Category Archives: WATER

Joe Foy on Why We Don’t Need Site C Dam

Hydropower, WATER, ,
Share

At a recent event in Vancouver, the Wilderness Committee’s Joe Foy picked apart the BC Liberal Government’s faulty case for Site C Dam – discussing better alternatives to power our future needs and the enormous cost of a dam whose real purpose is to subsidize shale gas and coal mines. In his inimitable style, Joe makes it clear that the province’s ratepayers and taxpayers are being tricked into paying over $8 Billion for a dam they don’t need – with enormous impacts on the environment, our food security and First Nations’ traditional territory.

Share

Fracking Companies Look to Drain Williston Reservoir for Water Needs

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, WATER, Water and Hydrocarbons, ,
Share

From the Alaska Highway News (Fort St. John) – June 8, 2011

by Ryan Lux

Applications have been submitted by two
energy companies to the Ministry of Forests, Land and Natural Resource
Operations, to pipe water out of the Williston Reservoir for use in
fraccing operations on the Montney shale gas play.


According to the OGC, Talisman Energy
and Canbriam are both seeking to withdraw 10,000 cubic metres of water
per day – 7,300,000 cubic meters per year in total – to provide water to
their various drilling sites through a network of pipelines.


Up to this point, both energy companies
have been depending on short-term water use permits, which allow
industry to draw water from surface sources and shallow wells. One
surface source, which has generated tension, is the Lynx Creek boat
launch where Talisman has been withdrawing 4,000 cubic meters per day.


The tension created by trucking water
out of the popular recreation spot will be eliminated, according to
Talisman spokesperson, Phoebe Buckland, if the company receives approval
to pipe the water from the Williston Reservoir.


“We’ve been using temporary permits
over the last couple of years through the OGC and now we’ve applied for
two permanent licenses for the Williston Reservoir, one to withdraw the
water and the other to construct a pipeline,” said Buckland.


“After reviewing our options we feel
that the this is the best solution, as the Williston Reservoir provides a
reliable source of water and the pipeline would reduce tanker traffic –
reducing the impact on residents and our greenhouse gas emissions at
the same time.”


If approved, the water would come from
the reservoir south of Hudson’s Hope and run to Talisman’s Beryl Prairie
Road facility, where it would be stored in pits and tanks until used
for fraccing operations.


Talisman plans to withdraw 3.6 million
cubic meters a year, a figure which Talisman claims represents only 0.01
per cent of the average yearly flow through the W.A.C. Bennett Dam.


Despite the fact that their proposed
water withdrawal only represents a fraction of the river’s flow,
Buckland explained her company plans to recycle almost all of the water
they use.


“Water management is something we take
very seriously and we are aware that fraccing requires large volumes of
water,” acknowledged Buckland, “We’re recycling close to 100 per cent of
the water to be used in future fracs.”


Buckland explained that following a frac, the water returns to the surface where Talisman captures it for re-use.


Even with assurances of solid water management, critics have raised concerns about Talisman’s proposal.


Sustained drought has placed a strain
on water levels in Williston Reservoir, which was four metres below
average in September 2010, a situation that forced BC Hydro to import
$200 million of electricity last year.


Ben Parfitt, of the Canadian Centre for
Policy Alternatives, explained what concerns him about the permanent
water licensing proposals is the prospect of locking public water
supplies into private companies for what could be decades.


Chief Roland Willson expressed concerns
over the consultation process: “As far as I’m concerned, the Oil and
Gas Commission should not be leading any consultation on water rights or
allocations in our territory,” Willson said. “That’s a job for
provincial water regulators. The other thing that really concerns me is
that when they finally send us information they neglect to mention that
Talisman is not alone in seeking to divert massive amounts of water out
of Williston Reservoir.


“In fact, there is at least one other
major water diversion proposal that has been filed with the provincial
government. If they want to present us with the ‘bigger picture’ they
need to give us all the information, not half of it.”


BC Hydro didn’t return calls by press
time to discuss whether or not the Crown Corporation would receive
compensation for the diverted water, which otherwise would be used to
produce electricity. At present, energy companies don’t pay for the
water they draw from surface sources and shallow wells.


Buckland said Talisman is confident
their proposal will meet provincial requirements and that the process
has engaged the public through consultation and awareness campaigns. To
date, Buckland couldn’t recall any water applications submitted by
Talisman that haven’t been approved.


Construction on the pipeline could
proceed as soon as this summer and be completed within several months,
pending regulatory approval.

Read original article

Share

Coleman, Palmer on Hydro: Ignoring the $50 Billion Elephant in Room

Canada, Politics, WATER, Western Canada,
Share

This will be harsh, I warn you. In preparation I urge you to read Dr. Marvin Shaffer’s (SFU) article in the Vancouver Sun last Monday.
 
My position today is that the Vancouver Sun’s lead columnist, whom I once greatly admired, Vaughn Palmer, has abandoned his journalistic duty; while Energy Minister Rich Coleman, whom I had come to regard as a man of integrity based upon his work for homeless, is a political hack unworthy of his “Honourable”.
 
I do not say these things lightly and ask you to be the judge.
 
The subject is BC Hydro and its proposed rate hikes, which Coleman has vowed to examine closely and Mr. Palmer has spent his last two columns on.
 
Here is one of the salient facts that stands out in Dr Shaffer’s presentation:
 
“The fact that the electricity BC Hydro is being forced to buy is costing more than double what the electricity is worth, now and in the foreseeable future, does not seem to matter. The legislation is absolute. BC Hydro must acquire this extra electricity supply whatever its impact on costs and rates” (it’s also power created, for the most part, when BC Hydro doesn’t need it. – RM)
 
Dr. Shaffer is a man whose credentials and honesty are above reproach – to say that he is highly respected goes without saying. Great credit to the Sun’s editors for printing his op-ed.
 
This madness had escaped the notice, evidently, of the Minister and Palmer. Is that because the amount is small?
 
The amount, today and climbing, is approximately $50 Billion dollars – which sum is carefully concealed – but because of an earlier statement by Coleman has been verified and is also verified by Erik Andersen, a highly respected (non-political, I hastily add) economist who specializes in assessing public finances.
 
Vaughn Palmer and Rich Coleman are “investigating the rate increases BC Hydro claims it needs” by overlooking $50 Billion.
 
How much is $50 Billion?
 
It is 50,000 million dollars. If you live in Kamloops or Kelowna every one of your neighbours has $500,000 in the bank!
 
This amount is owed by BC Hydro to private power corporations, paid as it presently stands, at over $1 billion (1000 million) a year and rising, for energy they don’t need – at twice or more its value. And Mr. Coleman and Palmer slough it off! Don’t even mention it!
 
And who do you think is going to pay this?
 
Three guesses and the first two don’t count!
 
This is, in effect, what we’re all doing as ratepayers – subsidizing huge corporations like General Electric to destroy our rivers for power we can’t, for the most part use, for which we must pay twice or more what its worth.
 
The net effect of this is that BC Hydro is no longer able to pay its annual handsome dividend to our government. BC Hydro, were it in the private sector and unable to pass its losses onto the public, would now be headed for bankruptcy protection. Did you get that? The only way BC Hydro can avoid bankruptcy is this: soak British Columbians with higher and higher rates!
 
The dots are easy to connect – because of government policy we pay General Electric, Ledcor and other similarly small “mom-and-pop operators” to make power that BC Hydro must (under the take-or-pay contracts) pay for when they don’t need it, or export it at a huge loss – all the while destroying our rivers and the ecosystems they support.
 
I don’t impugn the motives of Mr. Palmer or the strange silence from the pen of Mike Smyth – I simply don’t know how and why they would not do the same kind of work on the Liberal government as Palmer did with NDP premier Glen Clark and his fast ferries.
 
The motives of Mr. Coleman can be easily stated: he’s a politician prepared to say anything – or remain silent on anything – to avoid confessing government error.
 
I issue this warning to Christy Clark: the chickens are coming home to roost and soon. It’s now too late to avoid this in time for a snap election.
 
Premier W.A.C. Bennett created BC Hydro so that British Columbians could use their massive hydro power to compete for industry and until Gordon Campbell came along it worked brilliantly. Now it’s in tatters with BC Hydro pleading with the public to fill its begging bowl.
 
Our government, lying through its teeth*, has not only destroyed our rivers and their ecologies, it has subsidized large corporations to fleece us, destroy one of the world’s finest power companies while paying them billions of our dollars as a bonus!
 
Surely the very least we must conclude is that Palmer is not worth reading and this government is unfit to govern.
 
*Please watch this 2 min video of Colin Hansen spewing falsehood upon falsehood, in his presentation as then Finance Minister of the Liberal government’s Energy Policy.
 
 
 

Share
Photo courtesy of Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford

Mission and Abbotsford’s Public-Private Water War

Canada, Politics, WATER,
Share

The proposal to privatize the water services in my community seemed to hit us from behind – it was negotiated for over a year in secret and sprung on us without warning. This $300 million project, that would inevitably give control of our water to a foreign consortium, was not something Abbotsford or Mission residents asked for, but part of an agenda being pushed by the federal government and certain corporate individuals on Council. 

To understand my experience and learn how to respond I turned to water documentaries such as FLOW (For Love Of Water) – a documentary about the privatization of drinking water – and saw that this is the typical modus operandi of P3 (public-private partnership) proponents. The film addresses the problems that have occurred in Europe with regard to water systems that are privately operated. However, most of the film is about P3s in the developing world in Africa and South America. I was surprised to find myself relating to the experiences of water consumers in those countries or villages. Even though I consider myself to be a strong, assertive woman, I wept at the similarity of what had happened to them and to what was now happening to my community of Abbotsford, B.C., Canada. I was amazed at the parallels between the fifth largest city in B.C. and communities in the developing world.

A number of concerned citizens of both Abbotsford and Mission have begun exhaustive research on the impacts of public-private water systems on consumers and communities. Water, is after all THE essential to all life.  What became evident at the outset was that a very small percentage of water systems in Canada are the design, build, finance, operate model that the elected representatives of Abbotsford and Mission and their consultant Deloitte & Touche had opted to pursue. In B.C. and Canada the vast majority of local governments opt to have water systems operated publicly. Usually the private sector is limited to the design/build activities of water systems.

The need for more water was not a fact that Council members in both Abbotsford and Mission were unaware of. Two very extensive consultant reports were released in 2006 and 2009 that made it very clear that in order to approve more residential, commercial and industrial development much more water was needed. The estimated cost of the 2006 Water Master Plan was just under $197 million and in 2010 it was $198 million. Both Water Master Plans used costs related to Stave Lake as the source for additional water. A 2009 report prepared by Polis which recommended conservation as a way to have a sustainable water system and save up to 70% was released by the Abbotsford-Mission Water and Sewer Commission. See that report here.

Just months after the 2010 Water Master Plan was released the cost has gone up to $300 million, according to a Deloitte & Touche “business case” commissioned by the city. In addition, the cost to operate the public-private water system Stave Lake section would be $1+ million more per year over the proposed 25 year contract. Apparently, significant cost increases are quite common when P3 design/build and finance/operate “business cases” are submitted to senior governments for funding assistance. Historically, the assistance has been as much as 60% of the capital costs. The public-private “business case” for the Abbotsford/Mission water upgrade was submitted to PPP Canada Inc. – a relatively new crown corporation created by the Harper Conservative government in 2007. According to information available from the Government of Canada, PPP Canada Inc. will “grow” the P3 market in Canada; manage a $2 billion+ P3 Fund, providing up to 25% of municipal and provincial P3 costs; review and assess proposals for P3s seeking federal contributions using a new “P3 screen”; provide advice and expertise for P3 matters; and target municipal and small projects in particular.

Local governments have proclaimed that they have no choice but to opt for a public–private water system if they want to access federal funding (now lowered to 25%). With the P3 cat out of the bag a group of concerned water consumers from both Mission and Abbotsford met and formed Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford. News of this was met with a full page ad in the local media in Abbotsford and Mission, quoting Abbotsford Mayor George Peary erroneously accusing CUPE (the union that represents civic workers) of misleading the public about the impact of P3s. Then Deloitte & Touche was contracted and directed to not even consider anything other than the design/build and finance/operate option. Their recommendation  was finally debated in public on Apr. 4, 2011. Abbotsford Council and staff refused to answer any questions. They looked like deer in the headlights according to one observer. 

A large contingent of the public expressed such strong opposition to the P3 option that Council voted to delay the vote and (finally) address the numerous concerns voiced at the meeting. On the same evening with both Council and staff available to respond to concerns from the public, Mission Council decided to respect the concerns of its citizens and take the bull by the horns and voted the P3 water scheme down. This caused yet another very disrespectful public comment from Mayor Peary who humiliated residents by stating that the tail (Mission) would not be allowed to wag the dog (Abbotsford). Most of the water Abbotsford currently taps – from Norrish Creek – is not in Abbotsford but in Mission, as is Stave Lake.

Many hoped that would be the end of the P3 as both Abbotsford’s Water and Sewer Commission Report on the matter and the “business case” required both Councils to agree to the P3 water scheme. But as far as Mayor Peary was concerned it was still “full steam ahead”. When Abbotsford Council voted on April 18, 2011 on a quickly revised Deloitte & Touche “business case” – which “reduced” the cost to $284 million – to proceed with the P3 water scheme, one Councillor even expressed disgust at being bribed with our own money while we endanger our “gentleman’s agreement” with Mission, our longstanding working partner. However, during the recent federal election campaign Abbotsford Conservative incumbent candidate Ed Fast said that the P3 water scheme is not compulsory in order to obtain federal funds.

The voters of Abbotsford will now be asked to approve the P3 water project in a referendum in November 2011, including a long-term 25 year private contract to finance and operate the water system and the borrowing well over $50 million. The City of Abbotsford is launching a massive communications plan to convince the electorate to vote in favour of this privatization of their water services. However, public opposition to the idea is mounting, along with the logistical problem Abbotsford faces in accessing water located in Mission for which they need right-of-way access. In May Mission Council unanimously refused to consider a request by Abbotsford to grant access to Mission’s roads for the P3 project.

Abbotsford’s Mayor Peary is not making any friends by damning his neighbours in the media, chastising Mission Council and residents for their decision to keep their water system in public hands, and threatening to move forward with the project regardless of the will of Mission residents. There really is no room for bullying and egos when planning how to deliver water for life, not profit, to the public.

Lynn Perrin is the Abbotsford Spokesperson for Water Watch Mission-Abbotsford.

To learn more about the battle over Mission and Abbotsford’s water and how you can help:

Web / Facebook / Youtube / Contact: waterwatchma@live.ca

Share

Rafe on Being Old, Fixed Elections and Christy Clark’s Mandate

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

I received an email recently saying I was too old and should begone – not his precise words but that was the gist of what he said. And I suppose that requires an answer.
 
I am old and will be 80 on New Years Eve; there it is – make of it what you will.
 
Having confessed, perhaps my correspondent would say whether his criticism goes to my antiquity or the message I bring. That will always be your issue and I accept your verdict. OK, let’s get down to business.
 
Gordon Campbell brought in a fixed term for elections to avoid election by ambush. It just wasn’t right that governments could pick the most propitious time (for them). Fairness was the test. Now Premier Clark, who was in cabinet when this decision was made, is prepared to forget all about this and will go to the people soon, probably this fall.
 
She will ask for a mandate and it’s critical that we know just what that mandate actually will be, not the one she claims.
Here are some of the issues she and Liberals will avoid like the plague in hopes voters will ignore them too.

  • The private Energy Policy will continue
  • Large corporations will continue to desecrate our rivers and the ecology they support
  • BC Hydro will continue to be forced to buy the private power under a “take or pay” clause meaning it must either use it at a much higher cost than they can make it for themselves or export it at a huge loss
  • BC Hydro, now technically bankrupt (their raising of rates is all that keeps them afloat), will be broken up and the most valuable parts sold off
  • New private schemes will be approved and new construction will begin
  • Site C Dam will be built to supply shale gas, coal mining and the Tar Sands – flooding 11,000 acres of vital farmland in the process
  • New fish farms will be licensed and there will be no effort to make the existing ones to go to closed-containment
  • The Prosperity Mine (Fish Lake) will go ahead
  • The two Enbridge pipelines from the Tar Sands to Kitimat will be approved.
  • The Kinder Morgan pipeline to Burnaby will be hugely expanded and the company will construct a “spur” also to go to Kitimat
  • Huge tankers will ply our waters using the most treacherous coast line in the world
  • Massive oil spills on land and sea will become a certainty
  • Desecration of the Agricultural Land Reserve will continue

The obvious plan is to push ahead on so many fronts that opposition will be badly divided.
 
The voting public ought to be forewarned and understand that no matter what Premier Clark says is the mandate she wishes, the forgoing is the mandate she will get.
 
Can she be stopped?
 
Of course she can by simple “X’ on a ballot on a piece of paper.
 
This old fart is going to help leaders like Alexandra Morton, Rex Weyler, Joe Foy, Gwen Barlee, Erik Andersen, Donna Passmore, First Nations and so many others with whatever strength he can muster to carry the fight to the people.
 
This is what we all must understand – those proud to call themselves environmentalists are not some wild eyed anarchists or loony left-wingers. This is how we’ll be portrayed because the government has no answers except ad hominem attacks. These are not issues of left or right but right or wrong.
 
Let me end on the “old man theme”.
 
The numbers speak for themselves and I can’t change them. I can only ask you to judge these issues on their merits not on birthdays.

Share

Vancouver Sun: Clean Energy Act is what needs renewing

WATER
Share

From the Vancouver Sun – June 7, 2011

by Dr. Marvin Shaffer

If it is not already a fundamental law of economics
it should be: When government says we must pay whatever it takes, we
inevitably pay too much. So it is with the B.C. government’s energy
policies.

In the Clean Energy Act, the government told BC Hydro it
has to be self-sufficient. It wasn’t talking about ensuring a reliable
supply of energy. “Self-sufficiency” as defined by the government is
simply a requirement for BC Hydro to buy more long-term firm electricity
supply than its own, well-established reliability criteria says it
needs and that the B.C. Utilities Commission -the independent government
agency tasked with regulating energy utilities -would support.
Moreover, it has to do that regardless of the cost.

On top of that, the government legislated that BC Hydro has to buy “insurance” -even more electricity that it does not need.

What
this “insurance” is for has never been made clear, but the effect of
“self-sufficiency” and “insurance” is to force BC Hydro to buy or
develop the equivalent of two Site C dams more than is actually needed
to ensure a sufficient, reliable supply for British Columbians.

The
fact that the electricity BC Hydro is being forced to buy is costing
more than double what the electricity is worth, now and in the
foreseeable future, does not seem to matter. The legislation is
absolute. BC Hydro must acquire this extra electricity supply whatever
its impact on costs and rates.

BC Hydro has to do a lot more as
well. Under the Clean Energy Act, the government directed BC Hydro to
buy private power for export, with BC Hydro providing the transmission,
backup and other services needed to make the private power a marketable
product.

The legislation does not require BC Hydro to do this at a
loss, but there is no provision to ensure that BC Hydro is fully
compensated for the value of the services it provides and risks it
assumes. In case BC Hydro is hesitant, government has explicitly
legislated the right to force BC Hydro to buy private power for export,
regardless of the risks or impacts on BC Hydro’s own trading
opportunities.

The Clean Energy Act goes even further. It directs
BC Hydro to proceed with literally billions of dollars of investments
without any independent review by the BC Utilities Commission or anyone
else. So the billiondollar smart meter initiative is going ahead,
without independent scrutiny of its thin business case based more on the
identification of illegal marijuana growing operations than anything
else.

The Northwest Transmission line is going ahead without any
consideration of the tens of millions of dollars per year that BC Hydro
will lose to supply each new mine the transmission line is being built
to connect. Under BC Hydro’s industrial rate schedule, in accordance
with government legislation, the mines will pay less than onehalf of the
cost of the new supply BC Hydro will have to acquire to provide the
very large amounts of electricity the mines consume.

Also going
ahead without B.C. Utilities Commission review and approval are
purchases of private power under the recent 2010 Clean Call, despite
their high cost and relatively low value.

All
of which brings us to the most interesting, some might say ironic,
current situation. Having done all this, the government now is not
pleased with the impact its cost-be-damned policies are having. BC Hydro
rates are forecast to increase over 50 per cent in five years; over 100
per cent in 10 years.

The government realizes that something has
to be done: BC Hydro cannot be allowed to raise its rates that much. So a
panel of government officials has been formed to review and make
recommendations on BC Hydro’s costs and rates.

The political spin
accompanying the announcement of this review is that the government is
taking on BC Hydro. In fairness, it can be tempting to bash BC Hydro. No
doubt some executive salaries are out of line and some discretionary
costs could be reduced.

However, one can only hope that the panel
recognizes the need to investigate the government’s own major role in
driving up BC Hydro’s costs and rates.

The temptation to look for a
few million dollars of savings in salaries and operating costs should
not cloud the need to address the billions of unnecessary costs being
forced on BC Hydro by the provincial government.

The stated
objective of the review is to ensure that BC Hydro’s costs are minimized
and benefits are maximized. That cannot be done with the
“self-sufficiency”, “insurance”, export and myriad other requirements
and projects government has imposed without regard to impact and cost.

The
main provisions of the Clean Energy Act should be repealed. The
government panel would do a great service by addressing why that is
necessary and what should be instituted in its place.

Marvin Shaffer is an adjunct professor at the School of Public Policy at Simon Fraser University.

Read original article

Share

U.K. Company Suspends Fracking Operations after Possibly Triggering Earthquakes

Energy and Resources, Fracking, Oil&Gas, Water and Hydrocarbons,
Share

From The New York Times – June 6, 2011

by David Jolly

PARIS — A British company said Wednesday that it would temporarily halt
the use of a controversial gas exploration technology after indications
that it might have set off two small earthquakes near a test well in
Lancashire, England.

The company, Cuadrilla Resources,
which is exploring for gas in shale formations deep underground, said
it would postpone hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, operations at the
Preese Hall site near Weeton.

“We take our responsibilities very seriously,” Mark Miller, the chief
executive of Cuadrilla, said in a statement, “and that is why we have
stopped fracking operations, to share information and consult with the
relevant authorities and other experts.”

Fracking is a procedure in which water, chemicals and sand are injected deep underground to free oil or gas trapped in dense shale formations.

The technology is widely used in the United States, where it has contributed to a boom in natural gas
production. It has been criticized because the fracking chemicals are
believed to have the potential to contaminate groundwater.

“We have discussed this with Cuadrilla and agreed that a pause in
operations is appropriate so that a better understanding can be gained
of the cause of the seismic events,” the British Department of Energy and Climate Change said in a statement.

Experts from the British Geological Survey, the government and Keele University are examining the data, “and we will need to consider the findings into the cause of the event,” the department said.

The halt was called after the British Geological Survey recorded an earthquake early on May 27 at a depth of about 1.25 miles, with a magnitude of 1.5.

“Any process that injects pressurized water into rocks at depth will
cause the rock to fracture and possibly produce earthquakes,” the survey
said on its Web site.

Brian Baptie, the top seismology official for the organization, said in a
statement that measuring instruments had been installed close to the
drill site after a magnitude 2.3 earthquake occurred on April 1.

“The recorded waveforms are very similar to those from the magnitude 2.3
event,” Mr. Baptie said, “which suggests that the two events share a
similar location and mechanism.”

The two quakes were barely perceptible to humans.

Industry officials say Europe is a decade or more behind the United
States in its effort to recover “unconventional” hydrocarbons like the
oil and gas in shale. Governments and energy companies have viewed
technologies like fracking as a means to reduce European Union
dependence on imported oil and gas, but there can be no certainty that
exploitable deposits exist without further testing.

Cuadrilla’s announcement came as the French Senate on Wednesday began a debate on a proposed fracking ban.

The lower house of Parliament on May 11 passed its own bill,
which would prohibit fracking in the exploration and recovery of oil
and gas, and would revoke existing exploration contracts that relied on
the procedure. The Senate, though, is considering a measure that would
leave open the door to fracking for research.

Read original article

Share

The Need for Civil Disobedience Throughout History…and in BC Today

Canada, Energy and Resources, Pipelines and Supertankers, Politics, WATER, Western Canada, ,
Share

I favour civil disobedience if it’s done responsibly and for good reasons.
 
Civil disobedience was practiced by Jesus; more recently Henry David Thoreau, the 19th Century American philosopher, is seen as father of the modern art of flouting authority. Thoreau had a strong impact on Mohandas Gandhi, who led protests first against South Africa’s laws against Indians (Gandhi lived there between 1893 and 1914) and later effectively against colonial powers in India. Gandhi and Martin Luther King are seen as 20th Century leaders in this field but one must include the entire civil rights movement and especially that in the Southern US in the 50s and 60s.
 
One must also remember the many acts of civil disobedience in BC in recent decades, especially those against killing old growth forests and the good that’s come of them.
 
Precise principles are hard to make but here are a couple from my own research and thoughts.
 
The cause must be “just” – not an easy word to define at the best of times – and has these elements:

  • It is clearly a debatable issue in our society.
  • There is a clear philosophical underpinning such as civil rights, immorality, an intrinsically evil law or policy.
  • The public has been deprived of a fair hearing.
  • There is no reasonable alternative.
  • It is non-violent, which is a better word than peaceful.

The other side of the coin is the need of members of society to obey laws and only change them through the Legislature or Parliament. This “law and order” theme is the song of the “establishment” through whom unjust policy and law is manna from heaven and works substantially in their favour.
 
Until this day, slavery in economic chains of those who were freed from formal slavery is justified as “the law” but contains within itself my basis truth – this issue alone tells us how long it takes to get equality before the law and the impotence of decent people who simply want that for everyone. Unions and civil rights leaders have fought for basic justice for many years with every step painful and blocked by those who complain that they are outlaws – overlooking, conveniently, whose interests those laws support and how they came to be passed.
 
An interesting example is that of Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, a British banker and politician who was, in 1857, refused his seat in Parliament because, as a Jew, he could not (so the established MPs decided) take the Christian oath. Catholics were similarly rejected. Disraeli’s father had him baptized in the Church of England to avoid this problem.
 
Would anyone see these laws as supportable just because a parliament passed them?
 
Another famous case was Gandhi’s protest in 1930 in order to help free India from British control. He proposed and led a non-violent march in clear defiance of a Salt Tax which essentially made it illegal to sell or produce salt, allowing a complete British monopoly.  Since salt is necessary in everyone’s daily diet, everyone in India was affected. The Salt Tax made it illegal for workers to freely collect their own salt from the coasts of India, making them buy salt they couldn’t really afford. This protest set Gandhi and the Congress Party on the pathway to Indian independence.
 
Could anyone seriously claim that this law, being passed by a colonial power, must be obeyed?
 
British Columbians today face huge assaults on their environment from those who control our legislatures. Let me deal with just two – pipelines and tankers, and private power producers (IPPS). In each case the environmental damage is monumental.
 
With pipelines and tankers, huge irremediable environmental catastrophes are not just a risk but a mathematical certainty with immense and lasting consequences.
 
IPPs are destroying – not just impacting – our rivers.
 
What chance to protest has been given the citizen? When did the citizen have the opportunity to affect IPPs politically? Their MLAs and MPs are not bound to the public’s interests but the party line from which they dare not deviate.
 
These same questions pertain to pipelines and huge oil tankers.
 
The answer is that worse than having no hearings at all are the phony hearings which permit no discussions of the merits (if any) of these proposals.
 
The argument is made that our legislators speak for us – the very argument used by the establishment to sustain slavery, keep black children out of “white schools”, outlaw labour unions because they were a conspiracy to interfere with employers’ right to set wages and working conditions, keep Jews from Parliament, to deny women the right to vote, to allow restaurants to keep Blacks out, and on it goes…
 
It’s interesting how the law deals with these matters today:

  • First, legislators on the government side pass laws dramatically helpful to those whose money gets them elected.
  • Second, they give away that which they hold in trust for us, to these corporations to desecrate for their own very profitable use.
  • Third, people protest by getting in the way of the contractors’ relentless, uncaring and lawful abuse of our environment.
     
  • Fourth, the corporation goes to Court and gets an injunction against the
    protesters. (These hearings give no opportunity for the public to deal
    with the “merits” of the project.)
  • Fifth, the protests continue.
  • Sixth, turning a civil act into a crime, the corporation seeks and gets an order to imprison these “criminals” – not for breaking any law, but for “contempt of court”. 

Before this year is out I think we’ll have protests where decent, contributing citizens, wanting no more than to pass the province they love to future generations without the scars of private power development or spilled oil. They will go to jail for as long as it takes them to admit their “error”, as in other times, with similar legal machinery (Galileo confessed his “error” when he said that earth went around the sun instead of the other way around).
 
That’s right, these “criminals”, our friends and neighbours are sent to jail forever unless they recant and apologize.
 
It is thus democracy is practiced in our fair land.

Share

Treaty 8 First Nations chief hopes UN will intervene on Site C dam

Hydropower, WATER,
Share

From the Georgia Straight – May 31, 2011

by Matthew Burrows

A Fort Nelson-based leader with the Treaty 8 First Nations in
northeastern B.C. says she was given 30 minutes before the United
Nations to address “frustration” over the cumulative impacts of resource
extraction in her territory.

“Typically, when you go in front of a UN forum, you’re given three to
five minutes, and when your time’s up, they cut you off,” Treaty 8
Tribal Association tribal chief Liz Logan said. “So we were given 30
minutes, and that was great, and so we expanded on our submission and
gave them some more details, and basically requested that he [UN special
rapporteur James Anaya] intervene on our behalf and remind Canada that
they did sign on to the [UN] Declaration [on the Rights of Indigenous
Peoples], and that they need to abide by its articles and principles.”

Logan said she has no faith the government of B.C. will listen to Treaty
8 concerns, as development in and around the Peace River region, and
further north to the Horn River Basin, has continued at rapid pace
through successive provincial governments in Victoria.

“We’ve been dealing with oil and gas since the 1940s, and the eight
million cubic metres of timber that they cut annually, the four big
mines that are currently now operational—six on the block to be
approved,” Logan added. “This province’s environmental assessment
processes are flawed. In our mind, we have yet to see a project denied
or rejected. They have removed the oversight of Site C [dam] from the
B.C. Utilities Commission.”

Anaya, the UN special rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples,
had sent out a bulletin asking indigenous peoples to send in submissions
on resource extraction in their territories and the cumulative impacts
on those developments, Logan added. Now she hopes to effect change
through that channel.

“I know that they don’t have any legal force to make states do things,
but it usually is made public, and so they can publicly embarrass
governments,” Logan said. “We’re keeping our fingers crossed that they
will do something like that.”

Tonight (May 31), Logan will speak at Heritage Hall (3102 Main Street)
during a Wilderness Committee-hosted event dealing with the Site C dam.

The event comes on the second leg of a provincewide Site C speaking tour
featuring Logan, Diane Culling of Peace Valley Environment Association
and Joe Foy of the Wilderness Committee.

Read original article

Share

Site C: Simple Questions & Answers

Hydropower, WATER, ,
Share

We at the Common Sense Canadian will be dealing with the Site C project in some depth and from the outset we would like to acknowledge the tremendous work and research done by our colleague, well known economist Erik Andersen, who cut his professional teeth dealing with government spending.
 
I would like to test a theory of mine, namely, that the Site C project does not pass the “simple question” test.
 
Energy Minister Rich Coleman has stated that we need Site C because BC Hydro says our power needs will grow by 40% over the next 20 years
 
Given that BC Hydro’s projections from a decade ago proved to be exaggerated by 30%, as this report by Mr. Andersen clearly demonstrates…
 
Simple Question: why should we trust them now when they envision our needs rising 40% in the coming years?
 
Simple Answer: We don’t – and in a moment I’ll ask some more questions to show why that is.
 
The government has maintained that the private river power scheme will look after all our needs and, indeed, the estimates given show that just two of the largest ones together would exceed Site C’s output.
 
SQ: Why then do we need Site C?
 
SA: We don’t. But what Coleman’s statement does is clearly admit that the private power schemes which are or will be destroying our rivers will not produce power for BC Hydro; they cannot do so because most of their power comes during the spring run-off (when we need it least), so they cannot provide the year round power that Site C will.
 
Coleman again states that this will be clean, green energy.
 
SQ: How can you call a project that floods 5400 hectares of farmland and drives away the wildlife “clean and green”?
 
SA: You cannot, anymore than you can call private projects that destroy a river’s ecology “clean and green”. This is Orwellian “Newspeak”.
 
Coleman says the project will cost $7.9 billion.
 
SQ: Who are you kidding? When was the last time a government mega-project came in anywhere near on budget?
 
SA: When Noah built his ark…The Highway 1/Port Mann Bridge widening project was supposed to be $1.5
billion at first, then it was over $2 billion; now it’s $3.5 billion –
and we haven’t seen the end of it. The infamous convention centre budget doubled to nearly a billion dollars by its completion. Site C’s budget, meanwhile, just shot
up from $6 billion to $8 billion over the past year!
 
Given that the government has forced BC Hydro to make unconscionable, cozy contracts with private power producers (IPPs) which will now cost over the next 20-40 years some $50 billion…
 
SQ: Where is the money for Site C coming from?
 
SA: Surely there is no need to say out of the wallets of BC ratepayers and taxpayers.
 
Coleman says that Site C will produce electricity at between $87 and $95 per MWh – “compared to other resources at $129″
 
SQ: Mr. Coleman, do you realize that you have just admitted that IPPs are charging BC Hydro, on a take or pay basis, triple or more the market price and 10 times + what Hydro can make it for?
 
SA: You have proved, through your own words, what the Common Sense Canadian has been saying all along, and you have clearly admitted that your government has been lying through its teeth from the beginning! What does this say about your government’s honesty?
 
Coleman has said he’s thoroughly reviewing Hydro’s latest request for a rate increase.
 
SQ: How the hell do you have the nerve to utter this rot when you know that huge increases must come not only from, now, Site C, but also to cover the $50+ BILLION going to IPPS?
 
SA: That statement can only be made if you’re lying or an incompetent fool! Or both.
 
Coleman says that BC Hydro will hold the “required independent environmental assessment process” which will provide opportunities for public input.
 
SQ: Will these meetings permit people to object to the project itself? To demand evidence supporting the need for the project? And who chairs these independent meetings?
 
SA: Based upon past experience the assessment process will be chaired by a firm supporter of the project and any questions raised as to the need for the project will be ruled “out of order”.
 
Assuming that BC Hydro, being the astute business persons they are, will have big, energy requiring customers in mind…
 
SQ: How much of this electricity will be going to power coal mines, shale gas extraction and the Tar Sands? And will regular residential and business ratepayers be subsidizing this industrial power the way we do now – to the tune of a 50% + discount on what we all pay?
 
SA: That’s precisely what will happen and the government and BC Hydro will, using our dollars, power production of the dirtiest corporations on the face of this planet.
 
These are some of the areas of this project Damien and I will be canvassing.
 
What we can confidently say is that Mr. Coleman has, I’m sure unwittingly, demonstrated just what a royal screwing British Columbians are taking from the IPP contracts and that the Common Sense Canadian, in exposing the deceit and cynicism of this government, has been thoroughly vindicated. Now they want us to help them compound their sins!
 
Incompetent governments are usually run by honest people who are stupid; with this government we not only have incompetence but corruption as well.
 

Share