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Really you think I post a lot about Russia? Please if you disagree with things I say about Russia then respond to something I actually posted. I think that out of subjects I respond to Russia is not even in the top ten if you look at the number of posts. But please go right ahead and show me that Russia is actually one of my main concerns but please use actual facts not alt-right truisms that you produce out of thin air.

Drive by smears of lefties is rather short sighted but it is certainly your style.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

US Bank to Stop Funding Pipelines as Divestment Movement Expands Worldwide

'From the Pacific Islands to South Africa, from the United States to Germany, people are standing up and challenging the power of the fossil fuel industry'

quote:

The group writes:

This move comes after ongoing pressure on U.S. Bank locally from MN350 and from the Minnesotans for a Fair Economy coalition, and on banks nationally from indigenous groups including Honor the Earth, the Indigenous Environmental Network, and the Dakota Access resistance movement.

Beginning in 2015, a regional partnership of climate, labor, and indigenous rights advocates has urged that U.S. Bank divest from fossil fuels, in particular from Enbridge Energy, and move its financing into the clean energy economy. Local actions have included letter-writing, account closures, and social media campaigns. In response, in May 2016 the bank made changes to their Environmental Policy restricting lending to coal.

"We applaud this progressive decision from U.S. Bank," said Tara Houska, National Campaigns Director of Honor the Earth. "A strong message is being sent to the fossil fuel industry: we are consumers, we have agency and the right to know how our money is being invested. Move to a green economy and a future that does not profit off the destruction of Mother Earth and our communities."

Meanwhile, 260 events in 45 countries saw people worldwide campaign for banks to divest from fossil fuel projects. The Global Divestment Mobilization (GDM) ran from May 5 to May 13, and included events in Europe, Africa, Australia, Asia, and South America.

"Divestment is a powerful act of solidarity and justice for the world's most vulnerable people, a defense of nature and our planet," said Lidy Nacpil of the Asian Peoples Movement on Debt and Development (APMDD) in a statement.

epaulo13 epaulo13's picture

A Dam Big Problem: Regulatory breakdown as fracking companies in BC’s northeast build dozens of unauthorized dams

A subsidiary of Petronas, the Malaysian state-owned petro giant courted by the BC government, has built at least 16 unauthorized dams in northern BC to trap hundreds of millions of gallons of water used in its controversial fracking operations.

The 16 dams are among “dozens” that have been built by Petronas and other companies without proper authorizations, a senior dam safety official with the provincial government told the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which began investigating the problem in late March after receiving a tip from someone with knowledge of how widespread the problem is.

Two of the dams built by Progress Energy, a wholly owned subsidiary of Petronas, are towering earthen structures that exceed the height of five-storey apartment buildings. Petronas has proposed building a massive Liquefied Natural Gas plant in Prince Rupert, which if built would result in dramatic increases in fracking and industrial water use throughout northeast BC.

The two dams are so large that they should have been subject to review by BC’s Environmental Assessment Office (EAO). Only if a review concluded that the projects could proceed would the EAO’s office have issued a certificate, and only then could the company have moved on to get the necessary authorizations from other provincial agencies.

But nothing close to that happened because the company never submitted its plans to the EAO before the dams were built...