I know you have heard it all so I guess it is now all about the legacy you and your cabinet colleagues are willing to create. Thinking in terms of demand for electricity in BC, the reported record of sales by BC Hydro has flat-lined at about 50,000 GWhrs between 2008 and now. BC Hydro reports sales for four categories of customers.
Even with a 1.2% annual population growth, as estimated by BC Statistics, sales on a per capital basis are have been trending lower. It is a fact, long denied by the executives of BC Ferries, that higher rates cause demand to shrink. Known as price elasticity, customers start searching for ways to reduce consumption right up to the extremes of going off-grid or moving out of BC.
Light industrial and commercial customers are doing the same.
Large Industrial customers started reducing their demand in 2006 when the annual sales for this category was 16,428 GWhrs. By Fiscal 2014 reported sales were down to 13,994 GWhrs, a drop of about 14%.
Where reported annual sales go berserk is for the “Other” category. In 2006 sales to “Others” was reported to be 1,838 GWhrs with about 2,000 GWhrs being the annual total until 2013 when it spiked to 7,417 GWhrs only to crash in 2014 to 2,558 GWhrs. Until there is disclosure as who are the “Others” in BC , inclusion of this category, in making up any demand outlook, is irresponsible. The Auditor’s notes suggest that in fact sales to “others” are sales to customers outside of BC.
What is blinding obvious from these numbers is that BCH already has or has access to the generation of 125% of the projected output of Site C. One could speculate that with what BCH already has they have the existing condition that saves an expenditure of $8-10 billion.
Creating a story about growing future demand for electricity in to engage in self-delusion. In-spite of BC Hydro spending billions and contracting for tens of billions more, over the period 2006 through to 2014, reported total domestic sales (including the dubious sales to “Others”) have been stubbornly stuck at 52/53,000 GWhrs. Growth in total revenues is only coming to BC Hydro by rate increases, not increases in demand.
There is a vast difference between need and want. Since there is no credible evidence of need for more electricity in BC, in the foreseeable future, Site C is only an expensive indulgence serving the interests of the construction industry but at a big cost to BC citizens who ultimately shoulder the financial liabilities of BC Hydro follies. It is ironic that all BC Hydro customers, other than residential, operate with limited liability status so they could care less if BC Hydro is crippled by excessive liabilities, yet they are the customers it seems the government listens to most closely.
My first brush with the fish farming industry on our coast came around 2000 when I was broadcasting for CKNW. At that point, this was considered to be a “good” industry because their product would ease the pressure on the wild salmon.
The big issue became the escape of Atlantic salmon from the farms which were entering B.C. rivers and spawning. This was denied by the government but easily proved by the work of Dr. John Volpe, a fish biologist who was a regular guest on my show.
Enter sea lice, Morton
Alexandra Morton displays pink salmon smolt with lice (Photo: Nick Didlick)
If nothing else had developed, this would have been serious enough. However, In the next year or so I became aware of the work being done by Alexandra Morton in the Broughton archipelago on the question of sea lice destroying migrating salmon smolts. Alex and I did a number of shows on the subject.
Working as one person alone against the massive might of the federal government, Alex – who would later be granted an honorary doctorate by Simon Fraser for her courageous efforts – produced irrefutable evidence that sea lice were indeed destroying our salmon runs.
The federal government, rather than congratulating her on her work and helping her, threatened to throw her in jail for “illegal testing”. To this day the work of Alexandra Morton has been ignored by the government and she has been subjected to ongoing hassling and discrimination.
Her contribution and courage are remarkable beyond description and it is she who has led and sustained the fight.
The plot thickens
By 2008, I had a lost my ” bully pulpit” on the radio and had taken an assignment as spokesman for Tom Rankin’s Save Our Rivers Society, joining my colleague-to-be Damien Gillis. After the election of 2009 he and I founded The Common Sense Canadian, which he now so ably publishes. I lost contact with the fish farming issue not, I assure you, because of a lack of interest, but because I was 100% busy on my new endeavours.
My, oh my, have things changed since then.
Thanks in large measure to Alex, the whole question of sea lice expanded as we learned of their spreading deadly disease through all the wild salmon populations with tragic consequences. With Alex’s work, this was scientifically documented and publicized.
The entire story has been brilliantly told by film-maker Scott Renyard in an extraordinary documentary called The Pristine Coast which Wendy and I were privileged to see a few days ago and which has been recently featured at the recent Vancouver Film Festival.
Film brings astonishing new revelations
Scott traces the history of the terrible consequences of fish farms on our coast from the beginning up until the present time, revealing some extraordinary conclusions.
For one example, we have always been concerned that global warming was destroying our wild salmon. It turns out that it may be quite the other way around and that the destruction of wild salmon has contributed to global warming!
Scott has discovered that the Atlantic cod, hake, etc. problem may well have had more to do with the sea louse than overfishing. Atlantic sea lice, very closely related to their Pacific counterpart, carry and spread disease, just as happens to our salmon. There seems to be a connection between the events on both coasts which I had not heard about. It’s quite a story and now credibly documented.
I don’t want to give away the whole plot but you will be fascinated, I am sure, by this highly presentable presentation of what has become partly farce and all tragedy.
What happens to our environment if salmon disappear?
Scott is not optimistic by any means. Without drastic action on the part of the federal government in particular, he sees tragedy on our coast and laments not only the passing of the Pacific salmon and other fish but asks the highly pertinent question, what happens to our environment then?
The blame can be laid squarely on the federal government and Department of Fisheries and Oceans, as directed by grossly negligent politicians. As many of us have long suspected, there has not only been no understanding by Ottawa of these problems, but an utterly uncaring attitude. The fact is, they just do not give a damn.
Importing disease
One only has to look at the importation of the fatal diseases that have hit our wild salmon stocks to see this negligence in it starkest terms. For the most part, these fatal diseases have come from farmed Atlantic salmon and the ova used to reproduce them, spread in large measure by the over abundant sea lice. It’s more complicated than that, but that’s where it starts and that’s where it should end.
You will, of course, be appalled by what you see but you will recognize that this is a documentary put together so that all of the technical details are there but everyone can understand.
Film features whistle-blowing ex-fish farmers
Never fear, the fish farmers have their say although one of the “stars” of the show is a very credible former fish farmer who verifies Scott’s evidence of the Department of Fisheries Policy, or lack of it, to a “T”.
For the next few months, The Pristine Coast will only be available at various film festivals and I strongly advise readers to keep an eye out for them. Thereafter it will become available on DVD.
This is a remarkable effort by a brilliant filmmaker, Scott Renyard.
California’s Central Valley is facing record drought conditions
As British Columbians share a meal this weekend, giving thanks for the food with which we are so blessed, year-round, let us pause for a moment to consider where so much of it comes from: California.
Let us also say a prayer for the last truly productive tracts of local farmland we have left, now threatened by industrial development – first and foremost being the Peace River Valley, in northeast BC, where the proposed Site C Dam could wash away enough good agricultural terrain to feed a million people.
BC depends on food imports
The fact is BC now grows less than half of the food it consumes, and the places we depend on for our imports may not be able to continue providing them into the future. As Randy Shore pointed out in the Vancouver Sun this past Friday, a record drought in California may drive up food prices in BC by as much as 34% this year.
Shore was referring to a recent study commissioned by Vancity on BC’s food security. Says the study’s author, Brent Mansfield of the UBC faculty of land and food systems:
[quote]As the drought deepens in California and elsewhere, we need to understand what that means for consumers, for governments and for the business of agriculture here in B.C.[/quote]
With 67% of of our fruits and vegetables now being imported from the US – and half of that from California – BC is vulnerable to changing conditions amongst those suppliers. Thus a severe drought in California’s Central Valley means British Columbians should brace for paying 34% more for Californian lettuce and 22% more for broccoli, according to the University of Arizona and University of Guelph.
Then why flood our best farmland?
A sampling of the diverse produce grown at the Peterson market garden in the 1980s (photo: Larry Peterson)
Site C – this $8 billion-plus, taxpayer-funded dam that would increase our provincial debt by more than 10% and won’t benefit the people or businesses of the province one iota – would cause the single largest loss of farmland in the history of the Agricultural Land Reserve. It would drown or disrupt over 30,000 acres of amazing farmland.
Of course, the Agricultural Land Commission – the public’s supposedly arm’s length watchdog whose job it is to review and often oppose such planned assaults on our food security – was barred by a meddling government from reviewing Site C.
For starters, the Peace River’s largely east-west orientation means the valley gets more sun, thus experiencing longer growing days and seasons than other land that far north. “The best farmland in BC is in the southern valleys,” expert agrologist Evelyn Wolterson told the review panel. “The notable exception is the Peace River Valley.”
Other factors like lower wind speeds, excellent Spring moisture, and a longer frost-free period mean, counterintuitively, that “crop yield goes up as you go from the south to the north,” Wolterson explained.
[quote]These are all elements of this valley that make it absolutely unique…not only in the region but in all of British Columbia, and perhaps Western Canada.[/quote]
These factors, combined with high-grade alluvial soils mean the Peace Valley can rival and even exceed the Lower Mainland’s Fraser Valley breadbasket for productivity.
For instance, Larry Peterson, who ran a successful market garden in the Peace Valley with his wife Lynda in the 1970s and 80s, got 13.6 tonnes per acre for potatoes, compared with the average yield in the Lower Fraser Valley of only 10.2 tonnes per acre.
Hydro downplayed Valley’s value
The valley’s agricultural attributes have been “very dramatically” downplayed by project proponent BC Hydro, says Wendy Holm, a former president of the BC Association of Agrologists.
[quote]The land to be flooded by Site C is capable of producing high-yielding fresh fruits and vegetables for over a million people.[/quote]
Yet Hydro and the BC government act like Site C’s impact on farmland is small potatoes.
The reality is the large flood reserve Hydro has been accumulating for years – buying up farmland throughout the region and sitting on it in preparation for the dam – coupled with the spectre of the project that has loomed over the valley for over 3 decades now, have severely constrained local agricultural investment and development, creating a false picture of the region’s potential for food production.
So this Thanksgiving, as we pass the Brussels sprouts that are actually from California, let us take a moment to reflect on the value of healthy, local food production. And then, after the turkey-induced haze has worn off, tell the Harper Cabinet – in advance of its anticipated Oct. 22 ruling on Site C – that flooding our best remaining farmland for energy we don’t need just plain doesn’t make sense.
We never had it so good as 1978, says a new report on historical “prosperity”
“The good ol’ days”, is seems, were 40 years ago. A recent study of global wealth by the Australian National University — it analyzed the quality of life in 17 countries representing over half the world’s population — revealed that prosperity peaked in 1978 and has been declining ever since (NewScientist, July 13/13).
[quote]The study’s conclusion was that “social and environmental woes have outpaced the growth of monetary wealth”[/quote]
More to life than GDP
Gross Domestic Product (GDP), the sum of all the monetary transactions in an economy, has continued to rise. But this traditional measure of wealth fails to account for social and environmental conditions that compromise the quality of our lives. An oil spill, measured in terms of GDP, is counted as a net benefit to society because the cleanup costs constitute economic activity.
Money spent on the prosecution of crime and the incarceration of criminals is similarly counted as a positive. Forest fires are expensive to fight so they are registered as beneficial. Water supplies contaminated by mining wastes and toxic legacies left by industrial activities incur restoration costs to society that are counted as pluses on the GDP ledger, as are health problems caused by pollutants. Damaged or destroyed property and infrastructure, wrought by extreme weather events such as storms and floods, must be repaired or replaced, so these disasters too are registered by GDP as initiators of useful spending.
The so-called carbon economy, a system of wealth production based the extraction and burning of fossil fuels, now causes an estimated $1.2 trillion per year in costs from environmental damage and climate change (CCPA Monitor, July/Aug. 2014). Pain, suffering and grief are not counted in this calculation.
The Genuine Progress Indicator
The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), used by the Australian National University study, is a much more comprehensive and realistic assessment of prosperity. It employed 26 variables to measure the quality of human life. In addition to monetary expenditures, it considered security, contentment, healthy living conditions, income equality, crime levels, community support, health care, clean natural environments, and even such non-monetary activities as housework and volunteering. The study’s conclusion was that “social and environmental woes have outpaced the growth of monetary wealth”. In other words, “We’re not making social profit,” summarizes Robert Constanza, one of the authors of the sobering Australia study.
Inequality for all
One of the most obvious “social woes” identified by the study was Income inequality. This growing disparity in the distribution of wealth creates many unsettling social conditions: poverty, civic unrest, homelessness, crime, and a collective psychology of negativity, victimization, disengagement and cynicism.
The many people without money cannot buy the goods and services that keep economies robust and diverse. But the few people with more money than they can spend are unable to correct this impairment — their superfluous cash just gets invested to generate more capital, most of which does not translate into social prosperity.
A similar conclusion was reached independently by Thomas Piketty in his watershed book, Capital in the 21st Century. In a remarkably indicative statistic that concurs with the findings of the study by the Australian National University, Piketty discovered that in the US, “in terms of purchasing power, the minimum wage reached its maximum level nearly half a century ago, in 1969, at $1.60 an hour.”
Some gains, but more losses
Critics of the Australian study have noted that developing countries are wealthier than they were in the 1970s, that half a billion people have risen from poverty since that decade, and that global poverty rates have fallen from 42% in 1990 to an expected 15% in 2015, while life expectancy during the past four decades has increased by 12 years for women and 11 for men. This may be so. And the accomplishments are remarkable. But they don’t refute the conclusions of the study.
[signoff3]
The world’s population since 1978 has increased by over 3 billion, meaning that the efforts to improve humanity’s quality of life — remarkable as they may be — can only succeed if they outpace the burden of providing subsistence service to the rising number of people. The challenge of improving the prospects of a peak population of at least 10 billion is even more formidable.
Growth pains
The university study’s general conclusion that global prosperity has been falling since 1978 suggests that we may have exceeded the carrying capacity of our planet given the present system used to define, generate and distribute wealth.
The study also suggests that the diminishing prosperity on the planet is being distributed differently. Since 1978, the extremely poor are now marginally less poor, the extremely rich are now significantly richer, while everyone else in the middle is sacrificing prosperity. Whether this constitutes an improvement in humanity’s condition is debatable. For a sense of perspective, Ronald Wright, in his book, A Short History of Progress, reminds us that the number of people presently living in abject poverty on the planet is equal to the total population of the world in 1900.
Economy over ecology
The second major cause of declining prosperity, according to the university’s study, is environmental degradation. For several decades now, the study concludes, the ecological costs of economic growth have been outweighing the benefits. These cost are hidden by the illusory assurances of GDP. But our individual and collective prosperity is being increasingly compromised by weather extremes, rising oceans, ubiquitous pollutants, species loss and invasive species, higher food and fuel costs, riskier resource extraction, food insecurity, climate refugees and the resulting political instability
This Australian National University study gives academic credibility to the growing feeling among many that, for all our efforts, the quality of our lives is not improving, that the next generation will not be as prosperous and secure as the present one, and that — somehow — we have to change the way we do things.
Stephen Harper addressing UN Security Council (Sean Kilpatrick/CP)
The environmental policy of Ottawa will now depend upon what the Tories desire for the next five years.
Why do I say that?
Because their position on Iraq is the correct one and will win them the 2015 election. Canadians simply cannot abandon 100,000 Christians who will be killed if they don’t convert to Islam. They cannot ignore the creation of a new state made up of wild-eyed religious nuts prepared to decapitate those who don’t agree with them.
Proposed intervention gets the usual knee-jerk reaction from the NDP, laced with an overdose of anti-Americanism. The Liberals, under an immature Trudeau, who like the Bourbons has learned nothing and forgotten nothing, vacillates more with the desire to get votes than to do the right thing.
To blame the United States exclusively for the present situation is nonsense. To assess blame, one has to go back to the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the disgraceful Sykes-Picot secret agreement between Britain and France in 1916 where Turkish possessions were carved up. Iraq’s problems did not start yesterday.
What does this is mean for our precious environment?
It’s like Steven Leacock once said – the man that fell in love with the dimple made the mistake of marrying the entire girl. We are stuck with the entire Tory policy.
The Tory environment position is, predictably, simple-minded as propagated in my constituency by Tory MP John Weston who carps on about “process”. As long as there is a “scientific inquiry”, whatever the hell that might mean, with a limited ability of the public to speak, this is “process” – all that’s required.
Our publisher, Damien Gillis, and I have had many opportunities to watch “process” at work. It means one or two public hearings where the public can ask questions of the company about the environmental impact of a proposal without the ability to express opinions. It follows that the opinions they do possess mean absolutely nothing and are not taken into account ever.
Look at the National Energy Board – which is to say the government – stonewalling oral questions to Kinder Morgan by the public, to see what Tory “process” is all about. Imagine forbidding cross-examination in a courtroom! If that’s “process”, the Soviet “show trials” of the 1930s were paragons of litigious virtue.
[signoff3]
An obvious question: If we’re not to have real input into these environmental exercises, what are we, the caring public, to do for the next five years when faced with proposed environmental development we wish to question and have meaningful input into?
Google “safe fracking”
The Tory government’s medieval approach is not just confined to the blatherings of Weston, who no doubt reflects their policy accurately, but with nonsense like the recent pronouncement of the Minister of Finance, no less, Joe Oliver, who advised us to Google “safe fracking”, and we would see that there is indeed “safe fracking”! This is the extent of “scientific” examination, apparently, practiced by this government.
Console ourselves with the thought that some industry “scientists” have looked at the matter? Do we feel warm and fuzzy all over that the companies held public meetings to dispense their propaganda and take questions, not on whether or not the undertaking should go ahead, but to give them friendly suggestions?
The government is banking on us to be law-abiding citizens revolted at the thought of civil disobedience.
Tories living in the past
As usual, the Tories are living deep in the past. They have not been paying attention. People who normally wouldn’t cross the road to protest anything are taking to the streets in great numbers. There’s no longer the respect for either government or the legal “process” of which Tories seem so proud.
Once upon a time, people respected what governments said – when large corporations were taken to be honest, bent only on creating jobs and prosperity for the community.
Where is it written that we must, as with the Tar Sands, destroy our environment, bring disease and reduced employment to surrounding peoples and decimate wildlife so that we can sell oil to Asia? If one applied “real world” accounting principles to this undertaking, would it really make sense? Especially if we took into account the cost of environmental degradation and the diminution of the natural beauty of which we are so proud and from which we derive so much pleasure, not to mention tourists?
Don’t expect a straight answer
Because they’ve got away with murder all these years, industry and government, not required to, are unable to tell the truth. They have been fooling of the public for eons and see no reason to end a winning formula.
People are no longer prepared to put up with the tendentious nonsense spouted by Mr. Weston and his government and are demanding proper environmental hearings where their opinions are not only sought but taken into account in the decision-making process – in short, honest “process”.
For the next five years then we’ll likely have to endure a government that believes that “process” denying a real voice to you and me will carry on.
We have, then, a choice – either we sit back and take it or we protest. To protest means that we must consider and where appropriate, practice civil disobedience.
This rubs against the grain for many law-abiding Canadians, but history teaches us that this is the only way you ever get the attention of brain-dead governments and rapacious industry that deny fairness.
It’s not a pleasant choice but I fear it’s the choice we’re going to have to make and in the not-too-distant future.
Watch this video of the flawed public “process” surrounding the proposed Woodfibre LNG plant in Howe Sound:
Tahltan and Secwepemc First Nations and supporters celebrate at the BC Supreme Court (contributed)
BC First Nations added a small but potentially significant notch to their legal winning streak yesterday, with a temporary victory over Imperial Metals in BC Supreme Court.
The company was seeking an interlocutory injunction and enforcement order enabling it to have Tahltan Nation protesters immediately, forcibly removed from a blockade of Red Chris Mine – Imperial’s lastest venture, in northwest BC’s Sacred Headwaters.
Red Chris Mine under construction (Unuk River Post)
After hearing from the company’s lawyers and three First Nations women from the Tahltan and Secwepemc Nations, Justice Grauer refused to issue the injunction and enforcement order Imperial was seeking – instead issuing a non-permanent injunction, without the accompanying enforcement order. This means the blockade will likely remain in place until at least October 14, giving the defendants more time to respond to the temporary injunction.
The judge also agreed to a change of venue to Terrace court, allowing Tahltan elders from the region to participate in future proceedings.
Yet despite this history and the legal strength of First Nations, injunctions have become a commonplace tool for corporations to remove protestors and are rarely refused or watered down by the courts – so Justice Grauer’s ruling is a significant, if small departure from this pattern.
Said the Indigenous Network on Economies and Trade’s Arthur Manuel on the verdict:
[quote]Injunctions are one of Canada’s last colonial instruments used to dispossess Indigenous Peoples of their land but pressure from the grassroots community is causing the colonial government to retreat. Today’s decision puts the injunction in question as being a sure form of remedy for corporations like Imperial Metals acting with impunity and without consent.[/quote]
First Nations take on Imperial together
Kanahus Manuel addressing reporters
Manuel’s daughter Kanahus has been instrumental in confronting Imperial Metals over the environmental devastation of her traditional Secwepemc territory from the Mount Polley spill. She and other community members and supporters started a sacred fire and water monitoring program in the area and quickly offered their support to the Klabona Keepers in challenging the company’s tailings dam design at Red Chris.
This concern is shared by others, including US-Canadian conservation group Rivers Without Borders. In a recent op-ed in these pages, RWB’s Tadzio Richards noted:
[quote]In 2013, a third party review was done of Imperial Metals’ engineering designs for their tailings pond at Red Chris. The independent review concluded there was no guarantee that Imperial Metal’s tailings pond would hold toxic wastewater from the mine. Despite this conclusion, construction at Red Chris has been allowed to continue, and the mine is currently scheduled to open in September of this year.[/quote]
Soon after writing this, the Klabona Keepers instituted an initial protest against Red Chris – stalling the mine’s opening. They backed down temporarily once Imperial offered the Tahltan increased oversight over the mine’s tailings pond design. But losing confidence in the new arrangement, the Klabona Keepers erected a new blockade on Sept. 29.
“An incredible victory”
On October 3, Imperial filed initial documents announcing injunction proceedings for 10 AM yesterday.
“The defendants, through their physical blockade and their conduct, are interfering with Red Chris’s use and enjoyment of property,” the filing claimed.
Yet Justice Grauer clearly didn’t feel the blockade needed to be removed with the same urgency Imperial had sought.
Said the Klabona Keepers in a statement following yesterday’s ruling:
[quote]Ultimately, this is an incredible victory – not only for the Klabona Keepers, but for all Indigenous Nations connected by the water and the salmon. [/quote]
First Nations have been protesting several Imperial Metals mines since Mount Polley (Photo: Facebook)
UPDATE:In a surprise ruling today,Justice Grauer refused to grant Imperial Metals an injunction against the Klabona Keepers’ blockade
Imperial Metals, the company behind the Mount Polley tailing pond disaster, is seeking an injunction today at the BC Supreme Court to forcibly remove Tahltan First Nations protestors from a blockade of the company’s newest project, Red Chris Mine.
In a media advisory this morning, the leaders of the Yuct Ne Senxiymetkwe Camp – established near Mount Polley mine by a group of local Secwepemc First Nations following the largest tailings pond spill in history – announced a protest of the injunction proceedings outside the Vancouver court house where they are being held.
The Mount Polley disaster inspired the Klabona Keepers, from Tahltan territory in northwest BC, to set up a blockade of Imperial’s yet-to-be-opened Red Chris Mine – over concerns about the company’s tailings pond design.
This concern is shared by others, including US-Canadian conservation group Rivers Without Borders. In a recent op-ed in these pages, RWB’s Tadzio Richards noted:
[quote]In 2013, a third party review was done of Imperial Metals’ engineering designs for their tailings pond at Red Chris. The independent review concluded there was no guarantee that Imperial Metal’s tailings pond would hold toxic wastewater from the mine. Despite this conclusion, construction at Red Chris has been allowed to continue, and the mine is currently scheduled to open in September of this year.[/quote]
Soon after writing this, the Klabona Keepers instituted an initial protest against Red Chris – stalling the mine’s opening. They backed down temporarily once Imperial offered the Tahltan increased oversight over the mine’s tailings pond design. But losing confidence in the new arrangement, the Klabona Keepers put up a new blockade on Sept. 29.
On October 3, Imperial filed initial documents announcing injunction proceedings for 10 AM today.
“The defendants, through their physical blockade and their conduct, are interfering with Red Chris’s use and enjoyment of property,” the documents claimed.
Imperial Vice President Steve Robertson acknowledged to the Terrace Standardover the weekend that the company will be seeing an injunction to break the blockade, noting, “We don’t think there is a good reason for [the current blockade]. We understand there are some outside forces that have come in that are very active on the blockade.”
Says Kanahus Manuel of the Yuct Ne Senxiymetkwe Camp near Mount Polley:
[quote]In light of the Tsilhqot’in case, injunctions must not and cannot be used as a tool to displace Indigenous Peoples from their homelands anymore.[/quote]
Supporting Manuel at a recent press conference in Vancouver on the lack of post-spill cleanup in the area, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs declared, “We’re moving from the era of consultation to the era of consent,” putting governments and corporations on notice that First Nations are prepared to take a far more active role in protecting their territories from dangerous development.
Steam rising from the Nesjavellir Geothermal Power Station in Iceland (Photo: Gretar Ívarsson / Wikipedia)
By Erin Flegg – republished with permission from desmog.ca
At a time when B.C.’s politicians are considering flooding the Peace Valley for the Site C hydroelectric dam, a new project by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association says the province could be sitting on a figurative gold mine of power with low environmental impact.
The project used publicly available data to produce a database of maps and supporting information that show all the areas in B.C.that have the potential to produce geothermal energy. The project reports that, using existing technology, the province could produce between 5,500 and 6,600 megawatts of power — enough to power the whole province.
Ironically, the information CanGEA used comes mainly from the oil and gas industry, which is required by law to report on things like well depth and temperature.
The tip of the iceberg?
Significantly, information is only available for 23 percent of the province, indicating that once data becomes available for the remainder of the province, the estimates for geothermal energy production should be even higher.
In addition to comprehensive data about conditions below the surface, the report also identifies areas that, based on surface characteristics, show promise. These areas are primarily in the northeast of B.C. where access via roads and other infrastructure are already in place, largely thanks to natural gas development. Factors like these diminish initial exploration costs, a primary barrier to commercial geothermal development in Canada, making it more economically viable.
Canadian Geothermal Energy Association chair Alison Thompson said the information conforms to the highest global standards for determining energy potential.
“We have over 20,000 data points. We actually have real date. These are not estimates, there is no extrapolation,” she said, adding the report and the maps will be useful to industry looking to conduct explorations for sites in B.C.
A sustainable alternative to Site C Dam
The proposed Site C Dam would flood or disrupt over 30,000 acres of prime farmland
“The low level of effort is surprising, especially if it results in a plan that involves large and possibly avoidable environmental and social costs,” the panel wrote.
Geothermal power can be build out incrementally to meet demand, rather than building one big project like the Site C dam.
A firm source of renewable energy
Geothermal power plants provide a firm source of base load power, similar to a hydro dam. Dr. Stephen Grasby, a geochemist with Natural Resources Canada, says the environmental footprint of geothermal energy is smaller than other renewable energy sources, such as wind and hydro.
[quote]For instance, the surface area required to have developments like a wind farm, that takes a large surface area and has other associated issues with things like bird kill.[/quote]
Geothermal energy requires only a well and a heat exchange system.
“Drilling is relatively low impact,” Grasby said, adding with a laugh, “Worst case scenario is you accidentally discover oil or something.”
Drilling would be controlled by the same regulations that already monitor any kind of well drilling in the province.
Canada alone in ignoring its geothermal potential
Canada is currently the only major country located along the Pacific Rim’s Ring of Fire not producing geothermal energy. A Geological Survey of Canada report recently noted that northeast B.C. has the “highest potential for immediate development of geothermal energy” anywhere in the country.
The Site C joint review panel recommended that, regardless of the decision taken on Site C, that BC Hydro establish a research and development budget for the engineering characterization of geographically diverse renewable resources, such as geothermal.
“If the senior governments were doing their job, there would be no need for this recommendation,” the panel added.
Erin Flegg is a freelance writer and journalist, and her work appears in the Vancouver Observer, Xtra West and This Magazine. She holds an MFA in creative writing from the University of British Columbia.
Site C Dam will unnecessarily cost taxpayers billions, says one financial expert
The following is a transcript of Rob Botterell’s recent speech to the BC Select Committee on Finance and Government Services. Mr. Botterell is a lawyer, former senior government official and former comptroller of TD Bank’s BC division.
I’m here today to talk about the pending Site C decision and the budget and fiscal implications. This project will be the biggest public infrastructure project in the next 20 years if it proceeds. It’s estimated, currently, to cost $8 billion, which would increase the provincial debt by over 10 percent. We don’t have accurate information on costs, so it could well be more than that.
Time is short. By my calculation, I will be reviewing $800 million of government spending every minute, so I would ask you to please review the materials that are in your kit, all of which is in the public domain. Further to the previous presenter, I would encourage you, in particular, to have a look at the report on energy alternatives in the right- hand side of the folder, which covers many of the items that were discussed just now.
While it’s true that B.C. has a triple-A rating, it’s also true that there are some storm clouds on the horizon. In May Moody’s gave B.C. a negative outlook due to the accumulation of provincial debt.
It’s my submission that it’s hard to understand how, if we can avoid part or all of it, adding $8 billion to the provincial debt helps to reverse that negative outlook. I think that’s a critical consideration in terms of the work. I’m sure you’re hearing many presentations on how taxpayer-supported debt could be used to provide much-needed infrastructure. I really encourage you to think about that as I make my presentation.
Need for dam not established: Review Panel
What would happen if you were going to the bank to borrow $8 billion for Site C? The question came up: “Well, is Site C needed?” The answer you would have to give is that the joint federal-provincial review panel concluded that the need for Site C has not been established. If the next question was, “How much is this going to cost?” you would have to say that the joint review panel concluded that they didn’t have the information, time or resources to determine whether the $7.9 billion cost is accurate.
If you were asked, “How much would B.C. Hydro likely forecast Site C losing in the first four years of operation?” you’d have to say that the joint review panel forecasts that it’s going to lose $800 million. And then the bank officer might say: “Well, what other alternatives were looked at?” You’d have to say that the joint review panel was either prohibited from considering — or did not have the information to sufficiently explore geothermal, wind, run-of-river hydro and other renewables, excepting power under the Columbia River treaty or burning natural gas to provide power.
Burning gas OK for LNG, but not for BC’s power needs?
Oh, you might say: “That’s interesting. What did the joint review panel have to say about natural gas?” Well, this is what the panel said: “Finally, if it is acceptable to burn natural gas to provide power to compress, cool and transport B.C. natural gas for Asian markets, where its fate is combustion anyway, why not save transport and environmental costs and take care of domestic needs?”
Then you might be asked: “Well, how much could the government save in taxpayer-supported debt by using natural gas?” Some $6.5 billion is the likely savings. How much a year? One expert — and the information is in your kit — says that currently you could save $350 million a year in operating costs to produce the same amount of electricity.
[signoff3]
What about greenhouse gas emissions? If you’re saving $6.5 billion in capital and $350 million a year in operating, you’ve got room to buy carbon credits. So what should we do? What did the joint review panel recommend? “Well, it should go to the B.C. Utilities Commission.” What’s been the response of the Minister of Energy and the Premier? “Well, the B.C. Utilities Commission doesn’t have the capacity to look at it, and we’re going have KPMG do a little bit more research.”
Utilities Commission barred from reviewing Site C
My submission to you is that doing some KPMG research now — that hasn’t seen the light of day, that won’t see the light of day if it ever sees the light of day until after a decision on Site C is made — is no substitute for B.C. Utilities Commission open and transparent and accountable review. Those are key — key — commitments of this government and previous governments.
I’d submit that if the government decides to disregard the adamant opposition of First Nations, it’s fiscally irresponsible — particularly for an $8 billion project — to proceed without first referring this to the B.C. Utilities Commission so they can do the homework that the joint review panel said still needs to be done. If KPMG has done some internal work, that can go to the Utilities Commission and save the Utilities Commission some effort.
What’s the big rush?
We have the time. The joint review panel said that we don’t need power till 2028. And they did take into account LNG, contrary to Minister Bennett’s submission.
So here we are. We’ve got a huge opportunity here to get this right. What I would like to urge every one of you to do is to think carefully about what your constituents and the people that you’ve heard from during these hearings would like you to do. What they’d like you to do is to make sure that the cost is accurate, so that we know what’s going on and we’re doing this in the least costly way possible.
In the consultation document there’s a key phrase here, in terms of taxpayer-supported infrastructure: “It is important to build needed infrastructure, but we need to limit our borrowing and keep debt affordable.”
From my perspective and in my submission, the right thing for this committee to do is to recommend that this matter be referred to the B.C. Utilities Commission and, if capacity of the B.C. Utilities Commission is at issue — after all, they reviewed Site C before, so they know what they’re doing; they’re set up to do this — that you recommend that the funding be set aside in next year’s budget to provide for a full, expert and independent review by the B.C. Utilities Commission.
This isn’t $800,000. This isn’t a mortgage for my house. This isn’t a mortgage. This is $8 billion at a minimum. What if it turns out to be $15 billion? I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes if that review hasn’t been done.
What’s the harm in doing the homework? Maybe the Utilities Commission will come back and say: “You know what? Site C is the best.” But everything in your folder and everything we’ve seen over the last few months suggests that we need to have a thorough look at this before making a final decision and that it shouldn’t be something rushed into.
Shale gas is a big component of China’s future energy plans
China has declared war on coal and coal consumption is down as a result. But this coal war offers some good news, some not so good news for Canada, and some bad news, all at the same time.
China turns to clean tech, fracking
The good news pertains to: 1) China having become an unparalleled leader and investor in the global migration to a the green economy; and 2) China’s ongoing adoption of ambitious new policies and targets to accelerate this migration at a spellbinding rate.
Unfortunately, the aforementioned good news for China also has serious implications for Canada in that not only is Canada falling further and further behind China regarding the green economy, but Trudeau and Harper, via FIPA, are set on selling Canada’s resources to China while opening the doors for China to dump its clean technologies in Canada.
The bad news is that China’s war on coal has also given rise to ambitious, but environmentally reckless, development of shale gas, wrongly perceived to be a cleaner, or less environmentally harmful, alternative to coal.
China has become world’s the largest investor in clean energy technologies, with $61.3B spent on renewable energy technologies in 2013 that resulted in 28 gigawatts (GW) of solar and wind capacity added in that year alone
It has awesome green job numbers, like 300,000 jobs in its solar PV sector and 800,000 jobs in the solar thermal sector
It has evolved from a domestic solar manufacturing sector that served 1% of global markets in 2004 to 50% by 2012
It has a plan for 7 pilots on cap and trade
Finally, China has laid the policy ground work for world leadership in the manufacturing and deployment of electric vehicles.
As result of these measures, the above-mentioned October 2013 Common Sense Canadian article projected that coal consumption in China would peak in 2015.
Coal use falling
China has become the global leader in clean tech
But China is going green so quickly that projections about its energy future tend to prove too conservative. As a case in point, for the first time in this century, coal consumption and coal imports in China are down.
Also worth noting, China’s war on coal includes the banning of sales and imports of coal containing high quantities of ash and sulfur. The new regulation bans for sale and import coal with more than 40% ash content and 3% sulfur . This ban would effectively eliminate low heating value coal from Indonesia and coal with arsenic from Australia.
Yet, notwithstanding the extraordinary progress China has made in such a short period, it is currently working on policies that will further accelerate its migration to a green economy.
What does China’s exceptional progress and policy leadership mean for Canada, in the context of China having become the world’s largest energy consumer and, consequently, a major influence in global energy paradigms? In crude terms, Canada will have an enormous green economy gap to close, beginning in 2015, after the upcoming federal election.
It also means that Canada will have to shed the mindset that says our future economic wellbeing lies with increasing exports of fossil fuels – a mindset shared by both Harper and Trudeau.
FIPA, the Canada-China trade agreement recently ratified by the Harper administration, will only compound these problems.
That is, the US and the EU have responded to China’s highly-subsidized dumping of clean tech on global markets with the imposition of steep tariffs. But FIPA stipulates that there will be no commercial barriers associated with environmental technologies. This stipulation could seriously handicap the development of Canada’s clean tech sectors.
In short, a successful Canadian plan for a migration to a green economy must take into account China. To do otherwise would be at Canada’s peril.
China gets fracking
In collaboration with US partners, China is setting the stage to develop what may be the largest shale gas resources in the world, 1.7 times the potential of the US. With fewer than 200 wells drilled to date, China is projected to produce 1058 billion cubic feet of natural gas annually by 2020. And the environmental implications identified thus far of China’s pending shale gas boom are enormous.
First, fracking regulations in China are almost non-existent. Second fracking in China requires twice as much water than US shale gas operations because China’s gas lies deeper underground and in more complex geological formations.
This in a country with dangerously low water per capita and where land twice the size of New York City turns into desert every year.
This, in a country where fracking waste water often goes untreated.
Nevertheless, all is in place to speed up the tempo of shale gas development. Already, foreign multinationals are investing heavily in China while companies like the state-owned China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC) – the same company that bought out Nexen in Alberta – have spent $8.7B buying shares in US shale gas operations. One can suspect that this will offer Chinese firms opportunities to obtain patents on technologies; ultimately manufacture these technologies in China; and then export these very same technologies to the US at a cheaper price.
All this is going on while the US experience has taught us that that methane leaks associated from shale gas development are grossly underestimated and the potential for regulations to control these emissions are overestimated. Drilling creates fractures in surrounding rock that cement cannot completely fill, thus opening paths for the escaping of gases and liquids. Furthermore, as the cement ages, it pulls away from the surrounding rock, reducing the tightness of the seals, thereby generating greater danger for methane leaks and water and air pollution.
Will history repeat itself?
The good and bad news have been presented in this article to demonstrate the incredible ability for China to head in opposite directions – at a tremendous speed.
On one hand, China’s amazingly rapid migration to a green economy, accompanied by a reduction coal use, suggests that China will be a major vector in the global replacement of fossil fuels with clean technologies alternatives.
On the other hand, its fracking activities, while nowhere near the scale of what is happening on China’s clean technology side of the equation, raises the weakness for which China is so famous – first go full speed ahead, wait for the problems to accumulate and then engage with incredible zeal in gestures to solve the problems created by their previous mistakes.
