I'm not an engineer, but....

The windmill on your roof trickle charges the battery that powers the engine that winds the giant clockwork mechanism in your basement that stores the energy until you need it.

Or, substitute flywheel for clockwork.

Either way, unreliability seems to me to be the easiest problem to overcome w/r/t alternate energy sources. The biggest problem seems (to me) to be the mentality that there can only be one answer be it nuclear, hydro-electric, or whatever, to power the grid, and further, decentralizing power generation is too often overlooked IMO.

Solar... Wind... And the Cost of It All

Roof-mounted piping (not photovoltaic cells) used for solar power has been around for decades and are very cost effective to install.

Perfect for swimming pools and assists (increasing temperature wise) with showers, dishwashers, washing machines.

Lottsa that type of solar power around.

As for wind farms, TransAlta seems to have quite a few wind farm/turbine facilities.

http://www.visionquestwind.com/existing.asp?pg=castle&mi=04&bdy=castle1&id=existing

Additionally, Manitoba Hydro (with its abundant hydro-electric generation) currently purchases IPP wind power from the St. Leon Wind Farm and has intentions to purchase another 300 - 1,000 MW of IPP wind generated power.

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/projects/wind_st_leon.shtml

It would be interesting to see TransAlta's cost of production and Manitoba Hydro's cost of purchase of that wind power per MWh and compare same with BC Hydro's tender calls.

UnCivilizedEngineer:

Yeah, a certain segment of society seems to be of that mindset.

And another smaller segment of society seems to believe that BC Hydro shouldn't export power to the US... which allows BC Hydro to charge even lower electrical rates!

BC is a net energy importer during the winter months (the need for electric heating and the need for substantially more lighting during shorter daylight periods, etc.) while the reverse is true for the summer months where air-conditioning demand down south is at its peak.

Just like BC Hydro.... Manitoba Hydro is also a major electricity exporter to the U.S. Why?

In 2006–07 export sales totalled $827 million with 80 percent derived from the U.S. market and 20 percent from sales to Canadian markets.

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/corporate/electricity_exports.shtml

The Flat Earth Society still seems to exist in some quarters. :)

stump

stump says:

But, gee whiz, Stump, that would mean people would become more self-sufficient, more independent - less likely to be sheep! How would Campbell ever tax our consumption? We must remember how he has loved jacking-up user fees for items that everyone uses and needs? How could he make more tax cuts for corporations when he starts losing income from middle and low income families who no longer request just one proverbial lump of coal for the stove? How could the elite and multinationals continue to widen the disparity gap without the government's help? Why it would begin to make things more fair!

Follow the money

Used to be that BC Hydro was publicly owned. Now that corporations such as Accenture, Ledcor are involved, one merely has to follow the campaign contributions to see who needs to make a profit. Why is it that Germany can make such progress, when we are in the process of deciding who gets to make profit from site C?

question

Can I report this article as offensive?

It insults the gift of modern logic that Aristotle gave us.

Selling off some electricity

Selling off some electricity to smooth the production curve from one season to the next is one thing - selling off the public's resources to private profit is quite another.

The first is a practical matter of production; the latter is treason. No matter where it happens. The Enronization of B.C. is progressing apace. One only hopes the purveyors and supporters of this larceny will eventually reap the whirlwind of their actions.

It is quite clear what Campbell is up to - and the people of British Columbia are slowly waking up - some of them in any case.

Site C

So, Spark and G West, should we then build the Site C dam and screw the people of the Peace River area again?

What do we do when they are no more big projects to build?

Not necessarily

BC currently produces more than enough power for our own needs - which is just fine.

With conservation measures and some careful planning site C may well not be needed - and if there are smaller projects that are feasible - they should be built at public expense, not to create profits for investors and foreigners.

And I have no problem with small individual producers who realize excess power from a range of production methods such as solar and wind - they should be permitted access to the grid with any excess power they have available from time to time - and paid the same rates they themselves pay per kwh whenever they can't meet their own needs.

wind resources

Uncivilized engineer states:

Although he is quite accurate, he is leaving out the considerable amount of wind available in the Southern Interior. There are many places where there is much generally dry wind that can add energy to the grid for hours on end thus reducing the hours that hydro dams would need to run at higher flow rates. Also, The Southern Interior has much sunshine that can add energy to the grid far better than cloudy Germany. Main power transmission lines run through the Southern Interior, so much of the infrastructure already exists. Further, the Southern Interior is closer to the population centres of the Lower mainland and the Thompson Okanogan than Site C, so much more of the energy will stay useful by not being lost over long transmission lines.

On another thread, other posters mentioned heat pumps. The government/BC Hydro and what is left of BC Gas could do much to help BC people conserve energy by building grids of geothermal systems. It is all a matter of will.

If the Campbell were serious about changing the way we do things, he'd take a look at the big picture. The big picture is not a for profit system. The big picture would look at the energy requirements of British Columbia and build interlaced grids of systems that includes supplying heat and cooling to communities with geothermal heat pumps. It would be done using economy of scale and it would be done as part of one's energy bill.

Those with large and multiple houses that consume large amounts energy per family member/inhabitant, should have to pay through the nose - both in taxes and in energy bills using a scale based upon a sharp curve. After all, just because someone is wealthy, it does not mean that they deserve more of a limited resource without paying huge costs to the people who would be hurt the most - average hard-working Canadians. Just because someone is wealthy, it doesn't mean that they deserve to pollute the planet more. After all, if anyone has the means to conserve and implement green energy, it is the wealthy. Perhaps they can employ a few of the people currently spinning their wheels making coffee at minimum wage.

It is time for action, not rhetoric and false promises.

dave49

What do we do when they are no more big projects to build?

I don't know anything about the site C dam. If the local inhabitants are against it, I hope they protest it and succeed in blocking it.

If the big projects run out as you say, it will become more economically viable to build smaller projects. The price will increase naturally if the alternative energy source is more expensive than the cheaper 'big projects'. I would rather have market demand coupled with citizen pressure on government to ensure it is 'green energy' rather than government manipulation of prices and intervention of private corporations. It wasn't so long ago that the US government thought they knew better than the energy market demand and subsidized corn production for ethanol. That has been a major contributer to 50% food inflation (of flour and other grains) and famine in certain countries. Interestingly Hillary Clinton voted against the subsidies twice and then magically she changed her mind soon after obtaining shares in a corn production corporation. Funny how these coincidences happen.

Personally, I am making my house 'off grid' - not specifically because it's green - but because energy prices will triple within 10 years under a privatized regime and I would rather be self sufficient than be at the mercy of a corporation who will dictacte the size of my Hydro bill.

The Answer my Friend...

...is, not necessarily, Blowing in the Wind.

http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/19842

Appropriate tech Heliostat Project

I have a heliostat project on the web at
http://www.instructables.com/community/Suggestions-for-one-part-of-a-heliostat-are-needed/?comments=all#C8HLL9JFIES3W2Q
This project is for heating, cooking and lighting.
It must be low tech with no computer tracking (tracking by clockwork instead) to keep it in the reach of poor people.
Please check it out and especially if you are a diy expert, make your own.
If you want to have personal input into where the project is going, then post your improvements to the project page at appropedia.com
This is open source research and the for profit scientific community is not going to undertake it.
thank you
Brian white

Hydro Power Ain't "Green".....

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7046
Contrary to popular belief, hydroelectric power can seriously damage the climate.

And Dave49 says it all:

So, Spark and G West, should we then build the Site C dam and screw the people of the Peace River area again?

Site C power is destined mostly for the lower mainland, yet the fallout (10,000 hectares of agricultural land destroyed) is safely ensconced "out of sight, and out of mind" as is the case with so much of the consumption of the bulk of BC's population. BC's cities shoud be required to produce energy locally, whatever the cost, and deal with the fallout, rather than foisting it on "anywhere but here".

But as long as we continue to think that electricity comes from a plug or switch in the wall, that water comes from a tap, and sewage and garbage just 'magically' disappear, we will never be "green".......

Rick W

Did you see my answer to that question?

My gripe is with privatization, not with green energy or local production. Our public assests are being sold off to corporations who will then run them into the ground whilst giving us the (extremely large compared to when it was state owned) bill. I agree with G West when he says selling off the public's resources for private profit is treasonous. It happened in the UK with the sell off of the national rail network amongst many other state owned resources, including water - Corporations made huge profits and drove the infrastructure into the ground (google Hatfield train crash) knowing fully that the government would be obliged to bail them out to the tune of billions of pounds. Private ownership a state resource is not in the best interest of any regular citizen in this country. I say again, how many times does privatization have to fail for the downright stupid sheeple to work out that it is not in anyones best interest other than investors, politicians and corporations.

Arguements can be made for the downsides of any 'green' technology. There's certainly a lot of energy used to produce and ship (more than likely from China) 1 square foot of solar panel - which incidentaly will only produce a maximum of 10W of power at any given time, not to mention the bank of batteries to store that charge.

p.s. As the 3rd largest information conglomerate in the world, Reed Elsevier - the owners of New Scientist, may have some questionable motives about some of the articles they publish.

city mouse vs country mouse

Not only is that statement unrealistic, it ignores the fact that rural areas get their trained professionals from urban universities for the most part.

Sure, it sounds fair to make cities produce their own juice, but do you really want your local barber performing appendectomies just like the good old days, or can we agree that we're all in this as a collective, bringing various benefits or debts to table, but in the end sharing a commitment to providing one and all with the benefits of a modern society?

Hydro Power...

Rick W:

Based upon that analogy, the dams on the Peace River and the dams on the Columbia River would never have been built during the 1960's/'70's.

So where would BC Hydro be generating its electricity today???

Heck, even former NDP finance minister Paul Ramsey agrees with proceeding with Site C.

If everyone is gonna scream NIMBY, then nothin' in BC would ever get done. And governments have to make tough decisions on behalf of the entire populace and can't just dither.

Many BC New Democrats seem to dither, but Manitoba's New Democrats are somewhat more rationale.

Conawapa, on the Nelson River 90 kilometres from Gillam, Man., would be the largest hydroelectric project ever built in northern Manitoba, capable of generating 1,380 megawatts of electricity.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/manitoba/story/2008/04/17/hydro-deal.html

Ummmm... Privatization????

spark.1234:

Interesting... BC Hydro IPP's were undertaken during the BC New Democrats reign during the 1990's. Example, the Ashlu Creek RoR IPP:

Ashlu Creek project submitted to Province under BC Hydro call for proposals for IPPs (total of 44 projects submitted)

1995 Aug

Ashlu Creek short-listed as one of top 10 projects by BC Hydro

1996 Aug

Independent Power Producers Review Panel (appointed by the then Premier [Clark]) ranks Ashlu the best BC Hydro short-listed run-of-river project on the basis of corporate costs, transfer payments (taxes and rentals) to the provincial and municipal levels of government, and its social and environmental impacts.

This panel included the Assistant Deputy Ministers of Environment Lands and Parks and Employment and Investment, and the Deputy Minister of Energy and Mines.

http://www.ashlucreek.com/chronology-of-the-ashlu-creek-hydro-project-develo-1.html

To reiterate from an earlier post in another thread:

From BC Hydro's March 31, 2001 annual report (when the New Democrats were still in power):

To date we have heard from approximately 50 producers, with most proposals involving ...small hydro.

We have already signed agreements with local power developers to buy energy produced from small hydro... These projects will begin immediately.

To encourage new micro hydro developers, we have put together a list of more than 600 potential sites province-wide.

We are also working on a handbook that outlines standards and procedures for developing and installing micro hydro projects.

http://www.bchydro.com/rx_files/info/info1567.pdf

So what is the current BC New Democrats position? Dithering, of course, 'cause they never just seem to make up their minds! :)

Enviro-nut cases

'Uncivilized engineer' pretty much states the problem with the radical environmentalists who have utterly brainwashed the public with unworkable ideas about wind and solar power. And moreover, have injected their Marxist, anti-capitalist political agenda of how they want to see all of us live: politically correct lives, growing our own gardens and subject to ever growing govt laws on how to live our lives.

The plain fact is that wind and solar power are too expensive or unreliable to operate in scale. And in BC, there's still enough hydro generating capacity that's cheaper than wind and solar even if we account for damage to the environment. I mean, have you ever seen how filthy it is to make solar panels and cells in a Taiwan factory? Most of the BC environ-nuts have little world experience other than watching the world go by in front of a Starbucks in Kitsilano. No wonder Watson left Greenpeace- he said he couldn't stand the political agenda that got in the way of true environmentalism.

Nuclear power is the way to go and its opponents ought to stop the fear mongering. France and Japan generate most of their electricity with it with a good safety record. It ain't cheap, but it can generate power in scale something that the environmentalists can't address with their other solutions.

Luke

True, but....

"The 2006 tender call is part of a seismic shift in the way British Columbia produces, buys and sells electricity"......

"the public gets no assets, no price protection once the contracts expire and no guarantee that private energy interests won't export the electricity in the future."

http://thetyee.ca/Views/2006/10/30/BCHydro/

another couple of good snippets

"since its election in 2001, the B.C. Liberal government has moved to deregulate and privatize B.C.'s electricity system"

"The core of that policy was laid out in the 2002 Energy Plan, which prevents B.C. Hydro from building new generation assets, and transforms the Crown corporation from a generator of publicly-owned electricity to a purchaser of energy from the private sector."

make sense?

ahhh, privatization at its best - ching ching.

Bobby Peru - lighten up

Bobby Peru forgets that many of the best of acheivements of human beings are group efforts. We can all have more if we work together and we share. Personally, I am ready for people to mature past selfishness. Also, he doesn't understand the current state of the art when it comes to solar and he doesn't understand, it is time to start building infrastructure and expertise so that the transition is easy. He says:

Go to these to these sites, Bobby; you will learn that the world has been moving on without you and the oil companies. This is cool stuff, Bobby - a good place for a capitalist(like yourself) to invest. It is time for the monopolies on energy to end. It is time for energy to be created locally.
Solarhttp://www.engadget.com/2008/06/19/nanosolar-solar-film-rolls-off-the-presses-at-100-feet-per-minut/

Wonder why the Exxon wanted to buy this one? I think they are getting worried that they won't have all the money in the end.
http://www.hbci.com/~wenonah/new/nsolcel.htm
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2007/02/19/ccview19.xml

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/04/worlds_largest_5.php

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15698812/

Wind:http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/06/urban-turbines.html

http://www.gcpower.com/_ourturbine.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9flSPAdOLk

enviro-nutcases

Hi Bob:

Yep, them there enviro-nutcases are off their rocker alright. It's gotten so bad they've infected a good, upstanding oil man with their filthy ideas about self-reliance and personal responsibility.

[/url]http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/08/pickens.plan/[url=http://]

My name is Url

oops, let's try again.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/07/08/pickens.plan/

links that didn't take last post

http://www.engadget.com/2008/06/19/nanosolar-solar-film-rolls-off-the-presses-at-100-feet-per-minut/

http://www.newscientist.com/blog/technology/2006/06/urban-turbines.html

Distributed Generation/Energy Is Coming

One needs only to look as far as the CRD's wastewater treatment plan, as well as the Whistler and Vancouver Athletes' Villages to realize that we are in fact beginning to make vital usage of waste resources in reducing fossil fuel usage with heat pumps. All of these examples will be utilizing the heat present in either raw or treated sewage to power district energy systems. By the way, this is Campbell's baby - the Province essentially rejected the CRD's initial stab at a treatment plan because it did not address GHGs adequately.

As for wind and solar for distributed generation, again, it's a nice idea, and perhaps economical if you have no grid access, but the technical impediments are significant. In one's own home, the cost of batteries, panels and controllers would far outweight the cost of acquiring energy from even new hydro sources let alone existing rates. Wind turbines have to be mounted at a significant height above ground to catch any useable energy, and would typically not be welcome in urban environs due to noise and aesthetics.

In any case, the bottom line rules. If you're into generating your own power, do it because you like building stuff, not for the money. Speaking of which, anyone heard from Ballard Power lately?

uncivilized engineer

I don't know what your engineering degree is in, but I do know that one size does not fit all. When I was in engineering school (over 30 years ago), we learned from my engineering chemistry prof that we should be saving oil for conversion to proteins - that if humans did not control their population the hydrocrbons would be needed for food. He said that oil would become far too valuable to keep burning in our cars.

You need to actually look at the Youtube Helixwind link I placed above to begin to understand the revolution that is taking place. Efficiencies are being gained every day. You will see that helictical shapes need only 10 MPH (16 KmPH)to generate electricity. In many places, one need not put up a 100 ft. (30 M) mast; and helical generators are bird friendly. They can also be mounted horizontally in a series to a single generator on roof ridges to take advantage of compression and thermal heat rising from attics and off of the roof. They can also be mounted vertically as a wall (to gain pressure differential/velocity ) on roof-tops. In windier areas, hydro-poles could easily be stabilized to accept pico-wind generators all adding to the grid. It is all a matter of political will / leadership. Helixwind:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9flSPAdOLk

Your assertion that battery systems are necessary is wrong. The CSA approved technology has long been available to tie the excess energy to the grid, and thereby allowing the grid to act as the battery. This technology has been in use for decades with micro-hydro applications. As a matter of fact, in the 70s, US President Jimmy Carter inacted legislation during the first energy crisis that said that US power companies had to buy the excess power from consumers who generated. This is not rocket science.

A wind generator system that is placed ina a suitable wind-zone and tied to the grid requires an investment of about $15,000 worth of equipment. The systems are generally rated to last 15-25 years with very little maintenance. Between wind, geothermal and solar, there should be no new single detached bungalo (or townhome or cluster house etc.) that costs the owner anything to operate. There should be legislation requiring that a new house is not be allowed to attach to the grid unless it has a net zero energy consumption design. If a homeowner wants this, their should be low interest loans and grants available.

If Campbell's crew forced Victoria to pull the heat out of their sewage, then i tip my hat to him - this time. Campbell is going to have to change amultitude of other things before I even begin consider him to truly be on the side of people and the environment.

Large Scale Solar projects

almost anywhere in BC are nothing but a pipe dream. They may work but it is doubtful they would be very productive unlike those that are constructed in mid and lower latitude desert areas.

Private use of solar energy has to be regulated carefully to avoid the old 'you have to cut your trees down so my solar panel will work' syndrome.

We will still need large volume reservoirs to provide load balancing unless you wish to have a large number toxic batteries in use.

I really wish that somebody would fund a chair at one of the universities that would deal specifically with the total consumption of energy required to bring any product to fruition or any project to completion. We need to develop a better yardstick and make sure that it is being applied to everything of consequence.

don't discount progress

Could Henry Ford have ever envisioned the Lamborghini Countach? Could Orville and Wilbur ever imagined the space shuttle? How could Hippocrates every conceived of organ transplants and robot surgery?

The point being of course, that if we put our minds to developing new technologies that utilize renewable resources, rather than finding ways to add incremental benefits to fossil-fuel systems, the sky (pun intended) is the limit. Time to leave this dead end road and plot a course toward some real progress.

Switzerland

For some time the Swiss have been trail blazers in solar...their topography isn't all that different, I'd assert, from a good deal of BC.

How come they can do it but BC can't?

Sharing...

Thanks for the helix link - I would estimate that this technology is on the verge of commercial-scale viability, but still costs at minimum 2-4x what we currently pay. But not a bad-looking piece of technology. (Good luck with zoning bylaws though!)

I would imagine a large portion of the cost of these types of technology is recovery of R&D (I know our company's innovation projects are not money-makers in their infancies). With a larger market, it is foreseeable that the gap could be narrowed.

I imagine that we are likely to see these types of initiatives soon in large municipal or institutional projects, possibly even community developments if planned to integrate properly. Despite what many think, the current government is actually pushing quite hard on these ideas - they are just not very good at marketing them.

Luke Skywalker et al

So where would BC Hydro be generating its electricity today???

Ain't it amazing that the ones who scream "impractical" are ALWAYS the ones on the receiving end and not the taking away end.

Perhaps (should it ever occur to you) by not developing hydropower, it would have forced innovation instead of stagnating it.

BTW, just because 3 out of the 4 million who live in BC happen to live in the lower mainland, what gives them the right to rape the entire province?

And the old and tired saw about how "rural areas get their trained professionals from urban universities for the most part" has been beaten to death. If it were true, there wouldn't be a healthcare or education crisis in the rural areas would there?

The hunt for the Holy Grail

Not sure which crew is looking for it though, Monty Python or Indiana Jones.

snert

You are one of the takers.......

give and takers

Same problems are occurring in urban areas too RickW. Has nothing to do with the difference between urban and rural areas, or with urban areas taking without giving.

Blame gov'ts that beggar the rural areas if you like, but blaming us city-folk for choosing to live in urban areas (for the problems of rural living) is a load of bollocks.

We're all takers

RicK W

What's your point?

stump

Ain't blaming city folks for being city folks. But don't expect to be supported by the rest of the province.

support?

Glad to hear you mill your own wheat, build your own machinery, train your own emergency personnel, teach your own kids, build your own infrastructure, defend your own borders, etc, etc, etc.

It's a two-way street. Don't expect the benefits of civilization if you don't want to support urban areas.

Vancouver builds nothing

Vancouver produces very little of actual value. I just looked through more than half of the 1000 jobs being offered at the bc jobs/ vancouver link (below) and there were very few that had anything to do with anyone actually making something. There were lots of jobs for lawyers, accountants, legal secretaries and even a few engineers, some construction supervisors, but no jobs for people who make things for export. The very great bulk of the jobs were white collar and service related.

Vancouver and its burbs form a great maw that paves over, consumes and borrows against the true wealth of the province. The rest of the province carries the city people. The city people would be gone in a flash if the farmers, loggers, miners and resort operators in the Heartland were gone. You owe them a big thank you Stump. Like I told you before on another thread, the Interior could market its products just fine (and maybe be able t keep the middleman's cut in the Interior) without Vancouver.

http://www.bcjobs.ca/searchjobs.cfm?StartRow=981&q=&title=0&cat=&region=&jobtype=1%2C2%2C3%2C4&city=vancouver&empl=1&recr=1&sort=&ssshow=0

Building 'nothing' is the way it goes

The tertiary sector always grows as all societies evolve. It's not right or wrong it's the essential and natural evolution.

wiki

Economies tend to follow a developmental progression that takes them from a heavy reliance on agriculture and mining, toward the development of industry (e.g. automobiles, textiles, shipbuilding, steel) and finally toward a more service based structure. Whereas the first economy to follow this path in the modern world was the United Kingdom, the speed at which other economies have later made the transition to service-based, sometimes called post-industrial, has accelerated over time.

Historically, manufacturing tended to be more open to international trade and competition than services. As a result, there has been a tendency for the first economies to industrialize to come under competitive attack by those seeking to industrialize later, e.g. because production, especially labour, costs are lower in those industrializing later. The resultant shrinkage of manufacturing in the leading economies might explain their growing reliance on the service sector.

stump!

A two way street implies mutual trade. Site C (and all the others before it) consists of TAKING without recompense, or with a "payment" decided by the users and not the vendors. It's called rape, once the euphemisms have been dispelled.

Sharing Is Good is right on the money......

correction

Those folks wouldn't have enough of a market without urban areas to survive. Well, the farmers could self-sustain for a while, but without cash flow they'd be reduced to a horse and plow in no time.

Beyond the economics of it, there's things like tolerance for others, cultural inter-mingling, and a thousand other intangibles that are the result of cities existing.

Without conglomerations of people in one area, we're going back in time. History has proven this more than once.

The idea that today's rural residents could continue on w/out urban areas w/out a sea change in their way of life is as ludicrous as suggesting urban areas don't need rural areas as part of the whole system of interdependence. Sure, it has flaws and areas that need improvement. But what we have is still better than isolated villages full of ignorant people... as we've had in times past.

Of course, if y'all are totally self-sufficient already, you have a point, but I'm guessing your power comes from the grid, your manufactured goods built in cities and shipped from a central depot somewhere, and the books and movies you consume weren't produced in somebody's uncle's barn.

How will Balkanizing our world into us and them, city and country achieve anything?

Having grown up in a small town that's very much the attitude that prevails IMO... usually coming from the cab of a pickup built in Detroit/Windsor.

Oh well, as long as your barber knows enough basic medicine to wash his hands before the trepanning to release the evil humours polluting your bodily essences, I'm sure you'll manage just fine w/out cities.
:-)

rape?

Have you ever been violently forced to have sex against your will Rick? A trade imbalance is not rape.

As for Site C and things of its ilk... the province as a whole belongs to us all. You don't own the water or the Crown land as a rural resident anymore than I own the Robson St. courthouse as an urban one.

What a stupid argument

Of course rural and urban are dependant on each other. We all know where the raw materials come from and where the farms and ranches are.

And we all know where computers and internet servers, as an example, come from too, don't we.

They feed off of, and on, each other.

crown land - schmown land

The land bordering the Peace River is covered with private farms that some families have spent three and four generations building up. Those lnads are not crown land, they will need to be expropriated if the dam goes in.

And Stump & Realisticman, you keep talking about Vancouver as if it is performing lots of services and manufacturing things people need. Vancouver, by and large, manufactures very little that the rest of the world wants. That is why BC imports more than it exports. This imbalance of trade has occurred under Campbell's policies.

Vancouver is going to have to do more to support itself. Historically and metaphorically, one can't keep drawing the resources from the hinterlands to Rome without making new conquests, bringing new spoils to the city. The last I looked, Vancouver doesn't have an army running about and stealing the wealth of newly conquered lands. With the resources of the rest of the province, and your big city pool of labour, BC should have everything it needs to be an exporter of quality products that the rest of the world wants. Your city is not pulling its weight. Of course, it doesn't help that the Campbell government keeps farming the building of ferries and the accounting of our money out to other countries.

SharingIsGood

On the money again as some would say.

In which case this should be taken into consideration to ensure adequate compensation when the land is expropriated.

That's as far as it goes though because I don't think they are entitled to any more sympathy than an other property owner faced with the same situation.

Presumably they are adults and should know that there are no guarantees in life.

A skilled negotiator might even be able to get them a much better deal in the long run.

What a 'society' cares about.

When the only values that mean anything to a society are monetary ones the debate ceases to be about fundamentals and is reduced to little more than haggling over the price.

In terms of land values, that's exactly where modern corporate agri-business is leading us - it's hardly surprising that agricultural values would take a back seat to waste and over-consumption.

I'm surprised we don't just call it by its proper name - prostitution - such a surrender to the cash register is little more than corporate nihilism.

Thankfully, many young people seem to be catching on to the mess the 20th century has created in trying to accomodate corporate 'values' and market 'solutions' at the expense of people and the environment.

They may save us yet.

Flood the farms

You know, G West, Snert believes it is time to flood the farms so that people in the cities can heat large virtually empty houses houses, and second houses/condos.

It is time the large houses were subdivided. What was once a problem of the cities needing more space disappears when you split 4500 sq. ft. houses into 3, 4, or 5 units. Future energy needs are scaled back. Properly laid out, a family of 4 can live quite nicely in 900 sq. ft.

what if?

If the financial markets collapse tomorrow, we'll have a fairly real-world experiment of who is dependent on who.

The ratio of country folks to city slickers was about 9:1 in the great depression - and an estimated 7 million people died in the US due to starvation. The ratio is now inverted.

By all means "Flood the farms "

You are still going to need the power if you wish to meaningfully tackle CO2 reduction.

Once again the blinkers come on and people only see what they want. We could double the current output of power and maybe start putting a dent in greenhouse gas production.

How were you planning on heating these 'new' smaller houses, still with natural gas?

We have an ability to make massive reductions in CO2 output even if we keep it just to ourselves but the cost will be increased hydro electric generation.

Your trying to have your cake and eat it too, SharingIsGood. It ain't gonna work. G West knows that.

Creating a Buzz in the State of Denmark

British energy consultant Hugh Sharman, based in Denmark, documented wind power's capacity for subzero performance in a report published by Civil Engineering magazine in 2005. With more wind power per capita than any other country, Denmark (population 5.4 million) is the world's showroom nation for this highly fashionable form of renewable energy.

Although the United States and Germany generate more wind power in absolute terms, Denmark boasts the world's greatest "wind density" - wind power per capita. With 19 per cent of its electricity now generated by more than 6,000 wind turbines, Denmark produces 80 times as much wind power per capita as Britain.

Why, then, does Denmark export almost all of its wind power - at a revenue loss? Why, then, does Denmark still operate all of its conventional coal-fired power plants? In a phrase, Mr. Sharman says, the reason is Denmark's "wildly fluctuating wind power."

It turns out that Denmark's vast array of turbines often produce minimal electricity when demand is high, maximum electricity when demand is low. Basing his analysis on data from a single year (2002), Mr. Sharman reported that wind power produced less than 1 per cent of the country's electricity supply on 54 different days. On one of these 54 days, the wind turbines took more power from the grid than they produced. (Wind turbines consume considerable electricity whether winds are blowing or not blowing.)

British author and energy analyst Tony Lodge makes the same point in a report by the Centre for Policy Studies, a London think tank. "Not a single conventional power plant has been closed in the period that Danish wind farms have been developed," he says. "Because of the intermittency and variability of the wind, conventional power plants have had to be kept running at full capacity to meet the actual demand for electricity and to provide backup."

Only 3.3 per cent of Denmark's wind power gets "accepted" on the grid for domestic consumption. In 2003, Denmark exported 84 per cent of its wind-generated electricity at money-losing rates. Danish consumers paid $517-million (U.S.) in wind power subsidies in the first six months of 2007 alone. In 2006, Denmark produced 36 per cent more carbon emissions than the year before.

stump

In a country that outwardly believes in democracy and the marketplace, nothing "belongs" to us as a given. We have to TRADE what we have that someone else wants or needs, for what they have that we want or need.

Or are you inclined to regard the lower mainland more as an empire, complete with colonies and vassal states that were conquered? Doesn't sound very democratic......

And while you may choose to live in a concrete box called a city, you must realize that there are precious few resources within that box, and that you must necessarily conjure up something of use to someone else, for the food, water, and energy you need.

snert

In a democracy, property is NOT expropriated. The so-called "greater good" is a communist trademark.

And just how do you determine "adequate compensation" when a farm could reasonably expect to accommodate several generations of farmers?

Invest in amo

'Sharing is Good' writes:

"It is time the large houses were subdivided."

Oh, like voluntarily or do you have something else in mind?

Expropriation refers to confiscation of private property with the stated purpose of establishing social equality. This is a politically motivated and forceful redistribution of private property, taking wealth from the rich to feed the poor in order to establish social justice, in the Robin Hood style.

Unlike eminent domain, expropriation takes place beyond the common law legal systems and refers to socially-motivated confiscations of any property rather than to taking away the real estate. No compensation to owners is given. The term appears as "expropriation of expropriators (ruling classes)" in marxist theory, or as slogan "Loot the looters!", very popular during Russian October Revolution [1]

The term often refers to nationalization campaigns by communist states, such as dekulakization and collectivization in the USSR [2]. It may also refer to robberies by revolutionaries to fund their political activities, such as robberies by Joseph Stalin and Kamo in Russian Empire.

Don't forget "Sharing is Good' that Trotsky has written.

That means your farms in the boonies too.

By the way, do you have many teaching hospitals and scientific research centres in the boonies? We have a few down here in the happy but evil big smoke.

Let's back up here a second

No way RickW. You started this tangent by suggesting cities should essentially be walled enclaves that were entirely self-sufficient in terms of energy. Now you're willing to trade energy for what you want that is produced in urban areas. Are you changing your position to something a little more realistic or what?

With a skilled negotiator.

Oddly enough adequate compensation can include more than money.

You just made that up, didn't you?

Socialism can come in moderation too.

Say we don't flood the farms. Say they are used by their illustrious owners to grow bio fuels or raise the dreaded beef cattle. What then?

No stump

I haven't changed paramters at all.

Cities at one time WERE walled enclaves, complete with farms, water, et al.

To repeat myself, cities are so used to TAKING, that the idea of TRADE seems to have vanished into the ether.

Case in point -- the Boleshevik Revolution was largely a revoluton of the cities. And one of things the cities did was form armies to march into the countryside and strip it of the food the cities needed to survive -- to the extent that millions of peasants starved to death in the process.
That is what is happening here, except in a "kinder, gentler" way.

And snert: how about marijuana instead?

Really?

Canada
Expropriation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-21
Expropriation Act Basic Rate Order, C.R.C., c. 640
Expropriation Fees Regulations, S.O.R./2000-142
Tariff of Costs, S.O.R./99-308
National Energy Board Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-7

British Columbia
Expropriation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 125
Expropriation Act General Regulation, B.C. Reg. 451/87
Expropriation Compensation Board Practice and Procedure Regulation, B.C. Reg. 452/87
Tariff of Costs Regulation, B.C. Reg. 189/99

realisticman: Quote:Expropri

realisticman:

Oh, new really, to copy verbatim from a webpage without referencing? And to copy from Wikipedia, no less? (Wikipedia is not exactly the pinnacle of reliability.) For shame!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Expropriation&oldid=217777585

"Eminent domain" is an American term:

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/real_estate/eminent_domain.html

Actually, you would know that if you have read the entire Wikipedia article you stole from. Or should I say "expropriated from"? :)

Oops!

That should read "[b]Now really,

funny city folks

It seems some city folks want to be able to kick people off of their farms, but they don't like it when they are told they need to down-size. Tit for tat.

While you city slickers are trying to figure out how to get us dumb bumkins to give you more for all the little you produce, maybe you could start figuring out how to reduce your needs and generate some power of your own. You can start by recovering the heat from the hot water you use. Then you can make sure that all of your hot water tanks have jackets or are on-demand etc. Only run your dishwashers when they are ful and use the econowash cycle. And, if you really want to take our farms (food out of your grandchildrens' mouths), maybe you can put some solar panels on all of your houses and businesses first.

Reavealed

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revealed

re·veal
Pronunciation:
\ri-ˈvēl\
Function:
transitive verb
Etymology:
Middle English revelen, from Anglo-French reveler, from Latin revelare to uncover, reveal, from re- + velare to cover, veil, from velum veil
Date:
14th century.

Quite right jimmy. Got lazy. Too busy.

If that's your choice.

Go for it. I have no need.

City folk never get kicked off anything.

Right! Country folk are the epitome of conservationists. OK

I call bs

RickW:

Your original position was cities had to be self-sufficient w/r/t energy needs, now it's OK to trade goods and services for energy.

You've totally changed parameters, but you're still trying to lay the boots to city people.

I'm calling you on it friend.

SIG:

Have you done all those things you recommend?

done more than that Stump

Some years ago, I rebuilt/renovated the entire older home we purchased. Through insulation, energy efficient appliances, modifying overhangs, and proper placing of good windows, shrubbery etc. I cut our energy costs down to 1/3 of what they were when we purchased it.

I am in the process of reviewing solar panels to install when I do the reroof this summer or next, though I will only get the use of the panels for 8.5 months out of the year (at best). The house is in the shadow of the north face of a mountain and though it blocks much cold wind, it also blocks the sun - but not the snow, sadly enough.

Though I don't yet have one I will be installing a high efficiency wood stove to further reduce my energy needs. The beetle wood is everywhere, and plenty of it is being burnt in the slash piles. I'll take my wood from the slash piles rather than let the heat go to waste.

Though public transit is not available to me, and 4800 km/yr is spent driving to my place of employment (my wife walked to work from our home for 15 years), I drive but 6000-7000 km/yr in total. That's 1200 to 2200 km/yr and we are about a 200 km trip from the nearest city with a hospital, orthodontist, or movie theatre.

I am not like Gordon Campbell, I walk the talk. How about you, Stump?

correction

should read: That's 1200 - 2200 km/yr in driving unrelated to work...

stump

The only equitable trade is between parties who ARE self-sufficient, etc. Trading from the standpoint of need ALWAYS puts that party at a disadvantage. Cities NEED the basic stuff of life as we know it. They are therefore at a disadvantage, and cover that up by acting the bully.

I reiterate, had the hydro projects of Wacky Bennett not been fulfilled, cities by now would have had the green energy devices this article talks about. Either that, or they would have perished.

The air still gets dirtier

You can dirty the air with a clean conscience. Amazing. Oh, but you are not reducing your energy needs you are just substituting a dirty source for a clean one.

You're joking, right!

Or didn't this:

Some years ago, I rebuilt/renovated the entire older home we purchased. Through insulation, energy efficient appliances, modifying overhangs, and proper placing of good windows, shrubbery etc. I cut our energy costs down to 1/3 of what they were when we purchased it.

register.

No, but you are.

Please explain how switching energy sources is reducing energy needs.

Get on the same planet.

Quote:I am not like Gordon

Definitely.

I don't own a vehicle, but rent one 3 or 4 times a year for a weekend for trips to the Island or Okanagan. All my trips in town are by bike, bus, the occasional cab, or carpool by friends.

I don't own my home either, but chose to rent close to town where my work and clients are rather than waste money and time commuting for the benefit of my own patch of lawn (although I live in a converted house and have a nice backyard that the landlord looks after). My food mostly comes from the farmer's market when in season. Haven't been on a plane for a few years now, and vacation locally.

I'd suggest that when it comes right down to it, the average urban dweller's footprint is a bit lower than the average rural resident. That's certainly the 'conventional wisdom'.

RickW:

You keep moving the goalposts. Your original position was cities must be self-sufficient. Unless you acknowledge that you've changed the parameters of the debate, it's fruitless trying to address your points.

Quote:Cities NEED the basic

Well, while we're anthropomorphizing... rural areas are like the folks that want to go camping, but not without the fifth wheel and the satellite dish so they can tsk, tsk while watching the big city news in the back of beyond, hot cup of cocoa in hand, courtesy of the Cdn Tire hot-water-on-demand appliance.

When ya point a finger....

snert - slash pile

Perhaps you don't fully understand, snert.

A slash pile gets burnt anyway. They light them afire in early fall or late winter - when the fire hazards are way down. It is what is left-over when a piece of ground has been logged.

I am merely recovering the heat that would otherwise be lost through open air burning. I am doing my best to respect nature and the environment.

I fully understand.

Slash piles should be ground up and properly incinerated or redistributed to the forest floor to form compost.

Your high efficiency wood stove is no match for a well designed incinerator. It puts out too many particulates. I.E. it pollutes the air. Sorry but that is not environmentally friendly.

snert

Perhaps you can go change the Forest Practices Code, snert. Perhaps you can convince the Liberals and the forest companies to change their logging practices. If you can do that, I'll put you in for the Order of Canada. Until then, I find your behaviour quite rude, troll-like. Remember how so many cheered when Campbell deregulated the forests and made them responsible for self-regulation. Then remember how the number of logging deaths and accidents sky-rocketed. Yeah, those guys running those big forest companies are really conscientious. We know that self-regulation is no regulation at all. I wish you the best of luck in helping them change.

Until the Forest Practices change, I'm going to salvage what I can from their burn piles.

And snert, you need not suggest I am the one who needs to make the Forest Companies change. The arrogant Campbell government never seems to listen to anything I have to say. I already volunteer 6 hours per week on top of my full-time job working for the public and raising a family. You need to rethink how you treat others, snert: I am not your enemy.

I never said you were.

You, on the other hand, have implied that I because I might be 'city folk' am yours.

Sharing

If you can would you elaborate on your claim that:
"Remember how so many cheered when Campbell deregulated the forests and made them responsible for self-regulation. Then remember how the number of logging deaths and accidents sky-rocketed." Who's telling the truth?

http://www.bcforestsafe.org/

statistics question

What's the per capita break out on those injuries? It seems to me if there's less people working in the woods, it's quite likely that injuries would go down in total, but it might not mean the forest sector is any safer.

When ya point a finger....

Folks were farmers long before there were cities.

Farmers trade through convenience, and don't NEED the toys.

I suppose (to concede a point) city folks COULD tear up their lawns and plant turnips, raise chickens, et al.

But the point of this article is, city folks are not carrying their share of the (green) load, preferring to burn coal and dam rivers, from and on land that is not theirs. Then they ship out their detritus, polluting whatever land (or waterway) that is again not theirs.

And by doing this, they lost the incentive to innovate.

I note that the page cannot

I note that the page cannot be found that displays the huge increase in accidents and deaths that occurred in the forest industry 2001-2005. Perhaps the Government had it removed because it was too embarrassing. The new report only focuses on a reduction of victims 2005-2007. I am pretty sure that with the reduction the rate is still well above the pre-Campbell rate, but I can't quantify it - the government records have disappeared.

If you follow the link at the bottom of the following webpage page, you will see that the report has been removed. It looks like 1984 is here, boys and girls.

http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/archive/2001-2005/2003OTP0058-000700.htm

Here is what the the workers have to say about what is happening:

http://www.usw.ca/program/content/4005.php

Here is the Auditor General's report:
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:X3vKrlVCwtsJ:www.bcauditor.com/PUBS/2007_08/Report5/Rpt5-BackGrounder%2520Forest%2520Safety%2520Workers%2520Jan%252023%25202008.pdf+BC+forest+industry+injuries&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=ca

Note the four key findings of the Auditor General.

R/Man

The 'catch' here revolves around WCB-covered employment. Does this include contract workers?

forest industry injuries

From Auditor General's report:

o Planning for safety is weak: Currently, timber harvest planning does not include safety as a major goal. Plans are not developed or reviewed by safety experts, and the people reviewing plans lack the expertise to make safety assessments. In coal mining in this province, both the extraction plan and the equipment to be used must be reviewed for safety, and authorized, before any activity takes place. No equivalent process exists in timber extraction.

o There is not enough on-site supervision: At present, supervision in British Columbia’s forest industry is spotty and very often entirely absent. Forest industry culture still makes a virtue of working without supervision. Traditionally, the industry has considered some tasks, such as tree falling, as not needing close supervision. Yet some of the most serious incidents happen in this activity.

o Compliance and enforcement activities are not sufficient to eliminate death and serious injury: Inspections, education and enforcement activity have not been sufficient to eliminate death and serious injury. WorkSafeBC’s inspections and prevention sections cut staffing from 2002 to 2004, just at the time when large forestry firms were disappearing and many small contractors were being hired by forest licensees to do the most dangerous work. More recently, some small increase in personnel has occurred, but that increase has not been matched to the risk presented by the loss of forest worker safety infrastructure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
3 o Information is not being adequately analyzed: Because no government agency is currently monitoring all activity in the forest sector, important analytical work is not being done. No government body has the lead for monitoring the entire forest industry and reporting on progress in eliminating death and serious injury of forestry workers.

http://www.bcauditor.com/PUBS/2007_08/Report5/Rpt5-BackGrounder%20Forest%20Safety%20Workers%20Jan%2023%202008.pdf

Who is covered.

http://www.worksafebc.com/help/faqs/default.asp?section=Insurance#Who%20needs%20workplace%20insurance?6

Sharing and Stump

All jolly good fun to read but nowhere do I see any clear realistic numbers to substantiate the claim from 'SharingIsGood' that, "Then remember how the number of logging deaths and accidents sky-rocketed.", after this government deregulated.

So then, you just remember someone saying that? Or do you just think it must be so? Can't you even find a newspaper report or a loggers union blurb to back your statement up?

To answer your question, no. I remember hearing differently.

Auditor General

www.bcauditor.com/PUBS/2007_08/Report5/Rpt5-BackGrounder%20Forest%20Safety%20Workers%20Jan%2023%202008.pdf -

RickW

One other thing, while you're looking.

RickW

Would this include those living in multi-storey high-rises, that have only one plane facing the weather and five planes (three walls, ceiling, floor) facing other units? This type of dwelling is obviously far more efficient for temperature controlling than a lone standing house in the country where the radiant heat loss is perhaps five times greater.

Just for you, R-man

I am sure everone else remembers hearing about all the carnage in the forests on the radio in the papers and on the TV. Perhaps you have suffered amnesia, or have long-term memory problems. In the future, please do your own research before you post your arguments.

From the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/12/05/logging-051205.html

From the Tyee:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2005/12/09/LoggingDeathInquest/

Please read and educate yourself.

Your arguments are often very one-sided; you could improve that by adopting a more dialogical approach to these discussions.

I have mentioned in the past something to the extent:
I have noticed a tendency in your postings to ignor the big picture and pull some minutia out of a contributor's sincere post. It seems you then blow that info out of proportion and, in an attempt to discount everything that person has said, find some minor counter argument to it. You see, Realisticman, truth is not a game for me. I am far too old to want a nannering adolescent debate that is more about winning and losing an argument rather than seeking ways to make existence better for all beings (plants and animals included) on the planet. I find your posts tiresome and annoying.

implications - snert

snert, if you happen to be a city dweller that is doing his part to reduce his environmental footprint (which includes generating your own electricity and recovering heat) then I am not talking to you. My beef is with city dwellers wanting to flood people's farms and alter nature more than 1000 km away so that they don't have to change their lifestyles. My problem is with people who want to put others out of house, home and farm, before they have done what they can to mitigate the need for more power.

When you have to ship electricity so far away, much power gets lost, goes to waste. Why not generate it closer to where it is used? Why not get people moving in that direction, as it makes sense keep the generation near the user? Why not get people trained to use solar, waterwheel, geothermal and wind energy? Where are the education initiatives if the city people really do have all that intellectual/technical savvy? It is the way of the future for the bulk of the planet. Vancouver could actually start manufacturing alternative energy equipment instead of people having to import their generators from China.

The line loss is tolerable.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses

In the context which you are talking about there are three hydro generating plants within close proximity to the lower mainland.

Plans are afoot to utilize the the flow from the Capilano dam to generate power as well as provide drinking water.

Geothermal heating/cooling is going into more and more new construction. Solar is minimal for the most part because people will not tolerate having air scrubbing trees cut to allow their neighbour to get exposure to the sun. The wind simply does not blow 95% of the time.

As I mentioned before BC has the capacity to significantly reduce the consumption of greenhouse gases, not just locally but in North America as well.

We're not talking drop-in-the-bucket belt tightening but large scale projects of the magnitude of Site C.

The changes you speak of are not going to happen fast enough and in some cases are just not economical either monetarily or in energy used for production.

I think you are being unrealistic in your expectations mainly because most people are not fortunate enough to live out in the country where they have your room to manoeuvre. Maybe we should all move out of town.

Bingo

Yes, and, hopefully, put in a garden and have some good neighbours with whom you can get together and share triumphs and burdens.

In the meantime, there are many innovations regarding tidal and river power that are not being utilized.

http://www.pugetsoundtidalpower.com/Technology/gorlov_turbine.htm

The above turbines are fish-friendly, and can utilize the power in slower moving waters.

http://www.hydrovolts.com/Main%20Pages/Hydrokinetic%20Turbines.htm

R/Man

Are you factoring in the energy cost of the construction, the increase in local traffic generated, the concentration of effluents and the impact of same on disposal systems, etc......?

Sharing

As I said before, "who's telling the truth?". Sharing, you say I blow things out of proportion, when I read a post from you that says that injuries and deaths in the timber industry has "skyrocketed", then it's fair ball to expect that statement to be clarified.

WorkSafe BC seems to have numbers covering Statistics for Forestry 2001-2005:

2001-Claims:2,207 Serious Injuries:101 Deaths:28
2002-Claims:1,927 Serious Injuries:106 Deaths:25
2003-Claims:1,763 Serious Injuries:81 Deaths:15
2004-Claims:1,742 Serious Injuries:111 Deaths:12
2005-Claims:1,693 Serious Injuries:93 Deaths:34

I'll grant you that there were too many deaths in one year, namely 2005 but overall things are/were stable and overall one can clearly see declines. You may be really nice to all living things (except those politicians you so love to hate) and groovy for you but I'd have to say that your supposition that rates have skyrocketed is baloney. If you don't think that deaths and injuries are worthy of honest debate and the specific facts related to them are merely adolescent-like minutiae then I'm sorry for you.

http://www2.worksafebc.com/Portals/Forestry/Statistics.asp

RickW

I though those in the country had to drive more.

And commute to work.

Bingo?

Perhaps we can defer to the Auditor General

If I might be permitted to quote:

"The government's efforts are just being implemented and have not yet proven to be effective," Doyle states. "There has been no detectable impact on rates of death and serious injury."

Small contractors and workers have been made responsible for their own safety, government involvement in safety is fragmented and existing regulations have not been vigorously enforced, Doyle said in his 88-page progress report.

http://www.bcauditor.com/pubs/2007_08/report5/preventing%20fatalities%20and%20serious%20injuries%20web.pdf

"The current expectation in the industry is that the smallest contractors and sub-contractors - firms that typically employ fewer than five workers - will carry the largest burden for worker safety," Doyle states.

"These small firms, many of whom are self-employed individuals, generally lack the knowledge, organization and financial resources to meet safety responsibilities."

R-man

The Tyee article listed 41 logging related deaths listed for 2005. Perhaps deaths are recorded differently for your Work-safe forestry stats.

Though I commented that they had gone up, I have never been so much concerned about stats as I have been about the lack of regulation in the industry. Deregulation of the industry has led to weak safety practices and reduced supervision. Finally, compliance with the rules that exist is not adequately monitored. Deregulation is the prime culprit in the the deaths according to the people I know in the industry. The auditor general's report makes it quite clear that the Campbell government has not been showing due dilligence. I have never known an Auditor General's report to lie about such things. The deregulation of the industry was legislated in 2002.

My take on the stats you gave: The logging companies completed their existing contracts over the next couple of years while they planned for implementing the changes in earnest in '04. The Campbell Government only started making some safety changes when the word got out.

Here is a link that gets you to Final report of the Forest Safety Task Force: 2004

http://www.worksafebc.com/publications/publication_index/f.asp

Even after that report was submitted, the Campbell government did not act upon it for 2 years; hence, the disasterous 2005 year.

GWest

I gave hime the link to the report then quoted those same words from the Auditor General's report, GWest. Either he refuses to believe the report, or he doesn't fully comprehend written English that runs counter to what the Campbell government wants to hear. Stats can be twisted every which way, but when one looks at the individual coroner's reports, one finds that nearly every death in the logging industry was avoidable had Work Safe BC or the Auditor General been taken seriously.

It seems the increased danger in the forest/logging industry is all about numbers to R-Man. If he can massage them enough it isn't about people. Like the farmers in the Peace River, people will pay the price when the R-Mans of BC look at things from a current monetary value-only perspective. Families losing their loved one or families losing their cherished way of life, it doesn't matter to them. They don't understand that one death is too many for the family to bear. I don't know how they get so insensitive.

SharingIsGood

I think you are right - facts and figures and professional research and opinions don't mean much to the ideologically committed.

I would have thought that the report of one of the few remaining offices of the Provincial Government that have not been made over into a pale simulacrum of their former professional selves might have made an impression.

If only the Campbell Government would spend on action what they waste on media relations and spin. Have you seen the execrable ads for the Campbell Tax - quoting the utterly nonsensical fiction that 2.3c / litre will remove the equivalent CO2 of 800,000 vehicles from BC roads.

I can't understand how intelligent people can countenance such lies without rebelling.

Furthermore, I can’t understand how well informed people can permit themselves to be so duped

Official BC is blind to alternative power generation, the media appear to be blind to anything other than Campbell’s empty slogans and deaf to hollow self-interest of the Premier’s political rhetoric.

Facts & Figures & Action-Reaction

They mean a lot to me and that's why I quoted them. Unless you have some proof that WorkSafe BC is fudging the numbers then we have to agree that claims and injuries are down, although there was a spike in individual fatalities in one year.

It's only an obligatory and natural reaction to the NDP campaign.

http://letsaxethetax.bcndp.ca/

I think it might not be too hard to imagine

That Work‘safe’ BC is not at in arm's length relationship to the statistics and the companies who finance them - or that, all things being equal, one might find much more trustworthy information and professional conclusions in the report of an "independent" officer of the legislature.

And, for those few who aren't aware of it, the NDP hasn't been in power in this province since May of 2001.

To suggest that the NDP has anything whatever to do with the auditor general's report on safety in the woods is absurd.

The only campaigning going on is by and at the direction of the Bureau of Public Affairs - a growing group of people appointed by OIC and serving at the pleasure of Gordon Campbell.

Whole sections of the provincial civil service have been de-professionalized and peopled by political hacks - as anyone within the ranks of the committed professional public service will testify.

The only obligatory thing about it is their loyalty to the Premier and their willingness to obfuscate, dissemble and, frankly, mislead.

BC is in a very sad state.

Disingenuous

That's a disingenuous reading of my post. I broke it into two sections and you know very well that the second section referred to your diversion, by raising the government's CO2 tax ads. Nowhere did I suggest that the NDP had anything to do with the auditor general's report. That's absurd.

The auditor general made comments but the statistical facts cannot be disputed; unless you really want to go on record as suggesting that WorkSafeBC is in thrall to the forestry companies.

Opposition to the present government in BC is clearly convulsed, imagining conspiracies everywhere and flailing.

Au contraire

You've conflated a tiny grass roots effort by the NDP to give actual people an opportunity to express their contempt for the Campbell Tax with a major professional campaign by that government to sell the lie that 800,000 vehicle equivalent C02 producing units will be removed from the equation. A lie promoted by a cadre of 200+ OIC appointees who do this stuff for a living. Along with a pile of execrable and demeaning slogans - Orwell would be shocked.

And yes, I think WorkSafe (even the name is an Orwellian spin – it’s the Workers Compensation Board) is in the thrall, not just of the Forest companies, but of management in general.

Ask any disabled worker who is on, or has been on, disability pension for the last half-dozen years.

I stand by my statements. This government is full of cronyism, outright illegality and a total contempt for the law and normal practice in ways that will not become apparent until it has been defeated and sent to the scrap pile of history.

There are no rules for Campbell and the clones who answer the phone in the middle of the night when he calls them.

They all respond with a breathless ..."Yessir, at your service sir, three bags full, right away."

Sadly, it appears a number of otherwise intelligent people among the public have either bought the same story or are prepared to surrender their critical faculties for monetary gain. In the case of CanWest Global, it would appear (judging by their performance of their stock of late) that even that isn’t working out too well.

The auditor general's report, especially in a market where the number of man hours in the woods is plummeting, is a strong indictment of the 'forest practices' of both the government and what's left of the industry.

Continue shipping those raw logs offshore and we won't even have that to worry about for long.

Just what "alternative power generation"

are they "blind to?"

They introduced the glorious 'hydrogen highway', have given up on Ballard, have approved or are in the process of approving several wind farms, examined the use of beetle killed pine as a fuel source for generation and have attempted to encourage run-of-the-river projects. They've also said no to coal and nuclear so other than solar and tidal what else are they missing?

I'm not supporting them, just wondering.

economically and environmentally

Economically,
Environmentally,
Morally,

Through poor leadership,

Your words couldn't be truer, GWest.

"Don't it always seem to go that you don't know what you've got till it's gone?

They pave paradise put up a ...

Convention Center
Road to Whistler
Newly twinned bridge
Fish farm
Clearcut
Sliding Center
Dam on the Peace
Whole log booming ground
Delta Port parking lot
Tax break for the corporations
Rail road sale

The majority of the capital expenditures and deregulations by this Campbell government do not offer long term economic pay-off for average British Columbians while they do offer environmental degredation.

New York, San Francisco, Boston, LA, Seattle were once beautiful. too. When the first settlers/pilgrims arrived they could not believe the beauty filling their eyes. People farmed Manhatten. Vancouver is headed down that tried and grotesque path of inviting millions of immigrants while erecting concrete, glass and asphalt to contain them.

The Fraser and Okanagan Valleys have had some of the most productive farm land in BC; yet, this government continues to allow developers to cover them over, making them unuseable. Now the inhabitants of the Lower Mainland want to cover the farmland in the Peace. When is it going to stop? Where are all the city people going to get their food when transportation becomes too expensive for shipping green-picked pesticide-laden and herbicide-laden pseudo-food from Mexico?

Old news worn out stories.

(1)'hydrogen highway' - you're joking again please see the Terminator - ref California;

(2) wind farms - let's wait and see - you can be sure if there's a way for Campbell's friends to turn a profit on the 'idea' that they'll do so - although I'd prefer a public financed and built project - with no profits for Campbell's friends - to evaluate its viability;

(3) I think you know what I think of the enronization of power production in this province and my views of run of river are well known - old news. Hardly unique.

(4) Coal - you're not serious are you? We sell enough coal now to China and the east to make our carbon footprint (were it taken into the bargain) as foul as Alberta's.

(5) Nuclear - Give Campbell another 4 years and wait for that promise to be broken with the same equanimity he's torn up all the other ones he made;

(6) Solar and tidal - see above;

(7) Selling off parts of Hydro to profit and destroying the entity as a cohesive and powerful actor for the public interest in the field; ignoring decisions of the regulator relative to Kitimat and Alcan:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061123.rmalcan1124/BNStory/specialROBmagazine/home/?pageRequested=all

I could go on, but what's the point? This government is determined to squander one of the few competitive advantages - cheap and clean power - the province still has in its rush to worship at the altar of the failed and false gods of the market. Jacking up prices of electricity to please Campbell's friends is, as noted by spark.1234 above here, treason.

Plain and simple - hope that clears up your wondering. Just like the disaster of corporate farming and mulit-national agri-business, the destruction of our society and the viability of our people as a self-sufficient, proud, equitable and independent nation of free people continues apace.

Clear as mud.

What are they not seeing.....or ignoring in "alternative power generation?" I will accept wilful blindness.

NOT SEEING - IGNORING - Take your choice

The Campbell government is NOT SEEING the value of the potential it already HAD in the generating capacity of BC HYDRO as an operating public entity. I prefer ignoring and squandering; selling out and wasting as the appropriate descriptors.

Alternative forms of generation to supplement existing hydro resources should be explored and developed by and for the public - just as WAC Bennett created the legacy of BC Hydro in the first place.

That's what responsible public policy is all about - something that Gordon Campbell, steeped in corporate kleptocracy to the core, cannot understand.

Instead of a legacy, Campbell is leaving the province with nothing but a lot of IOUs from his friends.

I might encourage you, for example, to investigate the investment history of the BC Investment Management Corporation during the period when the 'sale' of BC Rail was proceeding to Canadian National.

There are greasy fingerprints all over the purloined assets of this province.

At long last

It takes some of these guys ages to wake up.

OTTAWA–Reid Scott, a former judge, Toronto city councillor and one of the first people in Canada to be elected under the NDP banner, is abandoning his six-decade long attachment to the party and joining the federal Liberals.

Apropos of WHAT?

Wasn't the subject here the provincial Campbell Party and its mismanagement?

Funny how it always comes down to irrelevancies doesn't it?

The NDP has never been in power federally - it takes a committed individual to keep on fighting for principles, ethics and the right thing to do.

Most folks just settle for a slice of power and bury their principles - anyone with a tiny bit of knowledge of Canadian history knows this to be a long-standing truth in this country. Those without much experience of Canada and its past might find it surprising - others are never surprised at the corrosive effect of expediency and the depth of excuses people will provide for not doing the right thing.

The last thing Canada needs is more turn-coats. In truth though, what difference does it make – the Federal Liberals and the Harper Conservatives are little more than the same cake with green icing – at the moment.