Juvenile salmon at Flora Bank, where a controversial LNG terminal is proposed (Tavish Campbell)
Over 130 scientists are slamming the draft environmental report into a proposed LNG terminal on Lelu Island over salmon habitat and other key issues. The concerns – expressed in a letter yesterday calling on the Trudeau Government to disregard the draft report on the project – come near the end of the public comment window, which closes Friday.
Report “scientifically flawed”
The letter, signed by such respected salmon experts as SFU’s Dr. Jonathan Moore, BCIT’s Dr. Marvin Rosenau, and retired senior DFO manager Otto Langer, calls the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency’s draft report on the project “scientifically flawed” and based on “inadequate” information. Said Langer, “The CEAA report is less than scientific, full of speculation and wishful thinking.”
“You couldn’t find a worse location to develop in terms of risks to fish. The CEAA report does not acknowledge that this LNG proposal is located on critical habitat of Canada’s second largest wild salmon watershed”, said Charmaine Carr-Harris of the Skeena Fisheries Commission.
5 big mistakes
The scientists’ letter lists five key mistakes made by CEAA with its report:
Misrepresentation of the importance of the project area to fish populations, especially salmon
Inadequate consideration of multiple project impacts and their cumulative effects
Unsubstantiated reliance on mitigation
Assuming lack of information equates to lack of risks
Disregard for science that was not funded by the proponent
On the last two points, the scientists highlight fundamental flaws in the review process and its scientific methodology, noting:
[quote]CEAA’s draft report is not a balanced consideration of the best-available science. On the contrary, CEAA relied upon conclusions presented in proponent-funded studies which have not been subjected to independent peer-review and disregarded a large and growing body of relevant independent scientific research, much of it peer-reviewed and published…The CEAA draft report for the Pacific Northwest LNG project is a symbol of what is wrong with environmental decision-making in Canada.[/quote]
Citizens can add their voice
The window for public comment on CEAA’s draft report remains open until Friday end of day (see instructions for submission here). After that, the review panel will weigh the feedback it has received and produce a final report sometime in the coming months. It will then fall to the Trudeau government to decide whether or not it wishes to issue an environmental certificate for the project, over these serious climate and salmon concerns.
Artist’s rendering of proposed floating LNG terminal in Saaninch Inlet – Malahat LNG
A battle is brewing in Saanich Inlet over a proposed floating LNG terminal – long before the proponent, Steelhead LNG, has even filed its formal application. In recent weeks, an increasingly bizarre controversy has erupted over whether or not elected Cowichan Valley Regional District (CVRD) directors have the right to express their opinion on the project at this early stage.
The controversy was boiled over last month after the CVRD unanimously passed a motion put forth by district director Lori Iannidinardo to oppose the project, citing concerns surrounding air quality and shipping lanes near the region’s population (see video of motion and vote).
Keep your opinions yo yourselves, directors warned
The vote was met with warnings from Ross Blackwell, General Manager of the CVRD Planning and Development Department, as documented by the local blog Cowichan Conversations. Mr. Blackwell appears to have drawn his position from an internal legal opinion issued by CVRD Legal Counsel Peter Johnson. On this basis, Blackwell cautioned elected directors not take a public position on the project before reviewing a formal application by the proponent – or they could face legal challenges down the road.
The district staff cite several court rulings – including Save Richmond Farmland Society v. Richmond (Township) and Old St. Boniface Residents Assn. Inc. v. Winnipeg (City) – in defence of their argument that directors must maintain an “open mind” towards the project until staff has formally reviewed the proponent’s application, forwarded its recommendations to elected officials, and those directors have had time to issue a carefully considered decision.
The stuff of local politics
Lori Iannidinardo
To some directors and local pundits, though, this has come across as anti-democratic fear-mongering. As Cowichan Conversations publisher and former regional director Richard Hughes puts it: “Speaking out on issues is the stuff and substance of local politics. It is the responsibility of our elected officials to respond and take positions on issues pending, or in play.”
Into this political and legal morass has now waded eminent lawyer Jack Woodward (lead counsel on the famed Tsilhqot’in case). In response to a query from Director Iannidinardo, Woodward recently penned the following letter – which addresses a letter written by Peter Johnson, containing his legal opinion on the matter. Woodward’s response letter is republished here from Cowichan Conversations:
[quote]Lori,
The issue Mr. Johnson’s letter deals with is bias, namely, whether the Board has expressed such a degree of bias that an application by Steelhead could never be given a fair hearing. Mr. Johnson takes a timid approach, and at the end of his letter Mr. Johnson suggests you patch things up with some kind of ameliorating statement from the Board, perhaps along the lines of: “I know we said we oppose the project, but we would still give you a fair hearing if you make an application.” I don’t think Mr. Johnson’s advice is correct on this point. An ameliorating statement is not necessary, because fairness goes without saying.
A judge doesn’t start a trial by saying: “I will give you a fair trial.”
But more importantly, I don’t think Mr. Johnson’s letter adequately presents another, very important part of the law, namely, that politicians like yourself are protected by the courts in having the freedom to make political decisions and represent the people who elected them.
In both the Old St. Boniface case and the Save Richmond Farmland case, the very cases referred to by Mr. Johnson, the council’s zoning decision was upheld by the courts despite earlier statements that were said to indicate bias.
Those cases both stand for the proposition that you are entitled to your opinions, and you are entitled to express those opinions. It is surprising to see those two cases referred to in a letter which is basically telling you the opposite.
According to the law, the rule against bias is partially relaxed for politicians like yourself who are entitled, even encouraged, to express their views robustly in the public forum. Consider these words of the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in the Old St. Boniface case (the same decision that Mr. Johnson referred to):
“I must assume that the Legislature was aware that in this capacity the members of Council will have fought an election in which the matter upon which they are called upon to decide may have been debated and on which the would-be councillors may have taken a stand some pro and some con.
Indeed, the election of a particular councillor may have depended on the position taken…In the course of this process, a councillor can and often does take a stand either for or against the development…Accordingly, it could not have been intended by the Legislature that this rule [bias] applies to members of Council with the same force as in the case of other tribunals whose character and functions more closely resemble those of a court.”
and further:
“some degree of pre-judgment is inherent in the role of a councillor.”
Lori, this is a free and democratic country. You have been elected to serve the people. You are entitled to express your views. The resolution you passed is an expression of your views as an elected politician. Our country fought wars to protect your right to express such views. You can’t be muzzled. Be fearless.
If Steelhead makes an application to the Board you must review the application on its own merits and express no bias against Steelhead.
Everyone has to be treated fairly, even Steelhead. But no application has been made, and you don’t know for sure if an application will ever be made.
You have done Steelhead a favour by telling them where you stand on LNG. If they make an application, you have to consider it fairly, on the merits, once you have read it and considered what they have to say. Until then you don’t have to worry.
I hope this helps. Don’t hesitate to contact me with any further questions.
Regards,
Jack Woodward, QC[/quote]
Issue heating up
Since the back-and-forth over the CVRD vote, several directors have shown signs of softening on their opposition to the project, while others are doubling down. And, again, considering Steelhead LNG has yet to file its application, we’ve seen nothing yet. Expect Saanich Inlet to join Howe Sound and Lelu Island on a growing list of heated regional battles over the province’s LNG vision.
The following is the first in a two-part opinion letter series. In a sequel letter, Common Sense Canadian publisher Damien Gillis will do what he rarely does: disagree with his old pal and partner, Rafe Mair.
Dear John Horgan,
I hate to say this, but I told you so, and the flock of chickens I promised have now come home to roost.
Many months ago I took you to task for supporting LNGwithout reservation. I told you that by doing this you had prevented your party from questioning each and every step of the LNG process as well as government policy in trying to flog it.
“Against Everything”
Your excuse was that “we cannot be against everything”, probably the most nonsensical thing I have ever heard in the political arena and that’s saying something. What you said to your party and the voter is that whether or not you approve of a policy depends not on whether it’s good policy but the optics.
What, I asked, if it turns out to be lousy policy? How will you be able to criticize a policy you vowed to support? And that’s just what happened, Mr. Horgan…and I told you it would.
The duty to oppose
Christy Clark promotes “Clean LNG” at Vancouver conference last year (David P. Ball)
I tried to explain Lord Randolph Churchill’s dictum that “it is the duty of the opposition to oppose”. You obviously haven’t studied your politics or you would know that what he was saying was, basically, you must test every proposition of government policy in order to demonstrate its value or otherwise. If you approve of a policy before then, you abdicate your duty to the people. This was no minor matter I raised, Mr. Horgan, but goes to the very root of our parliamentary system.
See what’s happened? Since that time Christy & Co have screwed up every aspect of the LNG issue and you can’t utter a word about any of them because you’ve given herpolicy your blessing! Isn’t that precisely what I warned you would happen?
A big, fracking mistake
A fracking drill in BC’s Horn River Basin (Two Island Films)
There surely is no need for me to list the litany of absurdities that the government has committed in the last term over LNG. I just raise a couple of factors.
You approve of fracking– even though most scientists condemn it. Is that perhaps because a lot of it happens in constituencies you covet?
The entire question of extracting gas to make LNG has now become a very significant issue, since the detrimental effects of methane have become known. When you gave your blessing, it was commonly said and, indeed, still is by Premier Clark, that LNG is the least harmful of all of the fossil fuels whereas we now know it’s the most harmful. Yet you’re unable to raise that issue.
On the question of the business handling of LNG, it’s hard to imagine that any government of any political stripe could so mangle a file as the Liberals have, yet you must be taken to approve – how dumb is that? Moreover, you must also accept as true all the sheer rubbish Christy has been pumping out about 20 LNG plants by 2020! Isn’t this just what I said would happen?
The company you keep
The situation in Howe Sound is a microcosm of the mess you’ve got yourself in – let’s have a peek.
Do you favour licensing a crook, big time tax-cheater and jungle-burner – the owner of Woodfibre LNG (WLNG) – to become part of our community, to be trusted by our environmental ministries, our finance ministries and the people of Howe Sound? The answer, sir, is yes, you do.
Do you favour the sham environmental process used by the Clark government to approve this company? The answer is yes, you do.
Do you care about the clear threat to sea life from toxic emissions from WLNG, a sea life that, thanks to cleanup mainly from citizens, includes a stunning return of herring, salmon, Orca, dolphins, sea lions and seals once largely gone? Of course you don’t, because you cannot quarrel with any aspect of LNG policy.
Tanker trouble
Courtesy of Eoin Finn
Do you give a damn that Howe Sound is far too narrow for LNG tankers, even by industry standards set by The Society of International Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO), headquartered in London – the de facto world authority on LNG terminal siting standards? I doubt you’ve even read them, for why would you when you uncritically support LNG?
Do you know that Dr. Michael Hightower, a world-renowned expert on LNG tanker operations at Sandia International Laboratories, has defined for the US Department of Energy three hazard zones of 500m, 1600m (1 mile) and 3500m surrounding LNG tankers? That this means virtually the entire Sea to Sky Highway from Britannia to Lighthouse Park, Anvil, southeast Gambier, Bowyer, eastern Keats, Bowen, and all islands of the Pasley group fall within the zone?
Furthermore, from Britannia to Porteau Cove, Bowyer, White Cliff, both coasts of Bowen and eastern Pasley group are also within the much more dangerous 1600m zone? Do care at all about these people and their property put at risk? No, Mr. Horgan, you couldn’t care less because, of course, “you can’t be against everything!”
Kick ’em between the legs
You’re now telling people that you have to command respect, almost love, in order to get their support in 2016. Of course, you might get lucky and find that the Liberals have been so bloody awful that Screaming Lord Sutch and the Official Monster Raving Loony Party could win the next election. But that’s always a dangerous assumption, Mr. Horgan, and is where I’ve always disagreed with Tommy Douglas’s theory that when the government is falling all over itself, it’s time to get out of the way and let them fall. He was wrong, Mr. Horgan – that’s the time you kick them as hard as you can right between the legs to make sure they don’t suddenly recover their balance as sometimes happens.
Fess up
You must now do something that every politician hates to do, even 50 years after they’ve left office. You have to admit that you were wrong and you have to say approximately this:
[quote]We made a mistake in supporting the government on the LNG issue. We wanted to make sure people realized we support development, however we were premature and we must review all LNG issues so that the public is fully informed, and that’s precisely what we are going to do. Whether or not LNG has a future in British Columbia remains to be seen. The government has made, as everyone knows, an unholy mess of the whole issue and it is our duty to try to sort this out and let the people make a decision on the facts.[/quote]
People will remember an apology like this for a long time but they won’t hold it against you, Mr.Horgan, hard as that may be to believe. That’s because the greater sins belong to the government and people know and understand that.
Even Dix would be better
Photo: BCNDP/Flickr
Both of your predecessors, Ms. Carole James and Mr. Adrian Dix have proved to be far more effective in opposition, inside the House and out, than you have. Both in their time ran lousy campaigns, but the NDP should look for improvement, not perfection, and, even given the warts, Dix makes more sense as the leader of the NDP going into the next election than you do. The public won’t reject Dix in advance because he lost an election. The Liberal media will make a fuss but it’s a matter of making the best of a lousy situation. The issue is Mair’s Axion II, “you don’t have to be a 10 in politics, you can be a 3 if everyone else is a 2”. Under that formula, Dix doesn’t look that bad.
I have never, going back a ways now, seen a government that I thought should be tossed out on its ass quicker and more effectively than this one. At the same time I can’t remember any moment where the opposition was in a worse position to do that.
You should be fired but, never fear, your party won’t force you out…they would rather lose an election then lose face.
That means you may be the man who, through stubbornness, lost the election to the worst government in the living memory of this ancient political junkie.
Most financial analysts, economists and energy experts would have us believe that the fossil fuel sectors, and the petroleum sector in particular, are in a slump, that this is cyclical, and things will eventually normalize. This is because their “training” is based on the assumption that the future will follow the patterns of the past.
But what if it is the economic paradigm that is changing?
Two of the largest markets for fossil fuels are electrical power generation and transportation – the latter nearly 100% dependent on petroleum. With the former, the transition to a green economy is well-advanced, while in the case of the latter market, the signs are that a transition is imminent.
Renewables surpass fossil fuels with new installations
Chinese solar company Suntech at the Bird’s Nest stadium
As a consequence of this trend, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA), in 2015, an astounding 90% of all global electrical power capacity added was attributable to renewables.
Not to be outdone, California has a target to have 1.5M zero emission vehicles (ZEVs) on its roads by 2025. It has also established stipulations for automakers that 15.4% of all vehicles sold in the state be ZEVs by 2025. Moreover, it is supporting ZEV innovation and manufacturing and has set goals for 10% of total state government light duty vehicle purchases in 2015 to be ZEVs and 25% by 2025. Finally, it is requiring that all new buildings and parking lots have the electric panel and wiring in place to accommodate electric vehicles.
Also on e-buses, there are the Proterra electric buses, manufactured in California and South Carolina. These e-buses can travel over 1,100 kilometres in a 24-hour period with the support quick charging points along a route, at less than 10 minutes/charge. Another option is that of a range extender, allowing for 90 minute charges in a bus depot and, hence, fewer requirements for charges en route. Tests conducted by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have found these buses to be very efficient and reliable, that is, they live up to the range claims of the manufacturer.
Why fossil fuels won’t be making a comeback
This all brings us back to the following question:
[quote]Is the flattening of demand in fossil fuel markets, and oil in particular, a cyclical thing, or an omen that the energy/economic model is changing? That is, are we in a transition to a green economics?[/quote]
Well, even BP Chief Economist Spencer Dale, UBS – the world’s largest bank – and Governor of the Bank of England Mark Carney have concluded that, with the increasingly aggressive actions on climate by governments all around the globe, the fossil fuel glory era is nearing its end. This means that much of the world’s proven reserves will become stranded assets, or LIABILITIES.
To make matters worse, the ultra-conservative International Monetary Fund has estimated that fossil fuel subsidies in Canada in 2015, including indirect subsidies for health and climate change, stood at $46B USD/year.
BC Premier Christy Clark touring LNG operations in Malaysia (BC Govt / Flickr CC licence)
So we have to ask ourselves, why on earth is Canada and the current federal government so committed to increasing the supply of oil on international markets via Energy East and Kinder Morgan, when all the signs are suggesting that the business model for Big Oil is collapsing? That business model is based on strong growth in demand, which, in turn, engenders high prices and the economic viability for non-conventional energy resources, such as tar sands and shale oil and gas.
Yet, according to a March 15, 2016 article in Le Devoir by Alexandre Shields, 30% of the Energy East capacity will be used to transport North Dakota shale oil via Canada for export to the US East Coast. This reinforces the premise that Energy East is not economically viable.
But wait a second – federal and provincial governments are not even providing adequate support even when a clean tech sector emerges!
A case in point is that Quebec has a significant critical mass regarding the electric vehicle sector, with two battery manufacturers, two charging station manufacturers, a developer of an electric motor wheel developed in Quebec but manufactured under license in China, and an electric bus under development.
And yet, we learn from Fiat Chrysler Automobile’s CEO, Sergio Marchionne, that he worries about the arrival of electric vehicles because the last bastion that the automakers fully control, from design and manufacturing to final assembly, pertains to the internal combustion engine (ICE) and its powertrain. A shift to electric vehicles would mean this last bastion would become new entry points for outsourcing or outside suppliers.
Reallocating fossil fuel subsidies to green energy
Then there is the matter I alluded to earlier – namely that all Canadians are subsidizing the fossil fuel sectors to the tune of $46B/year in 2015 US dollars.
What we should be asking of the federal and provincial governments concerned, is this: How can fossil subsidies be reallocated to foster diversification of the fossil fuel industries so that clean tech investment, as a percentage of total corporate-specific investments, becomes significant and increasingly so over time?
Danish offshore wind power (United Nations Photo/Flickr)
Another model is this vein is Denmark’s Dong Energy, 60% owned by the Danish Pension Fund, which plans to shift from around 85% of its investments in fossil fuels and 15% in clean energy to the reverse of this ratio by 2040. Dong is the world’s largest investor in offshore wind.
Finally, diversified energy companies headquartered in the West can do more than just develop local infrastructure in their respective regions. Rather, they can become key players in the global market by bringing together clean tech expertise from across Canada. This would include economic diversification, the participation of stakeholders previously not involved in the clean tech, high job creation/growth areas. And often, it means the blending of different fields of expertise that brings about world leadership.
More generally, it is clear that Canada, to be competitive, should be focusing on clean tech at large and not just on clean energy.
Canada at a crossroads
More fundamentally, it time to face the music and recognize that Energy East and Kinder Morgan are white (or, more appropriately, “black”) elephants. This means focusing on how Canada can engage in a fast-forward catch-up with its competitors on the transformation to a different economic model: Green economics.
Roadmap for Canadian transition to green economy
It is in this context that I have assembled a detailed paper on the subject – a roadmap for getting Canada up to speed on the transition to a green economy (read full paper here). This discussion document is based on models from around the globe, adapted and improved upon for “Made in Canada” applications; plus my own Government of Canada employee experience on sustainable development-related experiences in policies, legislation, programs, projects and other initiatives.
What makes this document distinct is this:
While other organizations are emphasizing why we should change and what goals we should pursue, the aforementioned discussion document specifically maps out of HOW TO MAKE THE TRANSITION TO A CANADIAN GREEN ECONOMY. It does so by presenting broad palettes of policy/strategy options, amenable to cherry picking by stakeholders, as per their respective preferences.
No need to reinvent the wheel
Canada need not reinvent the wheel on the green transition because there is so much to learn from the successes and failures of countries far ahead of us and from our own Government of Canada empirical evidence stemming from past climate change action plans.
We don’t need to be stuck with white/black pipeline elephants. Accordingly, I invite anyone interested to have a look at the Roadmap so that we can finally get the dialogue going on how Canada can move forward and fully participate in the high-growth, high-job creation, global green economy.
[quote]We will work with CAPP (Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers) to amplify our energy mandate and to be a part of the solution to keep Canada competitive in the global marketplace. The National Post will undertake to leverage by all means editorially, technically and creatively to further this critical conversation.
-Douglas Kelly, Publisher, National Post[/quote]
The National Post is, of course, the flagship of the Postmedia chain of newspapers, Canada’s largest, which includes the Vancouver Sun and the Vancouver Province. This statement of policy by Mr. Kelly was followed by lengthy memoranda of agreement as to just how Postmedia and CAPP would cooperate.
In addition to this agreement, we have the formal partnership between the Province and LNG lobby Resource Works, set up by a former long-time senior editor of the Vancouver Sun to support and indeed shill for Woodfibre LNG – the highly controversial plant proposed for Squamish. With the Province being wholly owned by Postmedia, we can say that this partnership, along with the one with CAPP, is with the parent company.
Caught red-handed
Postmedia Headquarters (Ryerson Journalism)
Since I uncovered and published this information here some months ago, I have been watching both local papers for evidence of the consequences of this unseemly marriage. This is no simple task because I hardly expected either paper to be honest and upfront about it, so had to look for distortions which are not always easy to demonstrate. What is even more difficult is determining what the papers failed to print as being unhelpful to their clients. That both of these matters occurred was pretty clear – it was actually pinning it down with hard proof that was difficult. Any damned fool, including this one, could see that the papers were remarkably easy on all aspects of fossil fuel production.
One looked in vain for editorials adverse in interest to the oil and gas industry and, of course, there were no columns to that effect. At the same time, there were constant columns by the Fraser Institute, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation and other well-heeled neo-con apologists for industry.
Well, the other day, the chickens came home to roost and I refer you to the Vancouver Sun editorial page – Thursday, February 25, 2016. The headline reads: IN DEFENCE OF OIL INDUSTRY.
[quote]The nation’s energy sector is faltering, not just because of weaker global oil prices — inevitably a temporary situation — but because it gets a bad rap from activists and others who do not seem to have noticed the environmental advances the industry has made nor that its products continue to be in high demand.
And so, it comes as welcome news that a campaign is being launched to better present the industry’s case. Oil Respect, sponsored with “a very modest” budget supplied by the Calgary-based Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, “is about the facts, respect for workers, respect for the environment and respect for an industry that has done so much to provide Canadians with jobs, government services, and a higher standard of living.”
The campaign’s sponsors want the public to start defending the sector through petitions, social media and appeals to politicians. It wants the politicians to stand up more strongly for energy “development and transportation via pipelines, both across Canada and for export to new markets outside our borders”.[/quote]
Later, it mentions its partner Resource Works as promoting resource-related industries. Allow me to digress because you will remember Resource Works stated in the beginning that they were doing no such thing but simply bringing individuals and groups in the community into civilized conversation with one another, blah blah blah. Truth is not a big deal with these guys.
Failure to disclose
The Vancouver Sun and Province building
It’s considered common decency for anyone in a formal debate to state any special interest they might have in the subject matter. If a person was asked to debate as to whether or not we should bring in stricter laws about banks and did not tell you that he was a bank president making big bucks, you’d obviously be shocked and thereafter have a difficult time believing anything that bank had to say. The same rule of honourable debating applies even to newspapers.Even large, smug chains. Yes, even the largest chain in the country.
It’s not my position that newspapers can’t have opinions. I wish they didn’t and in a better world they wouldn’t and would just give us unbiased news. But they have expressed opinions for a lot further back than I can remember and have always editorially supported a political party at election time.
It’s one thing, however, to brand yourself as a Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Green sympathizer, but quite another to secretly have a written deal with one of the parties to support them at all times. In the latter case, which is here, you become utterly untrustworthy in all things.
Upon the failure of anyone else to disclose their interest when debating a public issue and a newspaper editor found out, you can imagine the stern lecture he would give the poor miscreant in the next day’s lead editorial. Newspaper editors are very good at spotting and condemning evil in others.
A matter of trust
No matter what Postmedia does, I can’t imagine that any Canadian citizen with an ounce of brains is going to trust anything they say about the fossil fuel industry henceforth.
Paul Godfrey (Samja Frkovic/Flickr/Victoria Rose)
Lest you think that they are just being good public advocates for common sense let’s go back to that editorial again. The Vancouver Sun, hence Postmedia, supports politicians standing up more strongly for “energy development and for pipelines to export the sector’s products to new markets”. Tell me, Mr. Editor – and, while you’re at it, Paul V. Godfrey, CM, President and Chief Executive Officer of Postmedia – does this mean that Postmedia doesn’t support the Paris Agreements and, in fact, that we should increase our use and consumption of fossil fuels and, of course, export more and more of them so that those countries famous for throwing the noxious crap into the atmosphere have more fuel to work with? (You might remember, Mr. Godfrey as the president who, while laying off hundreds of Postmedia staff last year in order to cut back on costs, pocketed just under $1 million in bonuses for himself).
What this all comes down to is credibility. None of us are close to perfect and we all make mistakes. Postmedia, far from being perfect, not only makes mistakes but makes them deliberately as part of corporate policy. They then pass themselves off under the high moral precepts of journalism to the public.
Let me conclude with this: Would you personally pay hard cash to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to buy a newspaper they put out, examining in detail, for your edification, the fossil fuel industry?
Well, in fact, that’s precisely what you do when you buy the Vancouver Sun, the Province, or, of course, the flagship National Post.
Liberal MP Pamela Goldsmith-Jones (Flickr/CreativeMornings Vancouver/Matthew Smith)
Well, there’s great excitement in the federal constituency of West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast-Sea to Sky Country – Liberal MP Pamela Goldsmith-Jones is having not one, not two, but count ’em, three public hearings on the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant, far and away the most contentious issue in this neck of the woods.
Sticking to climate change
No, that’s not quite accurate because the public hearings are billed to be just about greenhouse gases and climate change, not about such things as the emissions that would come from the plant, the dangers to the newly-revived sea life, nor, of critical importance, the narrowness of Howe Sound, making it totally unsuitable to LNG tankers. There is another issue which no one in government talks about, it evidently not being polite to say anything – Woodfibre LNG is run by a tax-cheating crook best known in Indonesia for burning down jungles.
A welcome change from Harper days
Now, I am writing this before the first meeting and my firm suspicion is that the above issues will be raised, thank God, even though they are distinctly not on the agenda.
It is, however, quite an exciting time because we’re not used to members of Parliament talking to us, except to tell us what government thinks we should be thinking. Indeed, when it was brought to our new MP’s attention that the folks back home were very restless about this issue and actively planning ways and means to make nuisances of themselves, within hours she had scheduled these meetings.
Publicity exercise?
Not everybody thinks these are a wonderful happening. I am not alone in believing it’s all a crock of crap and a political publicity exercise by the government.
The federal government obviously doesn’t give a rat’s ass about global warming or climate change.
Why do I say that?
Well, the issue was great for giving the rookie Justin Trudeau a stage for an early dog and pony show before the world in Paris, and it certainly looked promising when Canada decided we’d wean ourselves off fossil fuels.
Then Mr. Trudeau came home and the next thing we knew, pipelines were being built as usual, new ones approved, fossil fuels coming out of the ground in ever increasing amounts, then shipped to countries that couldn’t wait to send gunk into the atmosphere. Fossil fuel companies are acting as if the Paris conference didn’t happen and, for all intents and purposes, it didn’t. The fossil fuel companies not only control our newspapers but our governments too.
The actions don’t fit the words
Let me ask Pamela Goldsmith-Jones a question or two.
I confess to being a bit of a cynic, but when I look at Mr. Trudeau in Paris and then listen to him back in Ottawa it occurs that I have two stories to choose from and, based on his words and past performances, I can safely assume that the fossil fuel companies are in no danger, their subsidies will continue, their pipelines will be built, the National Energy Board will continue to be a sham and it’s business as usual. That being the case, why the hell would I waste one second of my time listening to you, Madam MP, explain how concerned the government is about climate change and GHGs?
Focus on Howe Sound
Now, if you really wanted to find out what your constituents are fussing about these days you wouldn’t talk about climate change and GHG’s, which, after all, is a pretty easy subject to bullshit about and then do nothing, but you’d deal with what are the issues specific to Howe Sound. I say that because greenhouse gases and climate change is a universal issue and, if not addressed, the world will expire. What do you expect us to add to Paris?
No, Madame MP, let’s take a look at the potential emissions from the proposed plant and what harm they will do will not only to people but also to the renewed sea life, now once more abundant thanks a great deal to be concerned and generous residents of the Howe Sound area who worked so hard for the last 25 years on their restoration.
Woodfibre boss is bad news
Sukanto Tanoto (right)
Let’s talk, Pamela, if I may be so bold, about the ownership of Woodfibre LNG. Sukanto Tanoto is world-known in the industry as being bad news. His record as a big time tax cheat puts him in a class by himself. His environmental record shows him to be an uncaring industrialist who cuts down or sets fire to anything that gets in his way.
Furthermore, Pam, it’s easily demonstrated that his Canadian company is setup so that skating taxes and royalties into tax-free Singapore is child’s play.
Now, it may be that Mr. Tanoto will see the light and suddenly care deeply for the environment, pay his taxes like we all do and be a wonderful corporate citizen. And, of course, pigs might fly.
Shipping LNG is risky business
On the critical, fundamental issue of the width of Howe Sound, no scientist would deny there will be accidents and and with LNG tankers, they are very serious and deadly. The Department of Environment concedes that there will be accidents which means that it’s not a matter of if we have calamities, but when.
The United States and generally accepted international standards of width, as well as those of SIGGTO, the industry organization, make it abundantly clear that LNG tanker traffic in Howe Sound is too dangerous to countenance.
When are you going to talk about this issue?
Constituents ready for serious discussion
Many of your constituents, Pam, would like you to hold open meetings and deal with the questions which specifically concern the residents of the Howe Sound area. This is not a NIMBY issue but one for all of BC. Howe Sound is the southernmost Canadian fjord and one of the most beautiful in the world. Why would you, as our member of Parliament, not want to hear from us on these issues and why wouldn’t you not take them directly to the prime minister and make it clear to him that the people in your constituency are deadly serious about fighting WLNG up to and including civil disobedience?
Pam, I don’t join the enthusiastic applause for your sudden decision to have three meetings on climate change and GHGs. It’s a copout and, frankly, not only is no better than we got from your predecessor who simply ignored us; it’s worse. At least Weston was honest enough to say that his boss loved the idea of the LNG plant, that he, Weston, also thought it was a terrific idea and if his constituents didn’t like it, too bloody bad.
That attitude got him badly beaten by you in the election but I say to you that if you don’t take your constituents seriously, very seriously, on this issue, we’ll run a fencepost with hair and thrash you.
High Hopes
Like most Canadians, Pam, I had high hopes for Mr. Trudeau but now I see that when it gets down to cases, the fossil fuel industry with all its money and power will carry the day and Mr.Trudeau and the government will go along and, like Weston before you, you will too.
If I’m wrong, it will be my huge pleasure to shout my apologies from the rooftops – and from here.
Former BC Hydro CEO Marc Eliesen says BC Hydro’s claim that a one-year delay in Site C dam construction will add $420 million to the project’s $8.8 billion cost is “effectively illusionary” and based on “fundamentally flawed” analysis.
Eliesen made the statement in an affidavit filed February 16 in the B.C. Supreme Court, in response to BC Hydro’s application for an injunction to remove Peace Valley farmers and First Nations members from a camp they have occupied since New Year’s Eve.
Injunction could lead to arrests
A Treaty 8 Steward of the Land at Rocky Mountain Fort camp (facebook)
The application, to be heard February 22, seeks to prohibit anyone from physically interfering with Site C work or counseling others to do the same. If the application is approved, campers who remain at the site will risk arrest.
The peaceful camp, at the Rocky Mountain Fort site on the Peace River’s south bank, has prevented clearcut logging of the surrounding old-growth forest in preparation for Site C flooding. Court documents filed by BC Hydro say the area around the fort site must be cleared immediately because it is slated for a “potentially acid-generating” waste rock dump. The documents note that a berm will be constructed to prevent waste from entering the Peace River.
In his affidavit, Eliesen, who has also headed Ontario Hydro and the Manitoba Energy Authority, says BC Hydro’s testimony in support of the injunction application “fails to provide the proper and comprehensive historical context of BC Hydro’s determinations regarding this project” and is “without merit.”
Eliesen: Site C delays save ratepayers millions
In a January 28 affidavit, Site C Commercial Manager Michael Savidant claims that a one-year delay in logging will inflate the cost of Site C construction by $420 million, an increase of $245 million over his previous statements about the cost of a one-year delay.
Savidant, who has worked for BC Hydro since 2004 and who previously worked for Enron Canada, says the revised costs of a delay include $100 million for inflation and $160 million “of increased interest costs due to future higher rates.”
Eliesen’s affidavit says that delaying Site C is likely to save B.C. ratepayers “more than BC Hydro’s alleged $420 million costs” of delay. That is due to BC Hydro’s own projections for decreasing demand for electricity, particularly among heavy users such as the pulp and paper industry. Under the circumstances, Eliesen says, proceeding with Site C right now is “highly imprudent.”
US economist agrees
In a separate affidavit addressing the injunction application, U.S. energy economist Robert McCullough testifies that a one-year delay in construction would save B.C. ratepayers $268 million, a two-year delay would save $519 million, and a five-year delay would result in net savings of $1.18 billion. McCullough says savings result from Site C power sold at a loss due to a “dramatic fall in world energy prices since 2008.”
“Irreparable harm”?
Early Site C construction in the Peace River (Donald Hoffmann)
In court documents to support its injunction application, BC Hydro claims the seven-week camp has prevented logging from taking place around the fort site and is causing damage and “irreparable harm” to the crown corporation.
The injunction application follows a civil suit against the campers launched in mid-January by BC Hydro. The suit claims damages against six of the campers, including Peace Valley farmers Ken and Arlene Boon and Helen Knott, a social worker from the Prophet River First Nation.
“BC Hydro has taken this aggressive move of intimidation in terms of suing us,” Knott said in an interview.
[quote]In the northeast region where I’m from there’s a lot of oil and gas industry. We’re not against development. This is the project where we’re saying ‘No, this is enough. It’s too much. You’re crossing the line.’[/quote]
Campers get support
Knott, who is currently in Toronto speaking about the Rocky Mountain Fort camp at an Amnesty International event, was served with the civil lawsuit when she was visiting Peace Valley farmer Esther Pedersen. Pedersen has been collecting food donations for the camp from local residents and businesses. A road right-of-way on her farm has also been used by helicopters that flew to the camp, including one that brought scientist David Suzuki and Grand Chief Stewart Phillip from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to visit and dropped off a second survival shack for the campers.
“We’re getting letters from older ladies who are baking pies and making soups [for the camp] and shows of solidarity from across Canada,” said Knott. “It’s pretty amazing.”
The campers, who call themselves the Treaty 8 Stewards of the Land, are asking for Site C construction to be halted until five legal cases against the dam are resolved and the federal government can review Site C’s potential infringement on constitutionally-protected treaty rights.
Rescind questionable permits, say critics
The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Amnesty International and two dozen other national and B.C. groups have asked the federal government to rescind Site C permits granted by the Harper government. The Union of B.C. Municipalities has also called for a moratorium on Site C.
Eliesen’s affidavit says Site C has not been subject to “an adequate level of due diligence” to determine if the project is needed, if energy alternatives have been adequately explored, and if the timing of construction is appropriate.
Need for project not demonstrated
Eliesen points out that the Joint Review Panel which examined Site C for the federal and provincial governments concluded that BC Hydro had not demonstrated a need for the project and recommended it be sent to the watchdog B.C. Utilities Commission for scrutiny, which is also a request from the campers. The B.C. government has exempted Site C from the commission’s oversight.
Fort site holds historical artifacts, cultural materials
Court documents filed by BC Hydro state that further excavation of the fort site will be conducted this spring to search for remains of historic aboriginal encampments dating from the late 1700s and early 1800s when the fort served as a provisioning centre for the fur trade industry.
Survey work by a BC Hydro contractor last summer and fall found evidence of cultural materials, including modified historical artifacts, which are “possible” indicators of aboriginal encampments, according to the documents. The documents say the B.C. government notified all Treaty 8 First Nations and other aboriginal groups about the findings on January 18, after a report on the findings was submitted to the Archaeology Branch of the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resources three days earlier (and following the first media report on the issue in a January 8 DeSmog story).
The Rocky Mountain Fort site, a designated Class 1 heritage site, is one of 40 heritage sites that would be destroyed by the Site C dam when it floods 107 kilometres of the Peace River and its tributaries. BC Hydro’s court documents claim that any delays in logging around the fort site will impact the entire project.
In the early 1990s, when Eliesen was BC Hydro’s CEO and President, BC Hydro issued a public statement on behalf of its Board of Directors, saying that Site C would not proceed due to First Nations rights, and economic, social and environmental factors.
NOTE: BC Hydro’s injunction application will be heard by the BC Supreme Court Monday. Supporters of the Treaty 8 Stewards of the Land are encouraged to attend.
For PM Trudeau (right), sticking to his climate promises on LNG means pouring cold water on Christy Clark’s (left) energy vision (Flickr/Province of BC)
By Graeme Pole
In 1966, American psychologist Abraham Maslow wrote: “I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail.” Fifty years later, a corollary offers itself: If every nail appears familiar, you may be inclined to pick up the same hammer to deal with it.
In taking office, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has been handed the enormous toolbox that is the Canadian federal bureaucracy. And as any handyperson knows, in an unfamiliar toolbox there are likely to be surprises, good and bad. You can tell if the former owner of the toolbox was practised in their craft and if they took care of their possessions; if they used their tools appropriately or if they opened every can of paint with the same, now half-enamelled screwdriver. As you root through the toolbox you may find gems and you may find broken tools, or worse – tools missing that you had expected would be in the box. And when dealing with the bad surprises, you will only notice how broken a particular tool is, how ill-suited it is to your intended purpose, when you go to pick it up for the first time.
PM faces decision of national importance
Prime Minister Trudeau and Environment Minister McKenna will soon be called upon to open their environmental toolbox and make a nationally significant decision in that portfolio: to render a judgement as to whether Pacific Northwest LNG should go ahead. And when the Prime Minister reaches into that toolbox, it is likely that the state of one particular hammer, as it squares with some of his publicly stated views, will give him pause.
That hammer is the Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency (CEAA). Under the governance of Stephen Harper, that agency became a tarnished, broken instrument. The Canadian public has a vague idea that the CEAA acts in the interest of Canadians in vetting the possible environmental and social impacts of proposed industrial projects. Wrong.
Under Harper, CEAA stopped protecting environment
Thanks to the Harper government’s overhauling of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act in 2012 and the simultaneous gutting of other federal acts that interleave with it, the CEAA became a pared down version of its former self, carrying out little in the manner of self-initiated analysis. Its principal purpose became to funnel information provided by the industries that it was charged to scrutinize, through a cookie-cutter matrix that yielded uniformly stamped, sugar-coated findings of “not likely to cause significant adverse effects.” The word “no,” vanquished from its vocabulary, was replaced by a mantra of “approve and mitigate.”
Long gone from the agency’s own toolkit is any kind of prybar that could wrench the bent nail of an ill-founded proposal, sending its (typically) foreign proponents packing from Canadian soil. Gone is impartial study, replaced by the heavily edited “science” – often hurriedly collected in one field season – by legions of contractors on the payroll of industry. Gone is the precautionary principle, in which the public and the environment are protected from harm by not committing to a project on which there is no scientific consensus as to the possible adverse effects.
Federal assessment ignores salmon
Lelu Island and Flora Bank – site of Petronas’s controversial, proposed LNG terminal near Prince Rupert (submitted)
As an example of this brokenness, witness in part the CEAA’s recent assessment of the proposed Pacific Northwest LNG terminal, delivered for public comment on February 10. Debate persists among scientists as to the potential adverse effects of the proposed location of this massive industrial plant and its LNG vessel berths, within the Skeena River estuary. One scientific camp claims that the proposed site is adjacent to the most productive and vital 0.8 km2 in the entirety of the 54,400 km2 Skeena River watershed – Flora Bank. Nonetheless, the CEAA has passed judgement and, with regard to the well-being of salmon, it has given the project a thumbs-up.
For a supposedly impartial agency to rule on such debate when the scientific jury is out is to beg two disasters. The first is a certainty: The utter loss of public trust in government to protect and uphold the integrity, in all senses, of the land. The second, in this particular instance, is a distinct possibility: The depletion or loss of wild salmon from the second most productive salmon watershed in BC, which also ranks among the more productive salmon watersheds in the world. It follows that those salmon might also disappear from the ocean ecosystem, potentially making this a global issue.
Petronas twice ordered to redo salmon studies
The scientific parrying pertaining to Pacific Northwest LNG’s possible threats to wild salmon is well documented elsewhere, and to be fair to the CEAA, the agency initially deemed the proponent’s salmon science so poor, it sent the contractors back to their field notes. Twice. In a nutshell: There is general agreement that the eelgrass of Flora Bank is important to salmon. But how important? And can eelgrass habitat be recreated at point B if destroyed at point A? And will that artificial habitat be of use to salmon or will it merely just fulfil a checkbox requirement, ticked by another permit-hungry proponent as it steamrolls across the landscape?
The salmon enigma
BC sockeye salmon spawning (Wilson Hui/Flickr)
Anyone familiar with the history of tidal fisheries management in British Columbia will be aware that controversy reigns. Despite extensive scientific enquiry and vast public funds expended, no expert can predict with accuracy how many salmon will escape and return in a given year. Unexpected bonanza returns arrive with the same frequency as the fishery going bust. In 2013, several First Nations along the Skeena River took the unprecedented step of closing their commercial and sustenance fisheries in response to that year’s salmon crash, when the return was a third of what had been predicted. The precautionary principle dictates that we should not be messing further with something that we do not understand to this degree.
Salmon are cold water-adapted species. The increases to the overall temperatures of freshwater and ocean water are propagating a monumental constellation of stresses. Spawning streams are often dry due to reduced flows. Parasites and diseases flourish. Ocean acidification is killing salmon food. The ranges of many ocean species are shifting northward, bringing together species that formerly did not mingle en masse. Yet salmon are not officially a species at risk. So, despite being the miracles that they are and with question marks clearly hanging over their population dynamics and habitat, wild salmon, as far as the CEAA is concerned, escape the regulatory scrutiny that, say, the harbour porpoise (a species at risk) rightfully merits. It is telling that a search for “salmon” in the CEAA’s recent assessment of Pacific Northwest LNG returns 51 matches. A search for “harbour porpoise” returns 116 matches.
“Significant adverse effects” unlikely: CEAA
It then follows as no surprise that:
[quote]The Agency concludes that the Project is not likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects on marine fish and fish habitat, including marine plants, taking into account the implementation of mitigation measures.[/quote]
The CEAA’s specific response to the multitude of concerns for wild salmon expressed by First Nations, scientists, and the general public is a damning indictment of how the agency has been charting its course: Implement eighteen mitigation measures and drop the following tell-tale comment into the document.
“The Agency considers that the involvement of Aboriginal groups in the design and implementation of follow-up and monitoring programs related to traditional fisheries and marine resources [after project construction] could contribute to increasing the confidence of Aboriginal groups in the results of the EA [environmental assessment] related to the current use of lands and resources for traditional purposes.”
In other words, the CEAA is advocating the prevailing industry tactic of abrogating the concerns of First Nations by offering them promises of jobs and money. This is a cultural obscenity. Imagine being a young, formerly unemployed First Nations person, now paid to stand watch over the LNG industry’s activities on the BC north coast as your sustenance birthright – wild Pacific salmon – disappear. Imagine even suggesting that such a pathway is appropriate. Is it any wonder that there is a First Nations camp on Lelu Island adjacent to Flora Bank?
Greenhouse gases don’t go ignored
But all is not lost in the cause of environmental science. Scroll through the pages of this 257-page document and the sun breaks through the approve-and-mitigate gloom. Somewhere along the progression from initial draft to publication of the CEAA’s conclusions on Pacific Northwest LNG, a federal election intervened. Voters breathed new life into government. The paragraphs that reflect it – no doubt written by employees of the CEAA now happy to be freed from the bonds of Harperism – flash like salmon in a bed of eelgrass. It is perhaps fitting that this watershed moment in Canadian environmental assessment revolves around protecting a watershed – the Skeena River, its species, and its people.
One sentence, in particular, reveals incisive teeth in the very place where the agency cannot dodge the real-world science of cause and effect:
[quote]The Agency concludes that the Project is likely to cause significant adverse environmental effects as a result of greenhouse gas emissions after taking into consideration the implementation of best achievable technology and management practices and compliance with the B.C. Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act.[/quote]
Whether intending to or not, by publishing that sentence, the CEAA has handed Prime Minister Trudeau an utterly new and very powerful tool. It, too, is a hammer. But this isn’t the same one that has been swung for decades by the lackies of bureaucracy as they predictably drove home the nails of development. It is more akin to the gavel that a magistrate bangs on the bench while barking, “Case closed!”
From wellhead to waterline
Petronas’ proposed Pacific Northwest LNG project
According to the report, the CEAA accepts the proponent’s prediction that the Pacific Northwest LNG plant itself would create 0.27 tonnes of CO2-equivalent (CO2e) per tonne of LNG produced. The agency says that this, obviously, is a bad thing, but then makes a quantum leap, delivering a miracle in the practical context of recent Canadian environmental science.
In an abrupt departure from how the BC’s Environmental Assessment Office has chosen to evaluate the same project, the CEAA has dropped the blinders and intends to evaluate the effects of the project’s greenhouse gas emissions from wellhead to waterline. Long ago flushed out of the fold, the inherent common sense of this approach has finally come back to the pen. The proponent, no doubt nervous, has already began quibbling over the details that such scrutiny brings to light, and is attempting to frame the total greenhouse gas emissions increase of the project as “insignificant” in the global context. (The global increase would be 0.015 percent.)
But the CEAA is not dissuaded. The document explains that getting the fracked gas out of the ground and piped across BC to Pacific Northwest LNG would create another 0.33-0.44 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG produced (depending on the source gas). This makes an upper threshold of 0.71 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG – a far cry from the global industry’s current (and very dirty) average of creating 0.58 tonnes of CO2e per tonne of LNG.
Just one project = a fifth of BC’s total GHG’s
The total effect of the project would be to increase BC’s greenhouse gas emissions by between 18.5 percent and 22.5 percent, and Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions by between 1.65 and 1.95 percent. Pacific Northwest LNG would be the third-largest emitter of greenhouse gases in Canada’s notoriously dirty oil and gas industry, and the dirtiest that deals strictly with fracked gas. Forget that BC’s Premier Clark brands her darling not-yet-an-industry as “clean,” when it comes to LNG, the CEAA is clear: The project would create tarsands-scale emissions.
Petronas project would kill climate targets
In full operation Pacific Northwest LNG would account for 32.1 percent of BC’s mandated greenhouse gas emissions target for 2020, thus rendering achievement of that target impossible. Canada has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 200 million tonnes per year from current levels, by 2030. Pacific Northwest LNG would add up to 13.98 million tonnes of emissions per year, also thwarting that objective.
Will project face true climate test?
The prime minister has announced that a “climate test” will now be required for all large-scale fossil fuel projects, but with regard to Pacific Northwest LNG the CEAA has already done the grunt work for him. Pacific Northwest LNG is an F-student in and F-industry. No amount of “offsetting” or carbon credit purchases (among the document’s suggested mitigations) should be employed to give the project a free pass to go belching forth into the atmosphere.
With regard to the project’s site at Lelu Island, this is where the circle closes; where, if Prime Minister Trudeau is willing, the gavel should firmly come down. Greenhouse gases contribute to climate warming. A warmer climate threatens salmon and their habitat, from near treeline to out in the open ocean. Threaten salmon and you threaten not just those miracles of nature but the First Nations of northwestern BC whose cultures have evolved around, and which continue to depend on wild salmon.
Some things just can’t be “mitigated”
Chief Yahaan (Don Wesley) is one of many First Nations who hare standing strong against Petronas’s project (Vimeo video)
No document, no agency of government, no foreign-owned consortium can mitigate against the loss of a human culture. The lead player in this project, Petronas, has run roughshod over native peoples in its dealings around the globe, particularly at home in Malaysia. Until now, our governments have been party to Petronas and its corporate clique, with their feigned respect for BC First Nations; bidding the company to industrialize the land without sincere regard for the effects on its people. In doing so, our governments, provincial and federal, have failed to represent and to protect the people of BC who are being affected, and who will continue to be most affected, by the proposed LNG industry. That is why so many residents of northwestern BC, First Nations and non-, are putting themselves on the line – on the banks of the Wedzin Kwah, at Madii ‘Lii Camp, and on Lax Lelu. These are not camps of “protest” or “resistance”; they are statements of rightful presence by citizens to whom has fallen the dutiful obligation to protect their home from the outright invasion that would render it ruined.
Don’t forget Paris
Speaking at the Paris Summit in November 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau addressed Canadians regarding the collective effort to reduce the emissions that are driving climate change:
[quote]People want to do more, but they want to know that what they do fits into a bigger picture, because there is no point in bending over backwards if your neighbour or your government is not also doing its part to ensure that we all have the maximal impact together. There can be no laggards in this.[/quote]
Prime Minister Trudeau, many among the First Nations and other residents of northwestern BC look to you for progressive change. Match their collective courage. They will have your back if you do. Reach into a new place in your toolbox. Pick up the gavel, swing it firmly, and dismiss the case for mega-scale LNG development in Canada.
The final round of public comment on Pacific Northwest LNG is open until March 11, 2016.
Remote Australian communities often use diesel generators for power. They’re expensive to run and emit pollution and greenhouse gases. Even people who don’t rely entirely on generators use Australia’s power grid, which is mostly fuelled by polluting, climate-altering coal. Now, one company is showing that supplying Australia’s energy needn’t be expensive or polluting.
AllGrid Energy produces 10 kilowatt-hour solar-power batteries that take advantage of Australia’s abundant sunlight and growing demand for solar panels. Their lead-acid gel battery is less expensive than Tesla’s lithium Powerwall, also available in Australia. Many AllGrid systems are sold in indigenous communities, providing affordable energy independence.
It’s an example of the rapid pace of renewable energy development — one that clears a hurdle previously confronting many clean-energy technologies: their variable nature. One advantage of fossil fuels is that they’re both source and storage for energy; renewables such as wind and solar are only sources.
Levelling the playing field for renewables
Many argue that because solar and wind energy only work when sun shines or winds blow, and output varies according to cloud cover, wind speed and other factors, they can’t replace large “baseload” sources like coal, oil, gas and nuclear. But batteries and other energy storage methods, along with power-grid improvements, make renewables competitive with fossil fuels and nuclear power — and often better in terms of reliability, efficiency and affordability.
With right storage, renewables could replace fossil fuels
With storage and grid technologies advancing daily, renewable energy could easily and relatively quickly replace most fossil fuel–generated electricity. In Canada, Ontario’s Independent Electricity System Operator contracted five companies to test a number of storage systems, including batteries, hydrogen storage, kinetic flywheels and thermal systems that store heat in special bricks. Ontario is aiming to get about 50 per cent of its installed generating capacity from renewable sources by 2025.
The main renewable-energy storage methods are thermal, compressed air, hydrogen, pumped hydroelectric, flywheels and batteries. Some are better for large scale and some for small scale. As electric cars become more popular, their batteries could be connected to grids to supply and balance power, which could offset costs for owners. Harvard University researchers have been working on a flow battery that uses abundant, inexpensive organic compounds called quinones rather than expensive metals.
Advantages of renewables over fossil fuels
Renewable energy with storage has a number of advantages over fossil fuels. It can discharge power to the grid to meet demand more quickly and efficiently, and it’s less prone to disruption, because power sources are distributed over a large area, so if one part is knocked out by a storm, for example, other parts keep the system running. Many fossil fuel and nuclear power systems require a lot of water for cooling and so can be affected by drought, and nuclear power systems are expensive and take a long time to build. Clean-energy technology also creates more jobs than fossil fuel development.
Because renewables don’t pollute or create greenhouse gas emissions, they also help lower costs for health care and the ever-increasing impacts of climate change. Although every energy source comes with consequences, the damage and risks from mining, processing, transporting and using coal, oil, bitumen and uranium, and from fracking and other extraction methods, are far greater than for clean energy. And fossil fuels will eventually run out, becoming increasingly expensive, difficult to obtain, and ridden with conflict as scarcity grows.
US could cut CO2 from electricity by 80%
Rapid storage-technology development will place renewable sources at the forefront of the global energy mix in coming years. Many renewables are already being deployed even without storage. A recent report showed the U.S. could reduce CO2 emissions from its electricity sector by 80 per cent relative to 1990 levels within 15 years “with current technologies and without electrical storage.”
The study, by scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and University of Colorado Boulder and published in Nature Climate Change, concluded that grid improvements, including a new high-voltage direct-current transmission grid, could deliver low-cost clean energy throughout the country to match supply and demand.
Still, storage offers many advantages. With the urgent need to cut greenhouse gas emissions, governments need to provide incentives for rapid renewable energy development and deployment. Considering how quickly computer technology and other human inventions have advanced, it’s easy to see that barriers to a clean-energy shift are more political and psychological than technological.
David Suzuki is a scientist, broadcaster, author and co-founder of the David Suzuki Foundation. Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Senior Editor Ian Hanington.
Minister of Finance Mike de Jong delivers a “balanced budget” in 2013 (Province of BC/Flickr)
This coming Tuesday will be Annual Deception Day in the BC legislature as the Minister of Finance sets forth the budget for the coming year. That it is a deception, perhaps self-deception, can’t be blamed entirely on this government, since it’s been going on, as the lawyers say, since “man’s mind runneth not to the contrary”. Back in WAC Bennett’s days, the “contingent liability” was invented and in one form or another, it is alive and well today.
Balance Schmalance
What is the fault of the current premier is perpetuating the fiction that somehow the budget reflects something of importance. Well, it doesn’t. Twice in the past few days the premier has announced that there will be a balanced budget because “the people expect it.” This tells me that the “balance” bit is not created to reflect the truth but because voters have come to accept that as “very good thing”.
A few rating agencies help perpetuate this myth by declaring that it’s important that abudget is balanced – but it’s not, they know it, they are not telling the truth, and we ought to know that.
To start with, it is merely guesswork as to what the Government will take in and spend next year and the results achieved are likely to bear very little resemblance to the predictions. We don’t have a special day in the legislature where the Minister of Finance stands up and tells us all how he really screwed up and that the result was considerably different than the crap he predicted. And the game is scarcely unique. Surely we all remember the famous “fudge-it budget” from Glen Clark and the later one from Gordon Campbell that was even more atrocious.
British Columbians pay for Hydro’s losses
What’s so deceptive about the budget process is that people believe it reflects the financial health of the province. Well, it comes nowhere near. There is not enough time in an article like this to begin to give the full picture, but let’s just consider BC Hydro.
Early Site C construction (Don Hoffmann)
BC Hydro is a Crown Corporation and its finances are not part of the budget process. Note that well – your elected legislature has no control over and no way of knowing what Hydro does other than what the Liberal-schmoozing media tells them. Hydro does its own thing, subject only to discipline from cabinet, which never happens. Cabinets, being the premiers, would all be in jail if they were directors in the private sector, so egregious has been their neglect.
Every year, BC Hydro incurs an enormous loss, but while that’s none of our legislature’s business, it becomes part of the provincial debt and serviced by the government at huge cost. This means that, far and away, the most expensive part of government, with Site C at 9 billion bucks-plus to come, is paid for by me and thee, including the huge debt it adds annually, completely outside the budget debated and passed by the legislature.
Where the current Liberal government uniquely has a great deal to answer for is the unbelievable burden they placed on Hydro with their political giveaway made to private/Independent Power Producers (IPPs) under Campbell’s Energy Policy of 2003, whereby Hydro must buy all its new power from private companies for at least double the proper cost. Moreover, Hydro must take that power when it’s offered, whether they need it or not. Unhappily, nearly all private power is made during the run-off when Hydro reservoirs are full to overflowing.
IPPs cost British Columbians big time
It’s hard to put a hard cost on the results because all of the agreements are secret – fellow voters, we’re not allowed to know! Moreover, unless you’re an economist, you quickly get dazzled by the figures. One man I have come to respect for thorough and honest analysis, in addition to Erik Andersen, a colleague of The Common Sense Canadian, is Norman Farrell, another CSC colleague, who breaks it down like this:
[quote]In fiscal year 2015, BC Hydro purchased 13,377 GWh of electricity from independent power producers for $1,064,000,000 ($79,540 per GWh). In the same period, BC Hydro sold 14,020 GWh to large industrial users for $748,000,000 ($53,250 per GWh).
In other words, each GWh of power purchased from IPPs was resold for $26,290 less that it cost. However, the loss was not limited to $352 million, since the utility had to pay distribution, administration and other overhead costs in addition to the power acquisition price.[/quote]
See no evil, hear no evil
Budget Day can be fun – if you enjoy shell games
In 2014 the BC provincial debt was $60.693 billion, of which $15.559 billion for is BC Hydro. This means that 1/4 of the debt you and I owe, is totally outside the budget process and none of its anticipated income and expense will be examined by our legislators. Amongst other things, we’ll not learn why Hydro’s debt has risen about $9.4 billion since the Liberals took over, about $3 billion since Christy Clark became premier. We’ll not learn how much the secret deals with private companies (IPPs) have cost, nor a thing about the real cost of the proposed Site C Dam, to name but three areas. The obvious Liberal maxim is “best to keep the tiresome rabble in the dark”.
The budget, which Clark and de Jong tell us is so critical, bears no relation to what really happens, is made up by politicians for politicians with figures to match, and shields BC Hydro the uncontrolled, apparently uncontrollable, and biggest of all fiscal items by far, from any scrutiny.
Some people enjoy being fooled, whether by the carney at the fair, the guy with the shell and two peas or the guy who deals off the bottom of the deck. To them, “Come one! come all!” for next Tuesday is Annual Deception Day in the BC Legislature!
With respect to transportation, the indications are that we are at the edge of the transition to clean transportation.
It is 
