A BC sockeye salmon spawning (Stan Probocsz/Watershed Watch)
The red flags keep popping up for BC’s vaunted LNG plans. Last week, Shell became the latest company to put its final investment decision for a proposed plant in Kitimat on hold due to the collapse of the global export market. This week, a draft federal environmental report on Petronas’ proposed Lelu Island project – while not going far enough, critics charge – confirms it would carry “significant adverse environmental effects”, including climate issues. Now, a group of Russian scientists is kicking off a tour of northern BC to warn British Columbians about the very real impacts these projects can have on wild salmon.
None of this has fazed LNG’s biggest cheerleader, Christy Clark, who maintains her Liberal government is “sticking to its guns” on LNG. One can only hope such statements don’t prove literal, with the plethora of aboriginal resistance camps and a growing citizen movement to block her plans. Our premier may not heed these warnings, but British Columbians who care about preserving our already beleaguered salmon runs would do well to.
LNG plant likely connected declining salmon run
Three Russian scientists and a noted conservationist speak from direct experience when they caution us about the effects these plants can have on wild salmon. The group hails from Sakhalin Island, which, according to a media release on a talk they’re giving today, is “the only place in the world that has an existing LNG facility operating in a wild salmon estuary.”
The project, built in 2009 by Shell but now operated by Russian energy giant Gazprom, has coincided with a “severe decline” of what was once the third largest pink salmon run in the world, in Avina Bay. They’ve studied the situation extensively and are here to report on their findings – namely that the collapse can be attributed to activities associated with the plant, including dredging, light, and noise pollution. They see the potential for a repeat of these unfortunate circumstances if the Trudeau government approves Petronas’ project, which sits amidst vital estuary habitat for Skeena River salmon.
Russian project similar to Lelu Island
“Sakhalin Island and Lelu Island have two things in common – wild salmon and LNG. My Canadian colleagues invited me, along with three Russian scientists, to share our experience of the environmental impacts of the Sakhalin II LNG project, which has been in operation for 10 years on the opposite side of the Pacific Ocean”, said Dimitry Lisitsyn, member of the Russian delegation and Director of Sakhalin Environment Watch.
[quote]We have a chance to help the people of the Skeena watershed protect one of the most famous and rich wild salmon sanctuaries in the world. With the dramatic decline of our wild salmon, I really hope this will not be replicated in the Skeena estuary. [/quote]
These concerns echo those raised by independent scientists, local First Nations and conservation groups since details of the project emerged several years ago. A report paid for by the proponent, which dismissed concerns about impacts on wild salmon, has come under heavy criticism as junk science.
The Russian scientists, at the invitation of First Nations and conservation groups in the Skeena region, will present their concerns and science to a number of communities across the north and in Vancouver over the next week.
Federal review needs to address salmon
Meanwhile, conservation groups and First Nations have voiced concerns with the recently published draft environmental report from the federal review panel for ignoring salmon issues, though it did tackle the carbon footprint of the project and impacts on other marine life, particularly harbour porpoises. Opponents of the project are pressing for the final report to include these salmon concerns – a plea which should be buoyed by the Russian scientists’ visit.
Premier Christy Clark hasn’t been paying attention for the last 10 or 15 years. Times and public attitudes have changed dramatically and she hasn’t. This recent pronouncement of hers, which I mentioned in an earlier article, tells all:
[quote]The world is being divided into two – the people that will say no to everything and the people who want to find a way to get to yes. I’m not sure what science the forces of “no” bring together up there [in northwest BC], except that it’s not really about the science. It’s not really about the fish. It’s just about trying to say no. It’s about fear of change. It’s about fear of the future.[/quote]
That’s 1970s and 80s thinking. There’s no longer a clear division between “left” and “right”. Except to Christy Clark and Judy Rebick, those are outmoded terms. People, irrespective of how they might vote, agree on more things and refuse to be consigned arbitrarily to one flag or another and to start saluting.
This isn’t 1975
I am often accused of moving to the left. Certainly, in terms of 1975, that’s true. But this is not 1975.
Back then, the lines were clearly drawn, even if the actual philosophies pronounced were pretty fuzzy. When most development was proposed, you could usually expect the left, as represented by the NDP, to oppose it. On the other hand, social welfare was generally considered by the right as weak-kneed socialism and you could count on its banner bearer, the Socreds, to fight it.
The shift in British Columbia came about after 1975 when the so-called right wing acknowledged that the agricultural land freeze was good policy, even though the Socreds fought it tooth and nail when it was first brought in. Similarly, as it became obvious that the Socreds were going to win elections, the NDP recognized that basing their response to developments on the same old knee-jerk responses did nor always win them votes nor even the approval of their supporters.
The environment’s time has come
Into this mix came worldwide environmentalism on a broader scale than ever before – a new kind of environmentalism, concentrating on the small and the large, from household garbage to massive forests. The public, around the world, lost patience with both industry and government, much of that based on credibility – a commodity both had lost big time. No longer did anyone accept the word of either their politician or the three-piece suit executive. There had just been to many letdowns and mistakes – and blatant bullshit from both.
Capt. Paul Watson of Sea Shepherd
As well, as these things for some reason “happen”, the environment’s time had come. Wildlife, fish, clean air and water, climate and the atmosphere all became important. The masses started to ask pointed questions of their political masters. Organizations like Greenpeace and the Sea Shepherd Society, hitherto castigated by much of the mainstream, now were popular and seen as doing the work government should have been doing. Nowhere was this more evident than when a decade ago Sea Shepherd, after being asked to assist in patrolling the Galapagos Marina Reserve (GMR), entered into a partnership with Ecuador to reinforce the local law enforcement agencies in their battle to stop illegal fishing and wildlife smuggling. It has proved very successful.
This massive attitudinal change has been missed by many politicians, including Stephen Harper and Christy Clark. It’s also escaped Christy’s attention that activism in the environmental field may be repugnant to her personal values but it works like a damn. The Great Bear Rainforest, for which she claims much credit, is ample proof of that and there are many other examples where Environmentalists have taken to the streets or the forest or the oceans and thereby made a substantial difference.
Clark doesn’t understand First Nations
Premier Christy Clark at a recent conference, working hard to build an LNG industry for BC (Flickr CC Licence / BC Govt)
Ms. Clark obviously has not noticed First Nations. Times have changed very dramatically but that evidently has passed her by even though she seizes any opportunity to be photographed with First Nations leaders. What she has not comprehended are the massive changes that have taken place to First Nations rights and, perhaps more importantly for her politically, she doesn’t seem able to grasp the huge attitudinal change of the general public toward the country’s aboriginals. I changed and I daresay you have too. Christy hasn’t except where a political brownie point or a photo-op is involved.
It doesn’t matter whether or not she likes these changes, the fact is they’ve been pronounced by the Supreme Court of Canada as the law of the land. She looks at First Nations around Lelu Island refusing a billion dollar bribe to approve a pipeline and doubts that they care much about salmon and their way of life. Her ignorance – or is it arrogance? – takes the breath away, but she simply can’t comprehend First Nations’ attachment to their culture, their way of living and to the environment, including, yes Christy, their sacred salmon, which have sustained them for thousands of years.
I live in Lions Bay, which is hardly a nest of revolutionaries. It’s always been a safe seat for “free enterprise” parties, yet I can tell you that the community is up in arms over environmental threats to Howe Sound and won’t put up with them. The main concern is a proposed LNG plant in Squamish but it’s scarcely the only one. Howe Sound, now cleaned up substantially, much through the efforts of ordinary citizens, is looking much like it did when I used to fish there as a boy with my Dad. That’s not only a comfort to residents but a matter of great pride.
The new Liberal MP, Pamela Goldsmith-Jones, says that in the election, the main question on the front porch and in the shopping centre was the environment. That’s why I told readers that the Tory MP, John Weston, hadn’t a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the election in this, a small “c” conservative riding. Evidently, the current Liberal MLA, Jordan Sturdy, who has faithfully supported Woodfibre LNG, knows he can’t win here again and has announced that he won’t run next time.
Old rules no longer apply
It isn’t just this riding that’s had a remarkable political metamorphosis; this has happened, I daresay, right around the province. The fact of that Tories lost seats in the Okanagan in the recent federal election is pretty fair evidence of that.
Christy Clark is a throwback to the 1975 election. There may be some older farts, of which I’m not one, who still distinguish between “left” and right”, but they’re a vanishing breed. Declarations by “respectable” business and government are now seen as meaningless bullshit and probably proof that the precise opposite is the case.
I don’t say that Clark can’t win in 2017. She could because of Mair’s Axiom IV – namely, “you don’t have to be a 10 in politics, you can be a 3 if everyone else is a 2” – and there’s every indication that John Horgan just might be a 2, although, come to think on it, Christy probably isn’t any better.
Barring blind luck, you can’t be yesterday’s politician and hope to win tomorrow’s election and it’s pretty late for the premier to start to play catch up.
BC Premier Christy Clark speaks at former Premier Bill Bennett’s funeral (Province of BC/flickr)
You will, I hope, overlook my coarse language, because I am really pissed off and have been for some time, the slow burn reaching a raging conflagration when I read a quote from the premier which I will give you in a moment.
I am an environmentalist and have been for many years and you’re entitled to know what I did about this when I had the chance as Environment Minster in 1979, 36 years ago. Here’s the record and, as Casey Stengel, used to say, “you could look it up”.
In a 12 month period, I stopped the killing of wolves in the north in the face bitter opposition from the ranching community who were almost all Socreds; saved the Skagit River from being flooded by Seattle Light and Power, to the horror of Socred MLAs in the area who slavered at the thought of the development that would come from the dam being raised, and placed a moratorium on exploration for and mining of uranium – to bitter condemnation from the mining community. The Premier, who supported me in the face of considerable opposition, was the late Bill Bennett.
Clark’s version of dam history doesn’t hold water
Last Sunday, I listened in horror as Premier Christy Clark, at Mr. Bennett’s Memorial Service, would you believe, accused him of being the author of Site C, alleging that she was simply fulfilling his wishes.
She promised to finish Bennett’s vision for the controversial Site C Dam project:
[quote]Premier Bennett, you got it started and I will get it finished. I will get it past the point of no return.[/quote]
Not only was this terrible timing, it was a ghastly distortion of the truth.
Site C has long been a policy of BC Hydro, but, for it to ever be a reality, required the approval of the BC government. BC Hydro always has schemes and until they are approved, they are no more than dreams of Hydro engineers. Dave Barrett, Bill Bennett, Bill Vander Zalm, Rita Johnston, Mike Harcourt, Glen Clark, Dan Miller, and Ujjal Dosanjjh all had an opportunity to approve Site C and did not.
In 1993, the chair of BC Hydro announced that it would not go ahead because it was simply bad policy.
So who approved it?
None other than Premier Clark’s predecessor, Gordon Campbell, and it was then confirmed by her. For Christy Clark, of all people, to associate herself with a great premier was bad enough – to have her lie through her teeth about him is just too much.
The Forces of “No”
I supported the Paris agreement, which was also supported by Prime Minister Trudeau and – wait for it – Premier Clark. The essence of this agreement was a condemnation of fossil fuels and their egregious ill-effect on the atmosphere.
Now, this obviously means we should no longer extract the Tar Sands and that British Columbia should no longer consider passing it through in pipelines or otherwise. For saying this, to Alberta and many Eastern reporters, I’m a “bad Canadian”!
How the hell can you be opposed to the Tar Sands as the world’s worst polluter, commit yourself to the resolutions at Paris, and then act as an accessory to shipping the very same stuff to places that will use it and pollute the atmosphere?
Now, given that the premier supported Paris, wouldn’t you think that at least she would go to bat for those of us now being gloriously insulted as a bad Canadians because we not only support Paris in theory but in practice as well?
[quote]The world is being divided into two – the people that will say no to everything and the people who want to find a way to get to yes. I’m not sure what science the forces of “no” bring together up there [in northwest BC], except that it’s not really about the science. It’s not really about the fish. It’s just about trying to say no. It’s about fear of change. It’s about fear of the future.[/quote]
The premier is clearly referring to the Lelu Island situation and the First Nations refusing a billion dollar bribe to permit a pipeline to destroy their salmon. When we in the Howe Sound area oppose the proposed LNG plant in Squamish as people oppose the same thing in Bamberton on Saanich Inlet, we will no doubt be “bad Canadians”, as will those who oppose tanker traffic in other sensitive areas. If you put the environment on the top of your list of priorities, as did the First Nations of Lelu Island, you are a despised “no” person.
Premier Clark is clearly questioning the loyalty and the motivation of people who refuse to support development for development’s sake, irrespective of environmental consequences. It’s one thing to be persuaded that a project is sound, quite another for your Premier to insult you if you question her judgment or social philosophy.
There are better ways
If standing against pipelines, Site C, depletion of our fish resources, ruination of our agricultural land and so on is disloyal, may I assure Premier Clark that, far from being disloyal to our beloved British Columbia, it’s to her and her damned party who would destroy the province to satisfy their own philosophy and their greedy supporters.
Of course, everyone knows there must be development and that development will usually disturb the environment. That’s unavoidable. What is avoidable is doing this when there is no substantial need for doing so or when there are other, better ways. For example, I don’t advocate a giving up of power or energy – I advocate finding better ways of developing and transporting it.
We have better ways. This is not pie-in-the-sky from the 60s and the 70s. Alternative sources of energy are not only now available but the techniques for getting that power into the grid are here and very doable.
The Campbell/Clark government and BC Hydro have not pursued other more cost-effective, more environmentally benign and less risky technologies such as wind, biomass, geothermal and solar power, such as is the case in Germany and California, where wind power alone supplies 10 per cent and 6.5 per cent of annual energy consumption respectively.
Any amount of energy derived from these more benign energy sources would obviously help to significantly defer, or possibly eliminate, the need for the Site C project – a need which the Joint Review Panel and even BC Hydro itself openly question.
Commitment and Leadership
To find alternatives to fossil fuels and gigantic Hydro projects requires commitment and leadership. It’s always going to be easier to do it the same old way, keep your friends and bagmen happy and pretend that nothing bad is going to happen even though that’s not true. While it is more difficult to seek and make changes, the rewards are enormous, especially to those who will follow us.
It takes will, discipline, to change a society’s way of life; it takes leadership.
Sadly, it’s obvious that this premier is not only not going to lead us into change, she will do everything she possibly can to retain the status quo and to make the rich richer at the expense of our beautiful environment.
I must admit that I shudder at the thought of the official opposition taking over but that’s not enough to permit me to support someone for whom there is no hope. John Horgan may not present a great deal of optimism in this area but at least there’s a chance he may be persuaded to let his decency take over and do something right. There is also a real hope that the Green Party might have greater influence.
When you consider the unsuitability of Christy Clark and that the second most powerful person in government is Rich Coleman, surely British Columbians must pull out all stops to show her the door a year this May – not to gain anything but to save something.
The late, great Edward R. Murrow – father of hard-hitting, mainstream journalism
It’s fascinating to watch the print media in its death throes. In a way, I feel like dancing on Postmedia’s grave but somehow that doesn’t seem appropriate. I devoutly wish it hadn’t happened but, slow and painful though it may have been, it has.
Newspapers have been with us, for better or worse, for too long to be tossed aside like, well, yesterday’s newspaper. One can wade in with praise or vitriol, depending on one’s own obituary preferences, but to what end? The eminent journalist, Paul Willcocks, in a recent Tyee article, advised that it’s time to sit back, take a look around, and start making some decisions. Right, but first we must know what we want and what our choices are.
Lingering advantage
Newspapers bring many things, much of which is irrelevant except to those to whom it isn’t. If you’re in the market for a house or a car, those sections are invaluable; if not, you skip scores of pages to get to the Comics or Sports Pages. I’m going to assume that like me, it’s Public Affairs you’re interested in.
Since the arrival of radio in the 1920s, the papers have been on a slide when it comes to reporting news. They’re just too slow, their lingering advantage being the ability of the consumer to consider matters at leisure. To me, that “lingering advantage” has been important – TV and radio needs more. They try and sometimes succeed with talking heads, but it’s not the same as the Sunday Papers by the fire. The sad truth is, there just aren’t enough “Sunday by the fire” folks to make it pay.
Part of that “lingering advantage” is, or rather was, the opinion columns. Again, the talking heads are OK but just can’t match the ability to get you to sit back, in a place of comfort or perhaps need, relax and read a provocative article on something that interests you, cast it aside for a moment if the phone rings then pick it up again when you wish. This, I daresay, is why, along with sheer habit, most of you buy the newspaper.
Newspapers gave up what they did best
One article which gave me pause for thought was in a recent Globe by Marsha Lederman, who came to newspapers’ defence, her theme being that they held the government’s feet to the fire and did a wonderful job of keeping the Establishment honest. What this did was remind me that newspapers were indeed singularly well-placed to do just this and the problem was they hadn’t been doing it for years. It happens so seldom now that when it does occur, it stands out like a nuclear blast on a barren desert.
There have been some great examples of journalistic courage, integrity, and persistence – the most memorable being Watergate. There have been others and some closer to home. But perhaps Ms. Lederman can remind us of the last time the Globe and Mail actually got involved in a big exposé.
They were involved, all right, with Brian Mulroney and the bag full of money from Karl-Heinz Schreiber of the Airbus scandal but they no sooner got close to the mark and they abandoned ship and allowed Mulroney to get away with blue blooded murder.
One of their writers, the estimable Rick Salutin, even demonstrated that the Harper government retained a lawyer to set out the terms of reference for investigating Mulroney, that the terms of reference were a laughable whitewash, whereupon upon the lawyer was, with indecent haste, appointed Governor-General of Canada. It was a hell of a story but led by the “establishment man”, Andrew Coyne, the good ‘ol boys circled the wagons and insisted that Prime Minister Mulroney and lawyer Johnson were nice, decent Canadian boys whose actions really ought not to be questioned on solemn matters like this. It was really just another amazing coincidence for which Canadian politics is famous. Mr. Salutin suddenly wasn’t writing for “Canada’s National Newspaper” any more.
What happened to Vaughn Palmer?
The Vancouver Sun’s Vaughn Palmer
Moving closer to home, the Vancouver Sun, during the NDP decade, were relentless in digging out scandals and near-scandals and it’s been fairly said that the governmentwas brought down by Vaughn Palmer and his relentless exposure of the fast ferry scandal.
That was the high-water mark for hard-hitting, investigative journalism, because the moment the Liberals came to power in 2001, the gloves were back on.
Follow the money
I stop there because it’s not my purpose today to lay out all the sins of the media but simply to remind everyone that Ms. Lederman is quite right to say that the print media can and often does a helluva job in holding the establishment to account – but, for some reason, these daysthat all but stops if they get too close to the mark.
Why?
Perhaps the clue can be found in Vancouver. Big advertisers could see that, in fact, they were financing the wasting of their own money. They would give the paper millions of dollars to advertise a product and pay good money to political parties and the next thing they knew the government they supported was having the shit kicked out of it by the principal political writer for the paper they also supported. This was nothing new but now business saw the ways and means to retaliate, big time.
Advertising executives and their clients are not known for their love of democratic principles like free speech if they, in any way, interfere with their livelihood. I can’t speak for the writers but I can say without hesitation from my own experience that until recent days a decent talk show host wouldn’t tolerate interference from an advertiser or management for a second.
Then, almost overnight, trumped up reasons for firing became the order of the day, along with refusal to renew contracts and deliberate failure to bring on aggressive, young successors. There is the occasional hero like Ian Jessop of CFAX in Victoria, but they are on a short rope and don’t need reminding.
Blame the Internet
Whatever the reasons and however it was done, by the turn of this century, the muckraker was gone. A tough interview was no longer to be seen and editorials took on all of the excitement of a Sunday school sermon.
The inevitable happened. People stopped listening to radio and buying the newspaper. The owners gave all sorts of reasons, mostly that it was the fault of the Internet, but the fault was in themselves not the stars.
Revenues plummeted and, one by one, previously impregnable corporations found themselves groping for partnerships and buying a smaller companies in the vain hope of increasing their cash flow. The harder the executives tried to stem the flow the worse it got.
What will save the mainstream media?
How long before the lights go out on papers like the Sun and Province?
Probably nothing, because they have no ability to make the difficult decisions needed. To put it bluntly, there’s no money available for them to recapture the respect of the public by going back to doing what Ms. Lederman says they are so skilled at.
It’s easy, and often fun, to point out the idiotic decisions media moguls have made in the past 20 years. But it’s no longer fun when you see the president of Postmedia preside over massive lay-offs while he pockets almost $2 million while the shareholders say nothing. When the same Postmedia makes faustian pacts with the fossil fuel industry, where each pledges to kiss the other’s backside on cue, and the public sees an industry pledged to inform people fairly and accurately climbing into bed with the most controversial industry in the world, it’s game over.
The world will get by without Woodward and Bernstein and without Edward R. Murrow. It won’t be as good a world, it won’t be as honest a world nor as promising a world…but it’s the world we’re going to have to get used to.
I have had the chance recently to sit back and look at what Damien and I and indeed others like Erik Andersen have written over the last four or five years on environmental matters and I wonder whether or not we haven’t fallen into the trap of debating serious social and safety issues strictly on the basis of technicalities. Governments and industry throw out statistics and we dutifully match those with some of our own while we are forgetting more important issues such as do we want pipelines and tankers in the first place?
From BC’s point of view – which is my home – there are two intertwined issues. I will be criticized no doubt for taking the BC point of view but why in the hell shouldn’t I if Christy won’t?
Democracy deficiency
First, I have no say in all this. I’m up against the federal government plus Victoria and hundreds of billions of dollars from them and industry to put their side of a debate I can listen to but not take part in.
Thus, my first point is that there has been, throughout, a democracy deficiency which makes a mockery of the word. It’s said, of course, that democracy is practiced on our behalf by the people we elect to the legislature and the House of Commons. Anyone with half a brain knows that that’s rubbish. None of the MLAs or MPs we elect have any more influence on these events than does a stray cat. If we can’t get our minds around that – if we cannot understand the truth of that, then we might just as well pack it in and accept whatever is meted out to us by our “betters”.
Phoney assessments ignore public
Let’s just look for the moment to two areas in greater Vancouver, Burnaby and Howe Sound. Have any citizens ever been asked to vote on whether or not they want either the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion or an LNG plant?
The honest answer is more than negative because instead of democracy, phoney assessment processes have been set up with an illusion of citizen participation – mockeries of justice.
We know that if authorities tell big enough lies often enough then people will believe them. As if that needed further demonstration, we have countless examples being bombarded into our lives every day.
Nothing to worry about
Let’s look at pipelines. The federal government particularly wants pipelines to the BC coast and in fact agreed with China that with the new trade agreement (FIPPA), one will be built. (I don’t remember being asked about that, do you?)
What about government’s obligation for our safety and well-being? They tell us over and over again that pipelines are safe and – this is good for a wry laugh – if perchance they do leak, why, they will do no damage because the company will clean it up in no time! The same about LNG tankers. Nothing bad can possibly happen and, again, even with some unbelievable bit of bad luck and something leaked somewhere, why the company and the authorities would have that out-of-the-way before you could say “Shazam!”
This means, of course, that there are no concerns about using passages like the Fraser River, Howe Sound, or Juan de Fuca because accidents can’t happen and, forgive the repetition, in the extremely unlikely event a tiny little one did occur, why, the authorities would have that fixed up in no time.
During the time of the more aggressive Enbridge debate a few years ago, over and over the company and politicians assured us that there was no danger of accidents with Northern Gateway and in the unlikely event…blah, blah, blah. The same time, we read on a daily basis what had happened to an Enbridge spill on the Kalamazoo River in Michigan. I was scarcely the only one to ask what the devil would happen if that kind of a spill occurred, say, in the Rocky Mountain trench or the Great Bear Rainforest.
A mathematical certainty
So, before I go further, I submit to you that the evidence is overwhelming on the subject of pipelines, oil and LNG tankers: The companies and governments simply lie through their teeth and are prepared to say anything, no matter how preposterous, to support their demand to use our land and safety for their profit.
In all of this, there’s a shining truth that cannot be denied. There will be accidents with pipelines and tankers as a matter of plain mathematics. It’s a statistical question – the law of probabilities. And the more you do something, the more likely a bad thing is going to happen. One of the major factors is, of course, human error. This will never be eliminated no matter how modern and computerized our activities become.
Therefore, let us take this as a given: pipelines are going to burst, tankers are going to hit things and on and on it goes, no matter what we do or the safety precautions we take.
If that point is made, the companies and the government barely pause to change gears as they go into their “we can fix anything” mode. It doesn’t matter that the Kalamazoo River is still full of Bitumen five years after the spill – why, spills can be easily handled. It doesn’t concern them that many of the locations are out of reach of help or, as we know from Kalamazoo, there isn’t really any help anyway.
Don’t forget Paris
There is a third string to the bow – according to all experts including those at the recent Paris Conference, we’re not supposed to be producing, moving and using this stuff anyway! These fossil fuels are the cause of our climate problems and our poisoned atmosphere. Why, then, are we going through these hoops to increase the use and transportation of the very thing that’s causing us all the trouble and that we have sworn to get rid of?
“No” means “no”
Now let’s get down to cases. I have no right to speak for British Columbians individually or collectively and I am not doing that. I am speaking just for me.
I don’t want any pipelines into British Columbia. Never mind why I don’t want them, I just don’t and insist upon my democratic privilege to stop them. Going further I don’t want them because they destroy the beautiful environment in which I have always lived and that I wish to leave to my children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I have no wish to screw up my homeland to make money for people who shouldn’t be trafficking in fossil fuels in the first place.
Having said that, I don’t want to take the risks that are associated with this industry. These are not fiddling little risks but enormous certainties. The tendency of industry is to expand, so the damage will expand as well. I don’t want to rely upon self-serving governments and industry telling me that they can clean things up as if nothing had happened when I know that’s bullshit.
I deny utterly the right of any other Canadians to put me, my family, community, and my environment at the certainty of ongoing disasters just so they can make money off something which is an internationally recognized poison.
Pipelines and fossil fuel tankers are ever-present, ongoing, serious dangers that contribute nothing but misery to the world at large.
I ask only that we treat these fossil fuels as we in British Columbia treat uranium mining and recognize that they are too dangerous to hand over into the hands of the greedy.
LNG tanker (Photo: Torbein Rønning / Flickr CC Licence)
By Graeme Pole
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines due diligence as: “The care that a reasonable person exercises to avoid harm to other persons or their property.” As the debate on British Columbia’s proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry enters its fourth year, it is past time to bring one aspect of that industry under scrutiny – the safety of people in proximity to LNG vessels and terminals.
Breaking all the rules
The default document on this topic is one created by the LNG industry itself. In 1997, the Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators (SIGTTO) published Site Selection and Design for LNG Ports and Jetties. The document is clear and succinct in describing how to enhance LNG safety:
LNG ports must be located where LNG vapors from a spill or release cannot affect civilians.
LNG ship berths must be far from the ship transit fairway to prevent collision, and since all other vessels must be considered an ignition source.
LNG ports must be located where they do not conflict with other waterway uses now and into the future.
Long, narrow inland waterways are to be avoided, due to greater navigation risk.
Waterways containing navigation hazards are to be avoided as LNG ports.
Anyone familiar with the marine approaches to Prince Rupert and Kitimat will be aware that to propose marine transport of LNG from terminals in those harbours violates all of the SIGTTO standards referred to above.
Prince Rupert at Risk
Although industry analysts agree that not all will be built, four large terrestrial LNG export facilities are proposed for the Prince Rupert area, along with three, smaller floating facilities. At full build-out, the large plants would generate 796 round-trip transits of LNG vessels into port, the smaller facilities 208. That’s almost three round-trips per day. In 2014, the Prince Rupert Port Authority reported that 494 vessels called at port terminals to take on and offload trade resources and goods, and that was a year when coal export was markedly down.
A typical LNG tanker – larger than an apartment block
Key concerns are not just that LNG export could triple industrial vessel transits at Prince Rupert, and that the BC government sees no harm in promoting that possibility. Vessels in the Q-Max LNG carrier class are 345 metres long with a capacity of 266,000 cubic metres of LNG, comparable in size to the large ships that now dock at the Fairview Container Port.
The potential tripling of marine traffic at Prince Rupert would principally involve extremely large vessels carrying a dangerous commodity in a confined waterway.
Russian Roulette
The likelihood of a breach to one of the five or six storage tanks on a typical LNG vessel – whether accidental or intentional – is low. It has not happened since LNG marine transport began in 1959. But LNG itself as a substance, through its manufacturing process and in its steady-state in storage, possesses innate hazards. LNG terminals and storage facilities have suffered catastrophic explosions.
As more vessels are added to LNG fleets, making more voyages into confined and treacherous waters such as found on BC’s north coast, the chances of at least an accidental breach in a marine setting will increase. World events of the past two decades indicate that the risk of an intentional breach cannot be dismissed. For the LNG industry to tout past “safe” performance as an absolute indicator of future probability is hubristic.
Cold Explosion
What would happen if LNG were to escape from a marine vessel storage tank? In 2004 and 2008, the US Department of Energy commissioned Sandia National Laboratories to find out. Sandia reported that an instantaneous fireball would not be likely. What would be more likely is a “cold explosion” known as a rapid phase transition. The temperature of LNG is -161.5°C. Escaping from a vessel, LNG would release a blast as it froze the ocean surface, then evaporate as it warmed and picked up water vapour to form a low, heavier-than-air vapour cloud that would drift outward. The larger the breach, the larger the cloud.
Outright ignition of regasified LNG would require it to mix with air in a range of 5 percent to 15 percent LNG. If this cloud of LNG vapour were to spread from a vessel or a terminal with optimal conditions for ignition, an aerial fireball would be possible. That ignition would typically “backtrack” from the spark to the source of the cloud. But with an onshore wind a fiery blanket could disperse over land. Sandia’s research suggested that typical aerial dispersal distances from a small breach would be 3050 m from a near-shore source, and 4600 m from an offshore source.
Hazard Zones
Courtesy of Eoin Finn / Wilderness Committee (click to expand)
LNG burns at more than 500°C. Sandia’s reports described three zones of hazard around an LNG vessel should a breach occur with ignition. Within 500 metres of the vessel, death to all living things on the water, surfacing from the water, in the air, or on adjacent land would be likely. This could result from shrapnel, incineration, cryogenic freezing or from suffocation. Between 500 metres and 1.6 km from the vessel, these threats lessen but are still critical. Second-degree burns to exposed human flesh would typically result from 30 seconds of exposure.
Structural fires, grass fires, and forest fires would be ignited. Effects would lessen moving from 1.6 km out to 3.5 km, beyond which the hazard is considered negligible. In the US, these hazard zones have been embodied in regulations governing LNG facility location. It is also standard for LNG ports to have fireboats that are foam-capable, as use of water on an LNG-fed fire would exacerbate it.
Plotting the Sandia hazard zones along the shipping lane at Prince Rupert is informative. All human settlement in Prince Rupert, Port Edward, Dodge Cove, and Seal Cove is within the hazard zones. More than 13,000 residents are at risk, along with up to 3,000 people who may be visiting at any given time. More than 60,000 passengers depart the port on ferries and water taxis each year in these hazard zones.
If this information can be gleaned from reliable sources on the Internet (such as Government of Canada and Prince Rupert Port Authority websites), with distances confirmed using Google Earth, be assured that the BC government, federal government, and the LNG industry are aware.
In harm’s way
Fishing fleet at Cow Bay in Prince Rupert
LNG vessels transiting to the proposed WCC LNG facility on Tuck Inlet (across Fern Passage from Seal Cove) would ply the length of the Prince Rupert Harbour shipping lane and its approaches. The Fairview Container Terminal is on the verge of the 500-metre hazard zone, as is a 4 km length of the CN Rail line. The Coast Guard base, City Hall and its Emergency Operations Centre, the Fire Hall and its 911 call centre, the Prince Rupert Port Authority with its Port Security Operations Centre and Emergency Operations Centre, the BC Ferries and Alaska Marine Highway terminals, the Via Rail terminal, the Seal Cove Coast Guard Search and Rescue helicopter base and BC Ambulance medevac base, and the RCMP detachment all lie within 1.6 km of that shipping lane. Prince Rupert Regional Hospital and the BC Ambulance station are on the 1.6 km line.
To cement brazen disregard for the SIGTTO guidelines, LNG vessels approaching WCC LNG would pass other LNG vessels berthed for loading at the proposed Aurora LNG facility on Digby Island, at a point where the navigable waterway is scarcely 1 km wide. They would also pass LNG vessels docked at New Times LNG and Orca LNG on the Prince Rupert waterfront.
Boston-bound LNG ships require armed escort
Boston is the only US city with an LNG facility. The Everett terminal in Boston Harbour imports LNG – meaning that vessels enter the harbour loaded and leave empty – the opposite to what is proposed for BC’s north coast. Typically, only one LNG vessel every eight days makes the trip to Everett LNG, but the stir that each passage creates is instructive in terms of appraising risk.
Tight security for Boston-bound LNG tankers
When four days from port, an LNG vessel approaching Boston must contact the US Coast Guard with a manifest and crew list. The Coast Guard runs checks on the crew. When 12 miles from port, the Coast Guard boards the vessel to inspect it and to begin surveillance to ensure that all other vessels keep 500 yards away. When five miles out, a pilot boards the vessel and four tugboats are engaged. Passage into port is only permitted in daylight and with clear visibility.
Five armed boats, two from the Coast Guard and one each from three police agencies, escort the LNG vessel into harbour. Law enforcement officers patrol all piers and jetties along the route, with a helicopter or two dedicated to observe from above. Bridge traffic over the harbour is halted as the vessel makes way beneath. Marinas are shuttered and guarded for 20 minutes before and after each transit. The security cost? About 80,000 USD per transit. The economic cost? Unknown.
Tight restrictions on lone Atlantic Canada import port
The Port of St. John, New Brunswick, is home to Canaport LNG, Canada’s only LNG import facility. Transport Canada has implemented Boston-like measures for LNG transits: mandatory security screening of LNG vessel crews; a “marine safety zone” of 0.5 nautical miles (926 m) around any LNG vessel; no anchoring within 1.5 nautical miles of an LNG vessel; and no overtaking of LNG vessels when they are underway in the harbour.
When an LNG vessel is offloading at Canaport LNG, a 620 m radius from the centre of the terminal is off-limits to all marine traffic except tugs and service craft employed with that vessel. Given the large “sail areas” of LNG vessels, the harbour master may consider other “special provisions” to accommodate them, or may order them to leave port when they are empty and it is windy.
Harper rejected LNG on East Coast
Lelu Island and Flora Bank – site of Petronas’s controversial, proposed LNG terminal near Prince Rupert (submitted)
In 2006 and 2013, the Canadian government rejected plans for LNG vessel transits through Head Harbour Passage and Passamaquoddy Bay, New Brunswick, to a proposed LNG facility in Maine. Describing those Canadian waters as “a unique and highly productive marine ecosystem,” the 2013 letter from the Canadian ambassador to the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission summarized concerns related to “the environmental, navigational, and safety risks as well as the adverse economic consequences…”. Which begs the question: What is so different about the setting for LNG vessel traffic proposed for BC?
Although piloting will be required, Transport Canada has not announced its plans for LNG carriers on BC’s north coast. According to its website, the Prince Rupert Port Authority is considering implementing “safe transit zones” and “traffic separation patterns to define specific routes for specific types of vessels.” In other ports, separations of as much as an hour are required between LNG carriers and other watercraft.
What about other boaters?
Photo: Flickr/KsideB
What if, as is likely, setbacks and separations are mandated around LNG vessels approaching BC’s north coast? For one thing, LNG plants with planned multiple berths (Aurora, Pacific Northwest, and WCC) would not be allowed to have more than one LNG vessel at dock. But of greater importance, with the possibility of three LNG vessels a day entering and three a day exiting the port of Prince Rupert, what would be the effect on BC Ferries, the Alaska Marine Highway, the airport ferry, the Metllakatla ferry, water taxis, commercial fishing (especially salmon and herring openings), tour operators, cruise ships, and recreational boating and fishing?
Why aren’t these potential economic impacts and inconveniences being weighed against the touted benefits of the LNG industry? Although the issue was raised by the public during “consultation,” why wasn’t the possibility of restrictions to marine traffic included in the descriptions of any of the proposed LNG projects? Is it because the backlash would be over public safety, not mere inconvenience? And who in government has investigated the insurance requirements for LNG carriers and ports? Each LNG vessel is typically its own limited liability company, flying a flag of convenience; its owners beyond the reach of law should calamity occur.
Practice what you preach
Last words on the issue of LNG marine safety and due diligence go to those responsible – industry and government:
[quote]Engaging with our stakeholders in open and honest dialogue is a critical part of the way we do business and essential in helping us to understand concerns, share information and build strong relationships. In carrying out these activities, we are guided by five principles: inclusion, respect, timeliness, responsiveness, and accountability. -WCC LNG Project Description[/quote]
[quote]If spilled, LNGevaporates into the atmosphere, leaving no residue on either soil or water. No environmental cleanup is required. -BC government website, LNG fact card #5[/quote]
Graeme Pole lives near another LNG “ground zero” – in the Kispiox Valley, near the route of the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission Project.
Longtime BC Premier WAC Bennett’s dream is dead, says former Socred Minister Rafe Mair
Well, it’s all over but the shouting. WAC Bennett’s dream of cheap power, cheap rail, and cheap ferry sevice has been murdered. Yes it’s murder – pre-meditated murder – not manslaughter.
To compound this catastrophe, the mainstream print media, especially Postmedia (the Vancouver Sun, Province and National Post) acted throughout as if nothing was happening.
NDP opposition asleep at the wheel
It’s actually worse than that because the opposition has been asleep from the beginning and, even when it had its eyes barely open, was still in a semi-comatose condition. This started at the end of the 90s when the NDP folded its tent and became a mere shadow of its former self, leaving the field wide open for the right wing.
New breed of “right wing”
Now, I’m not talking about the right wing as we used to know it in the old days under the Bennetts, who mixed capitalism, socialism, and sprinkled them with doses of populism to keep things exciting.
The new guy, calling himself a Liberal, Gordon Campbell, was an entirely different breed of cat. He combined a hearty dislike for crown corporations with an utter lack of any sensitivity toward people and communities.
Bennett had dreams
WAC Bennett had three dreams:
British Columbians would be able to live on the coast and to move from place to place by sea at a reasonable cost, just as other British Columbians could by highway.
He believed the same for rail and that the only way to open up this massive province was to provide cheap and reliable rail.
He knew that affordable and available power was critical both to residents and to attract competitive industry.
He left us as his legacy: BC Ferries, BC Rail, and BC Hydro.
Under the Campbell/Clark government all of this has gone.
Ferries, Rail, Hydro gone or ruined
WAC Bennett Dam (Damien Gillis)
The ferry system is now some hybrid, neither private not public, and down to the point of selling off its ferries to ex-employees for pennies.
BC Rail’s so called “sale” was a fraud, plain and simple, and British Columbians got taken to the cleaners.
Now we had BC Hydro, the jewel of our crown, and the Campbell/Clark government has dug its deadly talons into its back.
I am going to say it but once: “I told you so!” So did economist Erik Andersen in these pages. So did Damien Gillis. So did many others who wrote for us. The problem was that the theft and distraction was so obvious that nobody could believe that it was happening.
This is probably the best con game of all. The sucker can often work their way through a complicated scam, but give him a simple Ponzi scheme right before his very eyes and he is bowled over unto stupefaction.
The private power scam
It was scarcely a secret that Gordon Campbell hated crown corporations. Within two years of taking office he passed an energy policy which took away from BC Hydro its ability to create new power, except Site C, and forced it to buy all its new power from private companies who were given exclusive rights to make it. This required scores of our rivers to be decimated by what the private companies – euphemistically dubbed IPPs (“Independent” Power Producers”) – called “weirs” but were in fact small but destructive dams.
Construction of a private power project on the Ashlu River (Photo: Range Life)
Hydro had to pay twice or more the market cost of this power and it was forced to take it when it was produced even though it didn’t need it at that time. The Finance Minister, Campbell crony Colin Hansen, said these IPPs would be little “mom and pop”, which was 100% bullshit – unless one considers General Electric to be a “mom and pop” operation. The owner of your corner grocery store can tell you what happens if you follow these sorts of business practices.
As if that wasn’t bad enough, we now have the admission from minister Bill Bennett (who at least ought to have the decency to change his name) that the Christy Clark government has been milking huge “dividends” out of money BC Hydro has borrowed. Not earned, for God’s sake, but borrowed! BC Hydro is now in a financial mess from which it can never recover, short of a massive injection of public cash out of the treasury or by inflated electricity bills or both.
Thus, under Gordo and Christy, the power company that provided reliable and cheap power to the public and to industry has gone poof!And it has gone by way deliberate misfeasance by a political party which next year will be asking us, with a straight face, to support them because they are “business oriented”.
During this time, the NDP have scarcely been helpful and, in fact, in their latter days in power, also helped themselves to BC Hydro-borrowed money.
I don’t suppose there’s any point in stating the obvious that the mainstream media have paid no attention whatsoever to this disgraceful destruction of our heritage. I invite you to search the Vancouver Sun and Province for critical articles, editorials, or columns about the Campbell/Clark energy wipeout that’s been the last nail in the BC Hydro coffin. You’ll come up pretty well empty.
It’s hard unto impossible for a hardworking, honest, decentcitizen to find an ounce of honesty or decency amongst those, in the delicious words of the Anglican Book Of Prayer, “set in authority over us”.
Christy Clark announcing her cabinet in 2013 (Flicker CC Licence / Government of BC)
Can Christy Clark, the Gumshoe (Rich Coleman) and the other sad cast of characters occupying the cabinet offices in Victoria win the next election, about 17 months away?
Your damn tooting they can and the way things look right now, I think they will.
This certainly isn’t what I want to happen nor, if the social media are any indication, is it the wish of the public. Experience tells us, however, there are other traditional forces at play that somehow always surprise us when they happen.
“Not a dime without debate”
The “right” has done a masterful job of convincing a substantial segment of voters that the NDP are wastrels and incompetent when in office.
This takes me back to younger days and I went to a federal Liberal rally where one of their cabinet ministers, Lionel Chevrier, gave the main speech. He made just one point: “It is said, ladies and gentlemen, that Liberal times are good times and Tory times are bad times – the Tories claim this is just a coincidence but I ask you, which coincidence will you be voting for?”
Not a terribly honest question but winning politics.
I still read about Bill Bennett and his “not a dime without debate” caper and how he demonstrated, back in 1975, that Dave Barrett was a wastrel.
As a procedural matter, the NDP had proposed that debate of ministers’ estimates be confined to 135 hours in total.
This was an entirely reasonable proposition but the Socreds deliberately slowed down the debates until the Minister of Finance was reached. Now the Minister of Finance himself spends very little money – his job is to dole it out, not spend it, and often he’s not even questioned.This was different!
The Socreds kept questioning, until, as expected, the Speaker stopped proceedings, saying that the opposition had run out their 135 hours, ending debate on Estimates. The Socreds, keeping up the facade, protested lustily and Bennett went around the province hollering “not a dime without a debate”. Just in case that wasn’t enough, Premier Barrett cut off his legislative stipend making him a martyr to democracy. More than anything else, this won the 1975 election for the Socreds, including me.
The label still sticks
After we got in it occurred to us that this 135 hour rule was not a bad one so we dispatched our House Leader to meet with the NDP House Leader to make arrangements to bring it in. The NDP leader, Dennis Cocke, almost died laughing, as did the entire NDP caucus, and, in fact, they extended estimates longer than ever before in the history of the legislature!
During the NDP administrations of Harcourt, Clark, Miller, and Dosanjh the opposition Liberals worked overtime to demonstrate that they couldn’t run a peanut stand. The NDP cooperated often enough to make it stick. One need only look at the last election to see how Clark and Brad Bennett, at the last minute, played the business card, stating to all who would listen that business would vanish from British Columbia if he NDP were elected.
A modicum of chicanery
British Columbia voters are divided, roughly 35% right wing, 25% NDP, the balance switching according to the mood of the moment. It’s very instructive to look back at the Barrett years – in 1972 he upset WAC with a popular vote of 39%, achieving a near landslide. In 1975 Barrett lost to Bill Bennett but received – are you ready for this – 39% of the popular vote. It takes very little for the Liberals to get from 35-40%. A modicum of chicanery does it very nicely.
If the Liberals can make the case in 2017 that they’ve been good stewards of the public purse and that business is good, it won’t matter that they have actually done neither.
The myth of the “balanced budget”
The critical ingredient of Liberal self-congratulation is a balanced budget. Everyone who thinks about it knows that’s because they’ve cut social services dramatically or not increased them as necessary. But that argument won’t prevail with the 10% who naively accept a balanced budget as the litmus test of success, no matter how it’s achieved. Statistics will be trotted out to show how good business is even though it’s hard to find what the Liberals did to achieve this – they will say that just by not being NDP was enough, the Lionel Chevrier rule.
All can be forgotten
Gone will be all the arguments about LNG, dead children in government custody, deleting of emails, the shocking health department scandal, lying ministers much including the Premier, the Mount Polley coverup and so on and so forth.
Today’s announcement by the Liberal Government that it’s opposing Kinder Morgan’s pipeline proposal is a reminder that they’re not to be underestimated politically and creates yet another messaging problem for the Official Opposition.
I wish I had some words of consolation for Mr. Horgan – I’ve tried words of advice but he pays no attention.
Elections are always a crapshoot and anything goes when the whistle blows. But if the Liberals go into the next election with reasonably full employment and a balanced budget, no matter what fiscal artifices they used to balance or mumbo jumbo they use as explanations, they go in stronger than the Horgan bunch and the words of Damon Runyan come to mind “The race is not always to the swift, nor the contest to the strong, but that’s the way to bet”.
A Treaty 8 Steward of the Land at Rocky Mountain Fort camp (facebook)
It may prove the missing ingredient in a long, intense battle over Site C Dam: Civil disobedience. After seven different lawsuits by landowners and First Nations, harsh criticism and tough, unanswered questions from the Joint Review Panel, the prospect of cancellation by the NDP opposition after the next election, and a very long list of high-profile opponents, it may be the occupation of an old fort site on the banks of the Peace that tips the scales.
It’s happened before – especially in BC. From the War in the Woods and the early days of Greenpeace to Fish Lake, the Sacred Headwaters and Burnaby Mountain, many “done deal” projects with billions riding on them and the full backing of government and powerful corporations have met their match in citizens and First Nations willing to go to jail for what they hold dearest.
The game is afoot
In recent weeks, this has begun happening in the Peace Valley, in the area surrounding early construction of the dam site for a likely $15 Billion project that is still in its very infancy, despite the signing of contracts and initial clearing work. It started in early December when longtime Peace Valley resident Mark Meiers was arrested during a peaceful rally at the gates of the work site.
Then, just after Christmas, a group of First Nations and their farmer supporters began occupying the former Rocky Mountain Fort site – a historical treasure once visited by Alexander Mackenzie in 1793 – on the West side of the Moberly-Peace River confluence, adjacent to the proposed dam. A release from the group today declares that First Nations are “prepared to face arrest to protect their traditional territory.” It continues:
“Joined by local landowners, Treaty 8 Stewards of the Land say they will not permit BC Hydro to proceed with plans to clear-cut forests around the Rocky Mountain Fort site on the west side of the Moberly River. The site, selected by explorer Alexander Mackenzie, was the first trading post in mainland B.C. and is situated in the traditional territory of Treaty 8 First Nations.”
First Nations have new hope in Trudeau
Prophet River First Nations member and fort occupier Helen Knott notes that Treaty 8 leaders recently raised their constitutional concerns about the project with the new Trudeau Government in Ottawa. “The Prime Minister says that Canada’s most important relationship is with its Indigenous Peoples and that he promises to uphold and respect Treaty Rights”, says Knott.
“This is what we are trying to do at a grassroots level. I speak as Great Great Granddaughter of Chief Bigfoot, the last to sign Treaty 8 in 1911, and I am trying to honour my Grandfather’s original intent and uphold those rights he meant to protect. I ask Prime Minister Trudeau to also honour that original intent.”
It ain’t over yet
It remains to be seen what effect the opposition has on construction but if it comes to arrests and the camp begins to attract more supporters, it could be just thing to halt the Clark Government and BC Hydro’s big push to get the project off the ground. And it has begun – just yesterday retired longtime Peace River Regional District area director Arthur Hadland was arrested. Hadland was hugely popular as an independent candidate for MLA, coming within 12 points of beating Liberal Patt Pimm for the riding in 2009.
Now, with another provincial election on the horizon and the NDP having drawn battle lines over Site C, it promises to become a hot-button campaign issue – especially with so many taxpayer dollars at stake and the lack of demonstrated need for the project.
One thing is for sure: these “cowboys and indians” as they have branded their alliance in the past, don’t seem ready to ride off into the Peace Valley sunset.
Christy Clark being sworn in as premier in 2013 (Province of BC / Flickr CC licence)
This is the time of year and the point in the government’s mandate that analysis of the months to come is de rigeur.
Time will demonstrate that Christy Clark’s big mistake, when assuming the premiership, was not nullifying Gordon Campbell’s Energy Program which has, predictably, enriched large international corporations and bankrupted BC Hydro. Had Clark tackled this issue, with a courage of which we have seen no sign, restored BC Hydro’s obligation to make new power and abrogated the sweetheart deal with the private companies, BC Hydro would be in decent financial shape and site C would still be the pipe dream of pointy-headed BC Hydro energy assessors.
In over her head
Ms. Clark’s second mistake was seeking the premiership in the first place, it now having been clearly demonstrated that she had none of the necessary skills. Past premiers who’ve been able to operate with limited skills surrounded themselves with talented advisers who understood history, world affairs, and the psychology of the public. This the premier has clearly avoided.
The Clark government has been a calamity on social issues: education, welfare and health, with the Ministry of Children and Family Development being the most tragic. Given Clark’s record as education Minister, this is no surprise.
Christy Clark went into government with no discernible experience at anything, least of all business, spawning a culture of political and economic ignorance the likes of which we’ve never seen before, not even with the worst of the NDP daydreamers.
Christy promised the world…and couldn’t deliver
All apples went into the LNG basket. From the outset, expert after expert predicted precisely what would happen. This paper led the way, presenting experts from all facets of the worldwide energy business stating that if there were viable markets for British Columbia – a dubious proposition – we were too late, with too little and too far away. It seemed that every warning was followed almost instantly by a confirming news story. Rather than listen to honest experts she didn’t agree with, Clark chose international crooks who promised the mother lode of all riches.
Bad enough if the premier had simply said LNG was promising for BC but in fact she touted it as the only thing for BC and painted glorious pictures of a “Prosperity Fund”, all provincial debts paid, employment everywhere and a province whose financial troubles were forever behind them. Needless to say, it’s not easy to back away from such a promise.
Clark, with no experience at anything, has dealt with corporate giants, absent any advice except from flatterers who would profit at our expense, while her high-profile, voluble principal adviser, Rich Coleman, is a joke – unless you believe that one can jump from a cop car into the boardrooms of world business and make intelligent deals about international energy matters which confound the most experienced experts. This has been her largest political mistake and has removed the tiniest vestige of credibility from her and her party.
What’s the alternative?
Leader John Horgan at BCNDP convention (NDP/facebook)
The Liberals’ only strength may be that nobody is ready to take over! There may just not be a government-in-waiting.
John Horgan made the fundamental error of supporting the government on their key policy decision, namely LNG. He has married the party to that issue from the moment the exploration for gas starts till the day the LNG tanker leaves our waters, thus has abdicated any right to criticize any part of the process.
As Lord Randolph Churchill famously said, “it is the duty of the opposition to oppose.” This is not an idle gibe but a sanctified political axiom. Under our system, the opposition, even though it may not have its heart in it, must always hold the government to account for every jot and tittle of its policy. If it doesn’t, what’s happened to Mr. Horgan and the NDP is inevitable – approving the government’s policy also means adopting all of its shortcomings, whether you like it or not. If anything goes bad, you’re stuck with it as much as the government.
NDP still has some cards it can play
Liberal cabinet members are, putting it kindly, nonentities, the exception being (perhaps) Finance Minister Mike de Jong who, since he went on that Asian LNG caper last summer to Malaysia, has carefully taken cover and artfully distanced himself from Christy and the Gumshoe. On the other hand, the NDP front benchers are better known, experienced and not without some ability. Mr. Horgan must find a way to use them effectively and get them better known.
The question is whether Opposition Leader John Horgan has the political balls to say something to this effect:
[quote]Energy is the issue – clean energy. Fossil fuels are not only not the answer, they are the problem. We cannot meet our climate change commitments and still produce, use and export fossil fuels. We can’t have it both ways. It will take special effort, conservation, alternative and new energy sources. It means real sacrifice and dedication. We have no choice but to abandon make-believe, phony politics and bullshitting the public. None of us can claim any longer that there’s an easy way out, a silver or LNG bullet – that’s the past.
We thought LNG could benefit us all but we were wrong, as the Paris Conference recently demonstrated. John Horgan and the NDP stand for immediate, longterm, tough policies and, given a mandate, we will not waver.
We have no more time – there are no easy options left.[/quote]
How Horgan can win in 2017
Is this a dangerous position for John Horgan and the NDP to take?
Of course – all political positions are dangerous. People don’t like bad news. But this one has the huge advantage of being honest. Fossil fuels, global warming, atmospheric degradation, environmental protection and matters of that sort – things that seemedso airy-fairy less than a decade ago – are now front and centre in the minds of the public. Not all politicians have caught up to this, yet, to many campaigners in the recent federal election, the main issue on the front porch was the environment.
This tells me that Mr. Horgan can start again and that if he does, he can win in 2017.
If, on the other hand, he continues to drift and dream, he and his party will accomplish the impossible: running second to the worst government British Columbia has ever had.
