Category Archives: Energy and Resources

Natural Gas Well

Gas pains: BC’s gas plan is a short-sighted pipe dream

Share

Natural Gas Well

B.C. appears to be pinning its economic hopes on natural gas – much of it obtained by fracking. While the world should be turning from fossil fuels to cleaner energy and conservation, we’re poised to dig ourselves deeper into the climate-altering carbon hole.

Taking a cue from the liquidation-sale policies of the Alberta and federal governments, B.C.’s leaders want to get fossil fuels out of the ground, piped to the coast, liquefied and shipped to Asia or wherever they can find buyers, as quickly as possible. It’s a short-sighted plan based on outmoded thinking. In the long run, it’s not good for the economy or the environment.

Whether politicians believe fossil fuel supplies are endless or can only see as far as the next election, they’re selling out our future and leaving a shattered legacy for our kids and grandkids. To start, natural gas is not the clean-energy solution it’s touted to be. According to thePembina Institute, if only five of 12 proposed liquefied natural gas terminals were built on the B.C. coast, they could spew 63-million tonnes of carbon a year into the atmosphere – exceeding the amount now produced by the Alberta tar sands and equal to all of B.C.’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2010. Discharges of particulate matter and volatile organic compounds would also be significant new sources of pollution.

Liquefying the gas for export, which requires enormous amounts of energy, isn’t the only source of greenhouse gases. Leaks – or what the industry refers to as “fugitive emissions” – during drilling, extraction and transport are also concerns. Although the B.C. Environment Ministry claims just .3 to .4 per cent of gas escapes into the atmosphere, independent studies say it’s likely many times that amount.

According to an article in Nature, scientists from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the University of Colorado in Boulder found leaks of methane – a greenhouse gas 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide – amounted to between four and nine per cent of total production at two gas fields in the U.S.

Even the economic benefits of the province’s LNG plans are suspect. Many analysts expect price corrections, and U.K. LNG expert Peter Hughes told the CBC the perceived windfall is “wishful thinking” because B.C. will have to compete with producers in places like Qatar, East Africa and Australia. Most of the money wouldn’t even stay in B.C., as many gas companies are from other provinces and countries. As for jobs, natural gas extraction, transport and production create relatively few compared to almost every other economic sector – including tourism, science and technology, health care, education and small business.

On top of that, hydraulic fracturing or fracking – shooting water, sand and chemicals at high pressure into the ground to shatter shale and release natural gas – has many other environmental consequences. It requires massive amounts of water, contaminates drinking water, damages habitat and ecosystems – even causes small earthquakes.

As well as seeing natural gas as an economic panacea, some argue it could be a “bridging fuel” – something cleaner than oil or coal to use while we make the transition to renewable energy. But it’s a hazard-strewn bridge, and subsidizing and investing in natural gas extraction and infrastructure without any real commitment to wean us off oil, coal and gas will only keep us on the fossil fuel road and discourage investment in clean energy and conservation.

The industry also relies on taxpayers’ money to subsidize it, through tax and royalty credits, and to provide water, roads and the massive amounts of energy required to liquefy the gas, perhaps from a new Site C dam on the Peace River. And fugitive emissions from gas operations are exempt from the carbon tax. If we are really “bridging” to reduce fossil fuels, why are we subsidizing companies for their carbon costs?

It’s time to invest our money and human resources in long-term, innovative ideas that will create good, lasting jobs, and ensure that we and our children and grandchildren continue to enjoy healthy and prosperous lives and that our spectacular “supernatural” environment is protected. We have abundant renewable resources and opportunities to conserve energy and lead the way in developing clean energy.

It’s time to move forward.

Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Communications Manager Ian Hanington.

Share

New report: Canada-EU trade agreement threatens fracking bans

Share

The Council of Canadians, along with the Transnational Institute and Corporate Europe Observatory, released a report this week examining the threat that a proposed Canada-EU free trade deal would have on a community’s ability to implement fracking regulations and fracking bans on both sides of the Atlantic.

Canada began negotiations with Europe on the Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA) in 2009 and hope to conclude the agreement by this summer. As Canadian negotiators visit Brussels this week to continue negotiations, the report, The Right to Say No: EU-Canada trade agreement threatens fracking bans, warns the proposed investment protection clauses in the agreement would jeopardise governments’ ability to regulate or ban fracking.

The report draws attention to Lone Pine Resources’ lawsuit against Quebec’s fracking moratorium under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Last fall, Lone Pine Resources, a U.S.-funded energy firm, filed a notice of intent to challenge Quebec’s moratorium on fracking under NAFTA and is asking for $250 million in compensation.

Fracking, or hydraulic fracturing, is a controversial process that uses massive amounts of water mixed with sand and toxic chemicals to blast apart shale rock or coal beds to extract natural gas or oil. Fracking fluid can contaminate drinking water with substances that cause cancer and organ damage, and affect neurological, reproductive and endocrine systems. Safely disposing of fracking wastewater is incredibly difficult. Fracking has also been linked to earthquakes and methane leaks that exacerbate climate change.

“The Right to Say No” looks at how CETA threatens fracking bans, the North American companies already invested in Europe and the state of fracking in both Canada and Europe.

The report is timely as the County of Inverness in Nova Scotia voted Monday to pass a by-law banning fracking within county limits. Cumberland County in Nova Scotia has also passed a motion banning fracking. Burnaby, B.C.Niagara-on-the-LakeOntario and a number of Quebec municipalities have passed resolutions calling for the protection of water sources and provincial moratoria. Nova Scotia is not issuing permits until their review on shale gas is complete and Quebec has implemented a moratorium within the province.

With the growing community opposition to fracking, we’ll likely see more by-laws banning fracking in the coming years and it’s crucial that we protect communities’ right to say no to fracking. An appellate panel of the New York Supreme Court recently upheld municipal bans on frackingin the state of New York. So while it’s not a Canadian example, the New York Supreme Court decision is a strong precedent for respecting municipalities right to ban fracking in North America.

The EU and Canada must exclude an investor-to-state dispute settlement process in the agreement, or not only will they be hamerping communities’ democratic right to determine their own environmental laws but Canada and EU countries could also find themselves targets of CETA lawsuits.

The report is available in English and French.

Emma Lui is a water campaigner with the Council of Canadians based in Ottawa. Emma’s work focuses on the Great Lakes, human rights, water privatization and the connection between energy and water.

Share

Independent Economist: Site C Dam Numbers Don’t Add Up

Share

The following is an open letter by independent economist andCommon Sense Canadian contributor Erik Andersen to the leaders of BC’s four major political parties on the eve of the May 14 provincial election.

Dear Ms. Clark, Mr. Dix, Ms. Sterk and Mr. Cummins,

I am writing to all of you political party leaders in the midst of the BC provincial campaign, as a senior economist who is very concerned that the proposed construction of Site C dam on the Peace River may push our provincial indebtedness beyond its already critical level.

The disclosed total liabilities of the province a year ago, according to government’s own figures, were $70 billion.  In addition, the Auditor General confirmed that as of a year ago BC’s “Contingencies and Contractual Obligations” totaled another $96.374 billion.  By the time the dust settles, the fiscal year just ended (2012/13) will likely have the provincial total liabilities closing in on $200 billion. The bulk of the nearly $100 billion of contractual obligations come from the IPP contracts to which Hydro has committed us.

Site C represents the addition of at least $8 billion to the already seriously bloated debt load directly associated with BC Hydro and its exaggerated expectations from industrial “want-a-be’s”.

Over the course of the past four decades the need for a Site C generation facility has been part of the larger and exaggerated demand narrative BC Hydro has been telling. The demand exaggeration theme goes as far back as 1961.  It is no different today.

Where is the evidence of future need? It is certainly not from residential and commercial customers in BC (which has actually decreased on average since 2008). The future need, as stated repeatedly by the Liberal government of late, is strictly industrial, specifically the proposed LNG plants.

But the irony, not missed by many, is that by the design of the rate structure, we are expected to shoulder the financial burden that is created when Hydro contracts/builds at costs of  +$100,000 per GWhr per year yet plans to sell to their new “best friends” at $35,000 per Gwhr per year. This is not new for Hydro . Hydro’s narrative of greater future need is just as before, a fiction created to be the cover for a ‘borrow and build into financial oblivion’ strategy.  Site C is one important element in this flawed narrative.

One must consider the “market” prices for electricity are in the western part of North America. These are the best indicators to determine whether electricity is currently in surplus or shortage. While Hydro has been buying electricity from IPPs at $100,000 per GWhr or greater, Powerex has reported selling, on average, at $20,000 per GWhr in the past three years.

In 2011, the volumes indicated a large regional imbalance between electricity generation capacity and regional demand. In such circumstances, it is a very high risk strategy to build more capacity until there is evidence of sustained higher prices, indicating demand has tightened. We are a very long way from this condition, making the Site C plan irrelevant for a long time to come if not permanently, as new energy technologies are integrated in the future.

On the evidence there seems no case for the development of Site C. Hydro is financially crippled because it not only produced fictional narratives about future demand, but worse, acted on these exaggerations with tens of billions in contractual long-term obligations with IPP’s. Secondly, to knowingly build a new generation facility that needs to sell at $100,000 per GWhr or more in order to break even – when the regional demand for electricity is decidedly weak and expected to remain so for a long while, is absurd.  I don’t see Hydro customers, i.e., the voting public, thinking that is a good idea.

Clearly, it’s time to “draw a line in the sand” and say no to Site C.

Sincerely,

Erik Andersen, Economist

——————————————————————————-

References:

BC Hydro audited reports for the past 12 years

Annual BC Hydro demand forecasts for the past 12 years

Annual Reports by the BC Auditor General

Personal correspondence between Erik Andersen and the Auditor General of BC, Feb 19, 2013

“White Gold: Hydroelectric Power in Canada,” Karl Froschauer

http://thecanadian.org/k2/item/543-new-report-bc-hydro-driving-rates-higher

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/auditor-general-sounds-alarm-over-bc-hydro-accounting/article4199754/

http://thecanadian.org/item/2045-bc-liberal-legacy-a-huge-debt-burden

BC Ministry of Finance, Provincial Debt Summary/ Debt Statistics

BC Ministry of Finance, Contractual Obligations Supplemental/Public Accounts/Summary Financial Statements

Links to data sources for total provincial debt:

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/11_12/PA%20Prov%20Debt%20Summary%2011-12.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/06_07/PA_2007_ProvDebt.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/debtmgmt/debtstat01-02.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/debtmgmt/debstat00-01.pdf

Links to data sources for contractual obligations:

http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/11_12/Contractual_Obligations.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/10_11/Contractual_Obligations.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/09_10/Contractual_Obligations.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/08_09/Contractual_Obligations.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/pa/07_08/PublicAccounts.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/OCG/pa/06_07/PublicAccounts.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/05_06/PA_2006_Summ.pdf
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/ocg/pa/04_05/PA_2005_Summ.pdf

Share

Dix Fails to Call Clark on ‘Debt Free BC’ Whopper

Share

On the side of the Christy Clark bus are the words “Debt Free BC”.

This could mean one of two things – we are now debt free or we will be. Either way, this statement stands as the all-time whopper in BC history and that covers a hell of a lot of territory.

I do not rely on politically-oriented think tanks for my information, rather noted independent economist Erik Andersen. If you add the $70 Billion in direct debt projected in Clark’s latest Budget to secret “taxpayer obligations” relating to private power contracts and public-private partnership (P3) infrastructure deals, you get – wait for it – over $170 BILLION, that’s with a “B”.

What is important to know about the debt is that in 2001, when the Liberals took over, every man, woman and child owed a shade over $8,000. Today we each owe $40,000 – five times what we owed before this so-called business-oriented, fiscally careful bunch of cheats and hypocrites took over.

No matter how you crunch the numbers, the NDP governments in their decade look like misers and skinflints next to this bunch.

Assuming that Premier Clark is referring to her “Prosperity Fund”, this is pie in the sky and cow pie at that.

[signoff1]

You may remember that the Premier first announced this as imminent. Now it is after the 2017 election! It might be added that by then, BC will be in even deeper financial trouble than today.

There is little, if any, certainty that the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) will ever come on stream. There must be markets for it offshore, since the domestic market is flooded in natural gas from “fracking”. To give you a bit o f a feel for this, only a few months ago, the industry and government flacks were talking about the huge Asian need for our gas in LNG form, then recently learned that our biggest potential customer, China, was sitting on some of the world’s biggest unconventional gas reserves. Russia has the largest supply of gas in the world.

The plain truth of the matter is that a large scale LNG industry in BC is speculative at best.

Let’s look at a couple of natal difficulties faced by companies.

A long-term market demand such as would justify LNG from BC just isn’t likely to be there in four years’ time.

Secondly, the LNG industry faces huge environmental hurdles. Two major questions in that regard are:

  1. Where will the massive amount of water needed come from? We simply don’t have “free water” available.
  2. After this water is laced with highly toxic chemicals, where will if go? Into the water table?

These two matters only touch some of the environmental issues – which include the climate impacts of all the greenhouse gases associated with this industry.

The underpinning of the industry is hundreds of millions of dollars in pipelines and port facilities. Premier Clark wants voters to brush aside these and many collateral concerns, thus convince voters that in four or five years all these issues will be resolved, including air-tight contracts with Asian customers to take this LNG. (It should be added that if, say, China, signs such a contract, the minute they no longer need our product they will vanish into the atmosphere.).

[signoff3]

It surprises me that Adrian Dix is playing softball with these issues. This is looking like ’09 all over again.

Mr. Dix, your position on the Kinder Morgan tanker port proposal was nice but marred by the delay. I told you many months ago that if you were opposed to Enbridge that logic should make you opposed to Kinder Morgan as the issues are the same.

Your position favouring LNG plants is puzzling, if only because you seem to be following Clark’s pied piper’s seductive path to supporting a dream that is almost certain never to come true.

To you, Mr. Dix, there is no way this government can win on its merits – you have to give it to them and you seem to be trying your best to do just this. What is truly troublesome is your amiable Adrian approach, with an endless stream of small policy announcements – sort of a fart a day.

I realize that people tell you that they want a politer politics in BC. That’s what Bob Skelly tried in the 80s and you know what happened to him.

Politics is a blood sport and your nicely, nicely approach is letting Premier Clark get away with murder. Despite a fivefold increase in the provincial debt, she’s painting you as wastrels and her government as  careful money managers!

Your best issue, the appalling fiscal policy of the Campbell/Clark government, is being used as a positive thing for them and you are responding rather than attacking. We’re seeing a tactic similar to when agents acting for George W. Bush, a draft dodger, denigrated the much-decorated John Kerry’s war record so they could lay claim to being strong on national defence. You’re becoming the essence of John Kerry, reacting weakly on issues that should have you on the attack!

On environmental issues you seem to be passive and non-threatening! These issues, along with the dismal Liberal record on money matters, ought to have you leading firmly, not cowering behind a cloud of good manners.

Mr. Dix, it’s yours to win and to quote the Baseball manager Lou Durocher, “nice guys finish last”.

Share

WATER + POWER: Upcoming Presentations by Rafe Mair and Damien Gillis

Share

In the lead-up to the BC election, Common Sense Canadian co-founders Rafe Mair and Damien Gillis are travelling to four BC communities – Kamloops, Merritt, Williams Lake and Prince George – to discuss key issues shaping the future of our province. The multi-media presentations, titled “WATER + POWER: The Future of BC’s Energy, Environment and Democracy,” will include video clips from filmmaker Gillis, a speech by Mair and an audience Q&A session.

On the agenda is a web of proposed energy projects which represent the vision of both our provincial and federal governments for the economic future of BC – all with profound impacts on our vital freshwater and coastline. The discussion will cover everything from proposed oil and gas pipelines to fracking, Site C Dam, Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) and private river power projects – to an alternate vision for managing BC’s resources and economy to the benefit of the public and environment.

The non-partisan events will scrutinize the BC Liberals’ economic and environmental record over the past decade, while examining the NDP’s policy positions on issues the like the proposed Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion to Vancouver and the nexus of Site C Dam, natural gas “fracking” and the plan to build a massive LNG industry on BC’s coast.

“Our goal is to provide the public with accurate information and connect the dots between interrelated projects of enormous environment, social, cultural, and economic significance,” says Gillis. “We’re furthering a much-needed dialogue about the future of our province at a key moment politically.”

The details for the upcoming events are as follows:

  • April 23, 7 pm: Kamloops, BC @ Desert Garden Seniors’ Centre (540 Seymour St. – Mojave Room)
  • April 24, 7 pm: Merritt, BC @ Merritt Civic Centre (1950 Mamette Ave.)
  • May 8, 7 pm: Williams Lake, BC @ Williams Lake Secondary School (640 Carson Dr.)
  • May 9, 7 pm: Prince George @ UNBC (stay tuned for room information)

The Kamloops and Williams Lake events are co-hosted by the local Council of Canadians chapters. All events are by donation.

Share

Video: Vancouver Musician Takes on Kinder Morgan Pipeline, Tankers

Share

Check out this new song and music video from Vancouver artist CR Avery, produced by the Sierra Club of BC. According to the organization, which released the video on its youtube page this past weekend, “With riveting spoken word and striking images, CR Avery connects the dots between pipelines, oil tankers and climate change. He is unsparing in speaking truth to power about the companies leading us down the path toward climate catastrophe and the movement building against them.”

The video and song, titled “Thief Behind the Mask”, offer a poetic, uncompromising perspective on Texas-based pipeline giant Kinder Morgan’s plans to turn Vancouver into a major shipping port for the Alberta Tar Sands, among other controversial, interconnected fossil fuel projects. The Sierra Club notes, “These pipelines would drive expansion of the tar sands and spike the impacts of global warming everywhere”

Share

Enbridge Review Panel’s Skimpy Insurance Requirements Fail to Reassure Public

Share

The news out of the Joint Review Panel looking into the Enbridge pipeline should have a profound effect on us all.

One of the conditions is a requirement that Enbridge carry close to $1 billion in insurance, plus $100 million on hand to cover losses from spills.

I find this interesting, since normally an assessment of future damages covered is accompanied by an assessment of the risk to be covered. What is the size of the risk and how big a part of that risk will be taken? This so in every kind of insurance – be it life, casualty, automobile, what have you. This means not only must there be an assessment of the risk – i.e. is there likely to be a loss – but how much is a loss going to cost? This is especially true of casualty insurance, as the Joint Review Panel is dealing with here.

The second critical point is whether or not the insurer will continue to cover Enbridge after a loss has occurred? Can they cancel, leaving Enbridge’s further damages up to us the people?

This story will be seen (Enbridge hopes) as an encouraging sign, because opponents will be shut up now that these big numbers are involved.

I am not impressed – indeed quite the opposite – for this indicates that the Joint Panel thinks that there’s a risk involved. There is in fact acertainty. Dealing with this as simply “a risk” and announcing the coverage required is asking us to accept that “risk” because the damages are prepaid. Moreover, the amount of insurance involved is nowhere near what the ultimate cost will be and ignores the question: what will the long range cost to our environment be and how do you comopute that loss?

If one uses, as an example, the Enbridge spill into the Kalamazoo River, two years later they had used up all of their insurance of $650 million. The cleanup continues and the cost is expected to be over a billion dollars and much of the damage is forever.

Enbridge will be required to demonstrate insurance coverage at $950 billion – roughly equivalent cost of the Kalamazoo spill. BUT, the Kalamazoo spill was easily accessed. There were no mountain ranges like the Rockies or the Coast Range; no Rocky Mountain Trench; no Great Bear Rainforest to contend with. Let us, for God’s sake, ask a key question: How does Enbridge have access to spills on land? How does it get labour and heavy equipment to the spill? Doesn’t the Kalamazoo spill demonstrate that there can never be a total cleanup?

The BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico has cost, so far, about $36 billion and rising.

Another critical question is who insures oil tankers, especially when many of them will be owned by companies flying a flag of convenience like Panama, the Cayman Islands and the like?

How is a coastal spill to be cleaned up and at whose cost?

What the people of British Columbia are certainly to have are spills on land and sea for which they will pay much of the cleanup out of their taxes. What we are also certain to have is enormous environmental damage forever.

Finally, the pronouncement of the Joint Review Panel should be assessing the frequency and probability of damage and laying that before the public for a decision as to whether or not these pipelines should be built in the first place.

This won’t be done and the Harper government is on record giving its approval of these pipelines no matter what the National Energy Board recommends.

Given the Kalamazoo experience, how does Enbridge control and clean up a spill when the only access is by helicopter? Every way one looks at this case shows huge costs – much paid by the public – with permanent damage to our environment.

Share

Ten Oil Spills in Two Weeks

Share

Last week I published a story titled “Five Oil Spills in One Week: ‘Accidents’ or Business as Usual”. Within an hour of publication came the news of a sixth spill from a CP derailment in nothern Ontario. As the story made the rounds on social media in the ensuing days, readers provided updates as new spills continued to unfold. One week later, the tally stands at 10.

News of the latest – a biodiesel spill from Suncor’s plant in Port Moody, BC – came in this morning. Said Ben West of ForestEthics Advocacy upon learning of the spill, “At the time we were working on some campaign materials reminding candidates for the upcoming BC provincial election that they should be paying close attention to the nine oil industry spills, leaks, derailments and disasters that have taken place in North America in the last two weeks. And then this happened right here in BC — amazing.”

City officials have confirmed the leak of approximately 220 barrels of biodiesel from a storage tank at the facility.

Other spills not covered last week’s article include:

I want to be clear that these spills involve a range of fossil fuels – from diluted bitumen to hydraulic fluid to Tar Sands waste ponds and petrochemical products. It’s not just the range of materials and situations in which these malfunctions have occurred, but the broad geographic distribution of these spills that give one pause. We’ve now seen spills in BC, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Ontario, Newfoundland, Minnesota, Michigan, Arkansas, Louisiana and Texas.

No matter their size or nature, none of these are healthy for the airsheds and watercourses into which they spill, nor the people and animals subjected to their toxic effects. They all serve as a reminder of the systemic danger of an economic system dependent on fossil fuels – particularly in the era of “extreme energy”, where we’ve already got to the good, cheap, easy stuff and what remains is, to quote Barack Obama, “dirty, dwindling and dangerous.”

“The oil industry, it seems, has been in total disarray over the last couple of weeks,” remarks Ben West, on the eve of a BC election in which energy issues should figure prominently.

“This election is a key moment for political leaders to step forward to defend our coast and our local communities. We hope these incidents are a wake up call for all BC politicians.”

Share
Logging BC's coastal treasures

Logging BC’s coastal treasures

Share

 Logging BC's coastal treasures

Exasperation is the tone of the full page ad placed in a March edition of Victoria’s Times-Colonist newspaper by the Discovery Islands Marine Tourism Group, a coalition of businesses associated with an ecotourism industry employing over 1,200 people and generating $45 million for the local economy. Their problem is logging, specifically in areas where they have established a strong and burgeoning economic foundation to replace a forest industry that has essentially deserted the region.

“The Discovery Islands,” explains the Group’s spokesperson, Ralph Keller, “have become a world class destination worthy of protection. We’ve become the second most important marine wilderness destination in BC, behind Tofino/Pacific Rim, yet the government is managing the forests here like it’s 1956. They’re treating us like bystanders instead of major revenue producers and employers” (Discovery Islander, “Tourism Businesses Slam BC Liberal Forest Policies”, Mar. 22/13).

The source of this problem has two components. The first is the elimination of appurtenance, the stipulation that once linked logging of Crown land with the local processing of logs. This traditional arrangement generated lucrative employment in the manufacture of lumber, pulp and paper products. When appurtenance disappeared, so did most of the mills which were part of a broadly based forest industry that had economic relevance and social respectability. “The once great forest industry,” Keller notes, “is now just a logging industry acting with impunity, completely insensitive to our needs. They degrade our operating environment then send the timber not only out of the region, but out of the country” (Ibid.).

This points to deregulation, the second part of the problem. “We’re not against logging,” Keller explains, “but when the government revised the Forest Range and Practices Act in 2003, they gave all the power to the logging industry and left everyone else out of the planning process. We find out about forest development plans when we start to see trees being felled. We’re being misled about forest industry intentions and have no meaningful way to influence cut block design. When we complain to government, they tell us to go talk to the licensee… . Who’s writing the rules here? Whose forests are these?” (Ibid.).

Keller has a valid complaint. The particular forests of concern in the Discovery Islands are not privately owned — they belong to the people of BC. They are licenced to logging companies for the benefit of the larger community. If that benefit is no longer being served because of changed circumstances, then companies such as TimberWest have lost both their actual and moral legitimacy as key economic drivers. Indeed, in many cases, their logging becomes a net liability to the larger interests of the community. TimberWest, therefore, should conduct itself with a respectful deference to the other economic interests that are superseding logging in importance — ecotourism being a prime example.

A sampling of ecotourism’s problem with logging in the Discovery Islands occurred in 2012 at Boat Bay on West Cracroft Island — the solution to this problem is presently postponed rather than solved. A logging company with the cutting rights on a Tree Farm Licence — the public’s land — intends to cut 60 hectares above and around a kayaking base camp across from the world-famous Robson Bight. Such logging would ruin the aesthetic attraction of the base camp, isolate a nearby forest reserve, and create a visual eyesore for one of BC’s most important scenic marine corridors.

The kayaking company did an illuminating economic analysis. It calculated that the economic value of the 60 hectares of timber to be logged was $3,600,000. Since the regeneration cycle meant the area could be cut only once every 60 years, the yearly economic value of the timber was $60,000. The economic value to the kayaking company, however, was $416,000 per year, or $24,960,000 for the same 60 year period. In stark contrast to the approximately 300 person-days employment from logging the 60 hectares just once, the kayaking company provided 20,160 person-days of employment during the 60 year cycle. And this simple economic analysis didn’t include the employment and earnings for the 40 other ecotourism businesses using the same area. These calculations suggest that logging, when it is in conflict with high-use ecotourism areas, is economically and socially indefensible.

A more current example is evident on Sonora Island. Several cut blocks containing old-growth trees in the Discovery Islands are to be logged by TimberWest this summer — even though TimberWest contends it is not cutting old-growth because of its rarity. “Yet in one block alone,” wrote a concerned islander in her letter to the editor of the Discovery Islander (“TimberWest Has No Plan Except Cutting Until It’s Gone”, Ibid.), “we recorded 160 tall, straight, beautiful, old growth trees, mostly Douglas fir, the rest red cedar, about 700 years old.”

These remnant pockets of old growth forests should be treated as ecological treasures. They are all that’s left after the incessant logging that has almost obliterated the magnificent lowland stands which were once the hallmark of the Gulf of Georgia. For the ecotourism industry and for our collective human legacy, these few remaining pockets should be places to visit, not opportunities to log. They are nature’s temples where people from around the world can come to honour some of the largest and oldest living things on the planet. Any but the most venal of intentions would understand that these are sites for preservation and pilgrimage, rare opportunities for visitors to encounter the unimaginably slow time of primal forests and to lose themselves in silent and reverential awe. That screaming chainsaws should be allowed to desecrate such places is, frankly, a moral, aesthetic and economic obscenity.

Old growth trees should be sacrosanct. The butchery of clear cuts that scar green hillsides can be avoided by open consultation, thoughtful silviculture and sensitive logging. TimberWest has the professional skills and the social responsibilities to do better than affront Discovery Islanders and raise the hostility of the 120 tourism businesses that depend on the scenic grandeur of this treasured coast.

Correction: Alexandra Morton was very quick to note — she seems to be fastidious about accuracy — that the sushi from farmed salmon referred to in last week’s column, Salmon Confidential, was not tested for ISA. She concurred with all the other material in the column.

Share

Rafe Mair: What I Want from Next BC Government

Share

I was recently asked by a reader what it is I want, presumably in the way of government.

I’m not so naïve as to think I’ll ever be satisfied, but neither is anyone else. Unless we’re members of a party or one of its cheerleaders we understand that human institutions will contain the human frailties we all have.

First, I want an understanding of this simple proposition – the NDP in the 90s were hit by the failure of the Thai baht, which crippled our forestry industry, thus our provincial coffers. The NDP had no notice of this event nor did anyone else. During their time in office, the BC Debt increased two fold.

On the other hand, the Liberals suffered from the crash of the stock market and a fairly deep recession. They did or ought to have had notice of this. All the signs were there. The longest Bull Market in history. Bad mortgages being bundled as “securities”. An over-heated economy. If the BC Ministry of Finance didn’t report the obvious signs, they should have been cashiered to a person. Or, more likely, if the Finance Minister didn’t demand the key figures on a regular basis, or didn’t report the truth to the cabinet, he should have been cashiered. But I go further – it wasn’t just the Minister of Finance who had that obligation but Treasury Board. I’ve been there and know how the system is supposed to work.

During the Liberal years the provincial debt and other hidden “taxpayer obligations” – which are a debt, just by another name – have more than quadrupled!

Secondly, I want a government of people for people, not political hacks governing for the few.

During the Liberal era, we’ve seen the privatization of BC Ferries, the giveaway of BC Rail and the essential bankruptcy of BC Hydro.

Let’s deal with the latter. And I suggest that the main reason the Campbell/Clark Government hasn’t been more answerable for Hydro is that no one can believe that any government could be so goddamned stupid as to force BC Hydro to take private power, whether they need it or not, at more than double the market price and up to ten times more expensively than Hydro can make it itself. BC Hydro has gone from being the jewel in our crown to a faded rose that owes private companies about $60 BILLION, which will be paid off by the taxpayer.

That, sad to relate, is not the only bit of bad news from Hydro, which is fixing to build Site “C” as an $8 billion dollar support of the natural gas industry and its commitment to Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG). This will be done notwithstanding the distinct possibility that there will be no long term international need of our gas. Site “C” will destroy more than 4,000 hectares of some of the finest farmland in the country. This isn’t supposition – Premier Clark has dedicated Site “C” power to the making of LNG.

Thirdly, I want a government that cares about the environment. The Liberals are very good at saying they are for the environment but that sort of Orwellian bafflegab ought not to fool anyone.

It is they who are responsible for the death and disease to our wild salmon by farmed Atlantic salmon cages.

Not only have the Liberals not stood against sending bitumen in pipelines across our province – they have, through the premier’s mouth, supported one for David Black’s proposed refinery in Kitimat. It follows from this that the Clark government supports oil tanker traffic in at least three ports in BC, including the port of Vancouver.

I want a government committed to the preservation of farmland – not one that gives it away in Delta and destroys it in Peace River country.

I want a government that is committed in fact to the concerns of First Nations.

I want a government that does not spend public money on party business.

I want a different attitude than expounding tenets of the Fraser Institute, where help for people is given grudgingly and then only because they must; I want a government that looks after people because it is the right thing to do.

Finally, I’m just tired of this bunch. Perhaps it’s BC Rail and the private power bust-up of BC Hydro that has me most upset. These two acts were not a mistake…or perhaps just a deal that didn’t work out. The former wouldn’t pass the most elementary smell test and the latter is plainly a pay-off to pals. In both cases the damage to our economy has been enormous and in the latter case ongoing.

If nothing else, it’s time for this bunch to sit in the sin-bin and watch for awhile.

Share