The Big Dam Question
So there has been a lot of talk in the media about the Site C Dam, and of course most of it has been focusing on the politics and optics of it rather than the actual effect it will have.
Enter NDP MLA John Horgan. Horgan has a long history of supporting the Site C Dam. In 2007 he said that it was “as clean and green as any dam in North America”. In 2006 he said that “We should pay a premium for renewables so that we can rid ourselves of technologies like coal, and [this is] why I get excited about the prospect of large projects like perhaps Site C.”
Monday, he changed his tune. In fact, this picture from his website kinda sums up his new stance:
Now, granted, there is something odd about flying five private planes to make the announcement, especially given that the announcement was that the process was simply moving into another phase (it was NOT a “ground-breaking” announcement; no shovels or hardhats to be seen). But this dam, at the end of the day, is a good thing.
Yes, there are drawbacks: it is expensive, it will have an immediate environmental impact (flooding, etc; anyone who claims otherwise is lying), and people who own land nearby may have to cash out.
But the benefits are innumerable, and oddly enough, the same people who are against Run-of-river IPPs are the same folks against this public power initiative. One of the complaints about IPPs is the myth that it will cause prices to soar because they’re “independent” and not publically owned. The Site C dam will be publically owned (BC Hydro!), so that should alleviate that concern — but of course, it doesn’t. And as for environmental damage? The Site C dam has to pass a provincial and federal environmental assessment before going ahead, so that’s that.
This is a fact: BC HYDRO is a NET IMPORTER of electricity. BC Hydro needs to IMPORT electricity to meet its demands. British Columbia, however, is a net EXPORTER because privately owned companys export more electricity (and these companies export more electricity than BC Hydro imports). In order for BC Hydro to stop being a net importer, they need to lower consumption but also increase production.
BC Hydro has a set of goals to meet by 2020 in terms of energy reduction, and they are to meet 50% of that goal through increasing efficiency and increasing conservation. Even if everyone uses less electricity, the fact that an increased population means demand for electricity will go up, not down. Certain groups have complained that we should conserve more electricity instead of building more dams — they’re right, but what they don’t know is that’s what we’re doing.
Site C will create jobs and green, affordable energy. Yes, there will be some environmental damage initially (any green power production project has a negative impact on the environment initially), but the benefits far outweigh the costs.
The NDP’s opposition to Site C is just spin, all smoke-and-mirrors. Site C will have an impact on people living near (or who own land near) the Peace River, and Carole James, John Horgan, and the rest of the gang see an opportunity to climb in the polls, that’s it.
People were opposed to the WAC Bennett dam when it was first proposed; people were deadset against it and raised the same arguments about it as they are about Site C today. But today it is impossible to think of BC without thinking of the clean, green, hydroelectricity we get from such dams as the WAC Bennett. And while the NDP and others are focused on such things as getting Burrard Thermal back up to maximum energy (and pollution) production, the government is focused on ensuring a clean hydroelectricity
Tags: BC Hydro, BC Liberals, British Columbia, Burrard Thermal, Carole James, COPE 378, environmental assessment, environmental impacts, flip-flop, hydroelectricity, John Horgan, Minister Barry Penner, Minister John Yap, NDP, net exporter, net importer, Peace River, run-of-river, site c, smoke-and-mirrors, WAC Bennett Dam
You can comment below, or link to this permanent URL from your own site.
June 30, 2010 at 4:44 PM
This blog is obviously politically biased and far from factual.
What do you mean “some environmental damage initially”? That’s like saying “a little bit dead.” If you include the Moberly and Halfway rivers, the Site C dam would flood over 100 km of major river valley representing wildlife habitat of continental significance (hence the interest of the Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative and other NGOs), thousands of acres of Canada Land Inventory Class 1 and 2 soils (we have less than 1.5% Class 1 and 2 in the entire province of British Columbia), is extremely questionable from a geomorphological perspective (the entire Peace valley is prone to chronic small scale landslides and periodic major landslides; the 2009 engineering studies are filled with the word “uncertainty” with respect to slope stability), and represents an important part of Canadian history for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal peoples (the area was a glaical refuge in the last ice age and therefore holds over 10,000 years of human history; Alexander Mackenzie and Simon Fraser are just a few of the European historical figures that passed through this stretch of river).
The statement that “people who own land nearby may have to cash out” reeks of arrogance and a lack of empathy for the third generation family farmers that will have their land expropriated. I am not a landowner in the valley and will not be personally affected if this ill-conceived idea ever comes to fruition, but I know several people that will be flooded out and it is not a matter of “cashing out” it is a matter of having your home taken from you against your will.
It is becoming increasingly clear that electricity from Site C would be headed north to the Horn River Basin to use in the extraction of unconventional shale gas. The Horn River Basin Producers Group wants to send that gas to Fort McMurray to extract dirty oil from the tar sands, then Enbridge wants to send that oil across some pretty sensitive places in central BC to ship to Asia. Site C is beginning to look like just another major petroleum industry subsidy and anyone that actually understands the science behind climate change should be afraid, be very afraid.
Cordially,
Diane Culling
Fort st. John, BC