BC's Clashing Shades of Green
How 'run of river' and global warming are splitting enviros this election.
Berman and Mair: natural foes?
The environmental movement in British Columbia has always had its internal differences, but in the past it's been able to rally around election time, raising the profile of issues like fish farming, or endangered species protection.
Proving more fractious this time for the movement is an issue that could help define next months' provincial election: renewable energy development.
Initially, a lot of enviros were open to the idea that river currents could be a source of generating renewable energy. A kind of green rush swept B.C. as private firms took advantage of B.C. government incentives to establish electricity generating projects that diverted river water for a stretch, used it to drive turbines, then returned the water to the river bed.
But a broad based movement has grown against those IPPs (independent power producers) and their "run of river" projects. Among the most high-profile opponents is long time B.C. journalist Rafe Mair, who writes a column for The Tyee and also stumps the province speaking on behalf of Save Our Rivers Society. Mair, the Wilderness Committee non-profit, the Council of Canadians and others argue that the private projects are destructive to river ecologies, cause roads and power lines to intrude on wilderness areas, and undermine public control over power supply.
But in recent months, environmentalists with different priorities, as well as the Klahoose First Nation, have thrown their weight against the anti-run-of-river brigade. Well known green activist Tzeporah Berman (who's also been published on The Tyee) and others argue that river-generated electricity is a way to reduce carbon emissions. They say the fight against it in B.C. undercuts action on a global environmental issue: climate change.
Berman's organization PowerUp Canada kicks off in Vancouver today its conference on developing a green economy. If the Save Our Rivers people attend at all, they'll hardly be reading from the same (political) program.
'New divide' in eco-voters
George Hoberg, a political scientist and forestry professor at the University of British Columbia, has been exploring the IPP issue with students in his sustainable energy policy course.
"There's a new divide, with concern to environment voters, between those more traditional, who are concerned about wilderness preservation and wildlife, and those who are more urgently concerned about climate change," he says.
Angus McAllister, of McAllister Public Research, says IPPs and run-of-river is a swing issue that could divide the environmental vote, "depending on how well each side positions itself with regard to trust in the private sector, and green jobs."
Last week the Wilderness Committee wrapped up its 10,000 Voices campaign, "to keep B.C.'s rivers wild." It urged citizens to phone the premier and ask for a moratorium on power development until they are "regionally planned, environmentally appropriate, acceptable to First Nations and publicly owned."
And Mair and the Save our Rivers Society lately has been touring the Sunshine Coast and Lower Mainland to rail against the environmental and social impacts of run-of-river development in the province, leading up to what they call British Columbia's watershed election.
Meanwhile, Berman, whose non-profit's primary focus is climate change, says the big question is "what will it take to build a green economy more generally." The PowerUp conference, she said, will not focus on the privatization debate.
"We're going to try and identify some recommendations to address public policy concerns related to environmental impacts," Berman said. "But at the same time, (we're) looking at how we can continue to expand." For example, Berman has drawn fire from run-of-river opponents for endorsing a large, 1,027 megawatt project in Bute Inlet, backed by Plutonic Power and General Electric.
Anxieties over private control
McAllister points to the collapse in private industry worldwide as a reason why British Columbians might be wary of private power expansion. And, for people in rural areas, he says, "The legacy of Alcan is probably going to resonate."
"People aren't against private power per se, but they want to know that it's regulated and that what they value is protected," says McAllister. "And I've never seen as much support for regulations as I've seen in the last 10 years."
According to public opinion research conducted last year by UBC's Collaborative for Advanced Landscape Planning, 47 per cent of 552 respondents across British Columbia strongly disagreed with the statement, "I trust government to make fair decisions about natural resources that balance species at risk protection and recovery and economic development.
A smaller majority (29 per cent) said natural resource management currently focuses too much on commercial activities, and the majority of respondents (35.8 per cent) said they strongly disagreed with the statement that there are enough checks and balances in place to ensure responsible natural resource management in B.C.
Communities want consultation
"The present situation isn't sitting well with communities," said John Bergenske, executive director of Wildsight, referring to run-of-river development in the province. "They don't feel like they're part of the discussion now. There's a total sense of both the environment and communities being run over."
Bergenske says parties could win votes by showing a willingness to properly engage communities on projects and impose stricter environmental controls.
Renewable energy could become an important election issue for people who don't necessarily consider themselves environmentalists if it is presented in terms of "what goes on in their backyard," concurs Jamie Lawson, a political science professor at the University of Victoria.
And that's in synch with what McAllister sees in a lot of polling data. Water rights trump global warming as a public concern because it's more close to the heart. But pitting one against the other is a losing game for enviros. "If the debate is turned into one of water rights versus global warming," he says, "then the green movement will all lose."
"Yes, B.C. needs to replace planet-warming fossil fuels with low-carbon energy sources," says Greenpeace co-founder Rex Weyler. But he urges fellow environmentalists to look closely at the scale of run-of-river projects when deciding whether to embrace or oppose.
"Excellent micro-hydro projects exist all over the world, many in Asia, using run-of-river, but the key is scale. These projects are village and community scale energy systems that take only a small, reasonable portion of the river-run, with low-impact technologies, and supply local power without long transmission lines."
But most of the projects slated for B.C. are much larger, and designed to export power out of the province, Weyler says. The Bute Inlet project endorsed by Berman will hook into "transmission lines down the coast to U.S. cities. This is not community micro-hydro. It is centralized industrial power," says Weyler, who claims "the Bute project is an order of magnitude too huge to even qualify for California's 'green energy' regulations, so that state has rejected it."
Berman and others on her side say B.C.'s regulations are strong enough to insure that approved run-of-river projects will be environmentally sound.
Big on voters' radar?
Does this scrap among environmentalists have the power make a difference in the B.C. election next month?
That depends who you ask. The economy still rates high on most people's minds, points out Michael Magee, a former NDP campaign manager and chief of staff for Mayor Gregor Robertson. In a recent Angus Reid Strategies poll, 36 per cent felt the economy was the most important issue facing British Columbia, and only five per cent thought the environment was.
"On the whole, I'm not sure it will have a huge amount of resonance," he says, of the IPP debate.
"I think the most salient issues, when you're just looking at top-of-mind concerns on the environment, is climate change, and closely associated with that is human health."
George Hoberg says it remains to be seen how this division amongst environmental voters -- those concerned about wildlife values, and those who rank climate change at the top of their priorities -- will play out in an election.
"We haven't really seen how that is going to work out in electoral terms," he says.
Carbon tax a bigger wedge?
Hoberg believes it's unlikely that the NDP's position against private power development would cost them support from the climate change contingent.
But he thinks their stance on Campbell's carbon tax likely will.
"That is driving traditionally NDP voters away from the party. And I think the Greens have a great opportunity to benefit from that.
But it's hard to tell... the support is very soft in terms of actually making a choice because people are more likely to make a choice for a candidate that will form the government."
Indeed, people who support third parties or independents "aren't seeing their voices heard," says Kevin Washbrook, director of Voters Taking Action on Climate Change.
That's a reason to support electoral reform, which is also on the May ballot, Washbrook notes. "A shift to a more proportional representation is gong to help them dampen down the more adversarial aspects of our electoral system," he says.
"It will decrease the dynamic where we have two parties ganging up on each other. Parties are going to have to reach out to broader range of voters. That will require more thoughtful response to policy."
What is green?
In the meantime, the green divide in B.C. is playing into the hands of big business interests, says Weyler. "After four decades in the environmental movement, it breaks my heart to see B.C. communities divided over this grab for power and local public assets."
Weyler says environmentalists, instead of figuring out new ways to meet increasing power demands, should be working on downshifting our economy and preserving nature.
"Rivers possess environmental values far beyond their ability to supply power for human consumption: salmon habitat, water cycling, filtration, forest stability, riparian small animal survival, bear food supply, local community water and power, and so forth," says Weyler. "The Earth has limits and we've reached them."
Related Tyee stories:
- In Canada, a Push for Obama-style Green Stimulus
PM to get plan backed by 850,000 group members. - War over River Power Escalates
Industry, foes clash over massive private Bute Inlet project. - Rough Weather Ahead
How global warming will hit BC. A Tyee reader-funded special series.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Fiat lux
07-04-2009
First of all, does anybody
First of all, does anybody dare to ask the simple question: What are those increasing power demands for and where is that power going?
When we look at the incredible overcapitalization of all industries, we can see that the whole purpose is to divert the benefits of resource extraction into the pockets of the new global aristocracy, the multinationals, by replacing the half horsepower of a human worker with 25 or 100 hp of automated mechanization.
The old rule used to be "1 wage year investment into a job". Today, even simple sawmill jobs are receiving 60-70 wage years of investment, causing the power demand rising to the sky.
Trucking and transporting resources and goods across countries and continents, because in the warped minds of economists it is "cheaper", plus the collectivization of industries, farming, etc. also raises the oil and electric power demands, yet nobody dares to mention that when physical inputs are increased, the damage can only be covered up temporarily with phony monetary figures, which also have to rise ultimately.....E.g. The over 1,000% cost of living inflation over the past 35 years, the simple and obvious result of "cost cuttings", by governments and industry.
The vast majority of jobs can be financed with very small investments and low energy inputs, but that would deprive the multinational corporate mafia from the control of the world and unlimited extortion rights, based on increased power demands and waste.
Unless this simple problem is recognized and solved there's no solution and we'll be going downhill.
Ed Deak.
Peter Dimitrov
07-04-2009
Sceptical of Campbell's Economic/Environmental Management
RORs are no longer classified as green energy sources by California - for good environmental, social and financial reasons.
While RORs MAY reduce greenhouse gase emission (GHG) the financial price we as BC consumers pay for IPP energy, namely between $60 -$120/MW is an extremely high price per ton of GHG emissions removed from the atmosphere, and that high price does not even include social and environmental impacts, or subsidies to the IPP sector by BC Transmission Corp for 'interlinkage' costs, and neither the public nor First Nations (with few exceptions) gets equity ownership...and given BC's low corporate tax rate the Public Treasury gets minimal monies --and therefore to compensate may have to seek resource rent revenue from other sources (oil& gas)-which are high GHG emitters.
Picking up the economic argument, if the BC Liberals are so dam good at managing the economy why are they allowing BC Hydro to enter into contracts with IPPs requiring them to buy IPP/ROR non firm, non peak power at excessive rates of $60 -$120.MW ..when FIRM, PEAK electrical energy can be purchased in the Western States at less than $28/MW [Source: Bloomberg.com -commodities listings). Furthermore, if the BC Liberals are such good economic managers why is that Heavy Industry and Commercial electrical users in BC...get the low Heritage Contract price GUARANTEED ...while we as residential and small business users have to pony up big bucks so that BC Hydro can pay those IPPs their monies at $60-$120/MW...We as residential and small business electrical consumers are getting 'fleeced' . Make no mistake, I am all for reducing GHG emissions - but lets do it in a cost-efficient manner per ton of GHG removed from the atmosphere...and not just accept that mere removal of any GHG is good thing environmentally, socially or fiscally. So where are your numbers "Power -Up" that will show the removal of GHGs by BC IPPs in their "ROR" projects is a triple-bottom line cost-effective method of removal for the public which must pay that bill fiscally, environmentally and social, say in comparision to price per ton of GHG emissions removal by BC Hydro?
Stump
07-04-2009
an energy analogy
Building more power generation right now (given the economy and emphasis we're placing on conservation) is like adding a nursery to your house after you've made an appt for a tubal ligation.
Peter Dimitrov
07-04-2009
Furthermore...Dr. Martin Shaffer said..
... in his still not refuted paper "Lost in Transmission" (available at Citizens for Public Power website under the Resources section).
"While classified as green,run-of-river and wind are green only in terms of their GHG emissions. They and the transmission lines they require can have signifi cant cumulative environmental effects. Moreover, they are relatively high in cost and low in value to the BC Hydro system. Run-of-river projects provide much of their energy in the spring time when it is least needed and of least value to BC Hydro. And wind energy needs minute-to-minute and longer term back-up because of the intermittent nature of the supply. The back-up and related services that wind energy needs impose significant costs on BC Hydro. Also, wind provides very little if any dependable capacity when needed to meet peak requirements. It is true that these sources do not emit GHGs, but it is not at all clear that pursuing these high cost low value resources are a cost effective way of meeting our GHG targets."
Like many, I believe BC's Energy Policy is deeply flawed, and the sharp increase in the number of ROR's under the BC Liberals -follows the now disreputed trend of energy privatization in other countries of the world...and the failure of so called "greenies" to consider the cumulative social, environmental and fiscal (cheap subsidized credit) and political/democracy impacts of the privatization model of energy development on societies such as British Columbia not just demonstrates a lack of due diligence but is wilful blindness, negligent, ethically questionable (IMO). --and yes, I know full well about the reports on climate change, and the UN Millienium Assessment, etc...greenhouse gases needed to be reduced...but efficiently from a triple bottom line perspective...and the Campbell government in my view has mismanaged that public interest file while the BC Liberal party takes in the large donations from the IPP sector - some of whom are Canadian corporations owned or controlled by foreign companies...thereby indirect meddling in our election. British Columbia is home for present and future generations, and I assert, that KEY infrastructure pertaining to energy, health care, education, roads, transmision lines and pipelines should be under public control & ownership...and not privately owned by companies and shareholders whose only goal is to maximize shareholder profit regardless. That is the clear choice in this election...we either own KEY assets of our economy or we become renters in the new era of BC - the next banana republic. Check out the DVD "Social Genocide" to see what privatization and corruption did to Argentina - it can happen here unless we are VERY viligant.
Grumpy
07-04-2009
Green - not Green and Judas's 30 pieces of silver
Tzeporah Berman, a legend in her own mind has now sold out for her "30 pieces of silver". Who pay's her way these days?
Alas the aging Rafe Mair, once again takes on officialdom, with a line drawn in the sand and good for him. I like people who don't sell out to the highest bidder.
The Carbon Tax is really a gas tax, tarted up to pretend it is something it isn't.
Campbell knows his multi billion dollar Gateway Highways project is in need of funds and the Carbon Tax is the right vehicle to provide the funds.
It's the environment stupid and run of river power projects destroys rivers, habitat, and in the end all matter of animals.
R-o-R power is for export, not domestic consumption; it's about destroying our province to feed the insatiable American market; a market grown so fat with excess it can't soon survive.
Save our rivers, save our environment, dump Berman, Jacard, and Suzuki.
Skywalker
07-04-2009
Being Green is hardly the issue.
It is about - and I'll use a phrase in the above article - "this grab for power and local public assets."
If we are going to harness more power then let the people do it with BC Hydro. That way we can always hold the politicians accountable and we can make sure that the profits, if there are any, go the public which will make any sacrifice on the environment.
I think the greens have it all wrong, so much so that it seems they have sold out to the quick buck artists. I guess if all you think about is being green any every other social issue is unimportant, it makes sense to sell the rivers for power. You don't even feel comfortable getting into bed with the polluters and resource pimps.
seth
07-04-2009
Berman Bias
Just listen to her pitchin' woo at Bill Good in the last half hour of Chicken Dubs incredibly biased report from Berman's power conference this AM. The program started with ten minutes of Bill Good fawning over Neocon minister/lawyer Barry Penner followed by four minutes of Bill's deliberately obtuse arguments with NDP critic Shawn Simpson. All told fifteen minutes from public power,150 for pirates.
Isn't there a law against free political advertising?
On of the funniest parts came from the Pirate from Plutonic. I believe he is an attorney so telling the truth came hard to him. He kept denying to a caller that Plutonic donated a dime to the Liberal party but said they did buy seats at Liberal party dinner bashes. Rubber chicken at Maxim's of Paris prices. Hmmm
Berman and Penner repeated the Pirate mantra from BCHydro's political poodles claiming BC was a net importer of electricity. Given her ignorance on all other subjects she probably hadn't heard of the National Energy Board report making BC a net exporter for nine of the last eleven years.
She kept making the point that that just 20% of BC's total energy use was clean green and we needed to swap dirt for green. How generating a ton of Pirate river energy in the late spring when BCHydro's dams and export pipes are already full would help this substitution was explained by some magical new electric car she heard of somewhere? Apparently, we can charge these electric cars when the rivers are a flowing in late spring and still have them all charged up (but running low) in time for the next years floods.
Given that our fleet of electric cars is close to zero and will remain pretty small for at least ten years why we have to buy all this power right now obviously never crossed her mind.
She compared Pirate water licenses to mining and forest product licenses and professed not to understand why we could support one and not the other. The fact that copper miners and log sellers are subject to the ups and downs of the international market while our Pirate power corporate welfare bums get a guaranteed average of 12 cents a kwh from the taxpayer for all they can produce no matter what Hydro can sell it for obviously wasn't on her radar.
By election time, Gordo will have signed us up for 40 billion in power over the next forty years. If these thugs, their mainstream media cronies, and those Green Party fools get them reelected that could easily grow to 80 billion.
Right now the open market resell of this 12 cent a kwh power is between two and five cents and projections with new tech drop that cost below 1 cent. Virtually all that 80 billion or so of taxpayer money Gordo has and will commit us to buy will be flushed down the the pirate power toilet.
Gordo and his pack of Rubes are the most incompetent financial managers in Western Democracy history.
Tbarnston
07-04-2009
The real paradigm
I have been holding this post back for a while, but it needs to be done now.
Left/right, red/blue, green/brown...its irrelevant. The real spectrum is this: are you in support of democractic freedoms or corporate oligopoly?
Every sphere of society (political, environmental, spiritual, economic) contains a spectrum where values trend toward democractic freedoms or corporate oligopoly.
That is why politics is currently so irrelevant to most people - it trends toward perpetuating and growing a corporate oligopoly. Democratic freedoms and real investment in the country, under any government, have ceased to exist since free trade came in to existence.
It is our jobs as progressive minded people to realize this and reframe the debate away from left/right, green/not green, and in to a perspective that analyzes what policies enable corporate rape of our earth and culture and what policies enable citizens to live lives free of corporate subordination.
The environmental movement played right in to the corporate agenda when it chose global warming as its vanguard. No other issue could have been so easy to spin, distract, and green wash than global warming. If instead they had focussed on deforestation, overconsumption, food production, energy conservation, and sustainable resource harvest (among others) we would be much farther ahead. Not only that, they would have killed two birds with one stone as global warming is a product of the above issues, and can only be dealt with once we deal with those issues.
Now, after decades of spin and greenwashing, we are seeing the empowered corporate oligopoly (GE is behind IPPs), repackaged in a green pin stripe suit, continuing its appropriation of our resources with reckless abandon.
And we remain divided.
I encourage everyone to look more at what we have in common - note how the BC Conservatives want to restore control over BC resources to the people of BC. Note how Ron Paul wants to end American imperialsim (check out Ron Paul on Bill Maher Real Time for a trip on how we can actually work together on issues). Note how right wing libertarians and left wing anarchists are talking about the same thing: freedom.
Partisan hack rhetoric is the most damaging aspect of our current discourse. It allows us to all sit around and blame each other for our problems, meanwhile the fox is raiding the chicken coop. If we are ever going to experience real change, we need to grow up and focus on common interests first, and differences second.
Skywalker
07-04-2009
Campbellwearsatutu
I checked it out. Interesting how testy Bill Good gets when he can't control the conversation.
Janie Jones
07-04-2009
"Green" jobs actually plain old "brown" ones.
Funny all this stuff about "green jobs" when in fact the jobs generated by the IPPs are just plain old "brown" carbon-burning heavy duty construction jobs that involve months of blasting, road building, tree felling and large amounts of off-road equipment working 14 hours a day, seven days a week up to three years in a row.
I wonder if Ms Berman and Co have any idea what it takes to blast a three km or longer penstock down a mountain side and just how much rock has to be hauled away. There is not only colossal environmental damage done, the carbon footprint of an area previously quietly recovering from the ravages of clearcut logging like the Upper Stave, in the name of future "green" energy, is massively increased.
And then of course, once it is completed, no jobs at all, either green or brown, just profits for offshore private energy companies and their First Nations dupes.
I'm afraid the only environmental group that has played this one right is the Wilderness Committee and I thank them and their allies for the outstanding job they did in convincing California that, because of their scale, the IPPs are not "green energy."
Hugh
07-04-2009
My two bits
Allowing our BC rivers and creeks to be degraded just to benefit private, possibly foreign, companies is stupid. This is power we don't really need which we will have to pay a lot for, through BC Hydro. When I pay my Hydro bill I would prefer the money went to a public-owned BC Hydro, not a Plutonic or GE.
Name
07-04-2009
Green clash?
I'm really surprized to hear this is even a debate and horrified, frankly, to learn that supposedly Green leaders like Berman have sold out so completely on the IPP issue.
I do think that the threats posed by massively over-scaled IPPs to the natural environment, fish and wildlife will be on people's minds this election. Look at how much outrage the Pitt River project generated last year among all those staid suburban voters!
The plans for Bute Inlet, Knight Inlet and Toba Inlet - to take just a small section of the province - include projects on the scale of the Site C dam and I think people are just starting to really wake up to that. This stopped being Green micro-power a long way back but the recent California ruling made that very clear.
The issue also ties into broader, long-simmering concerns linked to the selling out of the province's water resources, privatization and commercialization of public assets, etc. It will play right in to all the pungent suspicions now raised by recent revelations about political shennanigans in the BC Rail deal and the global backlash against corporate greed and politicians who put corporate interests above the private good.
I hope Rafe mair, the NDP, the Conservatives and sane Greens like Wyler will stand their ground and that others like Berman will give their heads a good shake.
Scale, local context, ownership, governance, process, people - these all matter!
Morg
07-04-2009
Tzeporah Gutting BC Rivers
Not only is she helping Gordon Campbell gut and destroy our rivers but behind closed doors she sold out our Moutain Caribou doing a deal that only protects just over 400,000 hectares not the 2.2 million hectares she and Forest Ethics claims.No reduction in logging ,valley by valley in the worlds only Inland Rainforest is being mowed down.Tzeporah all hype no substance she has done more damage to the environment in BC than good.Thanks Tzeporah or should I say Mrs Patrick Moore.!
Dr Alexander
07-04-2009
I had a lot to say, but.....
Grumpy, seth and Tbarnston pretty well said it for me.
Plus, I understand were fiat lux is coming from and a kudo to him also.
One more thing, salmon biology and physiology is where I cut my academic/research teeth and I spent many a summer working for the DFO ( a couple summers in Likely, in fact). Bottom line: Rafe is on the money. Let's keep our paws off the rivers, stream and inlets. There are so many benefits to having unobstructed river systems. There is no downside to leaving a river system alone. There is always a downside to messing with a river system.
Furthermore, on a theme that Tbarnston struck, who knows who to believe anymore? Global Warming is now Climate Change. Cold winters are now a sign of Global Warming (oops, Climate Change). And now, environmentalists are now as beholding to environmental funding as corporate hacks are to their polluting corporate masters. So, I guess my vote is for the activist who is not collecting a cheque or "in kind" support from some charity or NGO. So, for me... Berman is out, Rafe is in.
Fiat lux
07-04-2009
The enclosed article from
The enclosed article from the BBC shows how humanity's priorities have been totally distorted and screwed up by special interest propaganda, which also explains Ms.Berman's stand.
Ed Deak.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7988648.stm
Wallace
07-04-2009
media
The only issue is the concentration of corporate media power. Gordo knows this and knows that he can do no wrong. Clark is pilloried for a deck (later cleared at law). Parsons et al could not find enough air time for that BS. Today, Gordo ducks and weaves with Berardino playing the fool until the Basi-Virk case is thrown out of court on a Charter challenge. Hydro forced to pay $100 bucks for run of the river power when the market will only pay under $40. Those are the stories that would lead every night if there was any media that was not cowed by money. Don't hold your breath on that. (Sorry Beers, this site just does not compete with big money media). Nothing to do with James or the NDP folks, it is money power politics pure and simple. Gordo delivers so he gets a walk.
Peter Dimitrov
07-04-2009
ad hominium attacks really not necessary
I think we can debate this issue and win on the facts without ad hominium attacks on Ms. Berman (or any one else.)- I believe Ms. Berman regretably is mistaken and doesn't have the facts correct - and I hope she sees this in time to make a substantial change in her position. Lets take the high ground and debate the facts - which are pretty clear...Dr. Martin Shaffer - who is an expert in energy economics and Dr. John Calvert - likewise an expert in energy economics - both assert that given the $60- $120/MW for IPP energy the price to remove one ton of GHG is way too high - and is not efficient. Those monies could be better allocated to more economically efficient means to remove GHG at a lower cost per ton - to invest in technologies that are much more efficient than ROR projects. That is a pure economics argument - nothing to do with the public/privatization debatte. Lets not throw money or our rivers at the GHG emission problem, but be judicious in our investments, choosing to invest our monies in projects/technologies that are a more efficient means of GHG removal per ton than IPPs ..otherwise the money/credit will not be there for more meritorous projects when we have wasted it on inefficient methods of GHG removal.
Rob_
07-04-2009
why the focus on electricity....
It is frustrating for me that so much of the focus for climate change solutions in BC is on electrical power generation.
Please don't get me wrong - we shouldn't ignore electrical generation. I certainly don't. My professional life is spent working on renewable energy and energy conservation solutions.
But, here in BC electrical generation accounts for only a small fraction of our ghg emissions (2%). The largest source of greenhouse gas emissions is transportation (36-40%). Shouldn't our focus be on reducing emissions in the transportation and building sectors? We are not going to meet the targets required unless we start to focus on these areas.
Why aren't these sectors generating the same amount of discussion when in fact they are far more significant than electrical generation?
In the last few days I have seen the word "hypocrisy" applied to those on one side of the "green" energy debate. It may be justified but it can certainly be applied to both sides. There are some people who have jumped on the "green" energy bandwagon claiming that they are doing so because of their concern over climate change. Yet, they they don't seem to acknowledge the much larger contributors to climate change in our province. In fact, in some cases they have even argued that we should NOT oppose the construction of new highways.
Climate Change is such a significant threat that we need to focus on all sources of emissions and all potential solutions. We certainly shouldn't be ignoring the most significant sources.
realisticman
07-04-2009
Forget the rivers
We've got plenty of coal in BC. Let's start heating our homes and factories with our coal.
Come on Carole, let's hear it for our miners!
Rod Smelser
07-04-2009
Berman in the 1990s
IIRC, in the early 1990s Berman led protests in the Clayoquot that essentially claimed that Mike Harcourt was clearcutting the last old growth on the Coast. Many protesters were arrested, some jailed. Berman and her supporters blamed it all on Harcourt, and helped to lead an environmentalists and feminists backlash against the federal NDP in the 1993 election.
The result was a Reform sweep of B.C., but some six or so seats for the Liberals, including David Anderson, a self-proclaimed Liberal environmentalist.
Could history be repeating itself?
edoherty
07-04-2009
Where is Power Up on Gateway?
Colleen,
You skipped over the biggest source of GHG emissions in the province, and a significant difference between environmental groups (not to mention a significant source of division within both main political parties).
The Wilderness Committee, the Council of Canadians and many other groups have come out strongly in favor canceling the Gateway freeway expansions and re-allocating the money to transit. In contrast, so far Power Up studiously avoids mentioning freeway expansion and instead repeatedly focuses on electric cars (which for all practical purposes don't exist in the marketplace).
Power Up claims to be focused on the climate crisis, but until they come out strongly on the biggest source of emission in Canada and BC they will not have much credibility with me.
For an example of the work groups are doing on this issue see:
http://www.wildernesscommittee.org/campaigns/communities/gateway
Rod Smelser
07-04-2009
Eric Doherty: Why not clarify your OWN positions?
Eric Doherty
As you well know, neither the Gateway project in general nor the PMH1 project in particular will lead to any substantial increase in GHG outputs from base case levels. None of the academics at BC universities who are critical of these projects will actually submit any paper to a peer reviewed journal in which they normally publish on the subject of Gateway or its air pollution impacts. That ought to tell people something, that those with professional reputations to protect are willing to offer only off the record critiques.
Instead of insisting that Berman clarify her position, why not take this opportunity to clarify your own?
It's my understanding that during your recent appearance in Maple Ridge, you offered no comment on either the new Pitt River Bridge or the new Golden Ears Bridge? Was that a strategic move on your part, a decision not to annoy your hosts? Well, you're no longer in front of that audience, so why not tell us what you really think? Are you in favour of or opposed to those two bridge projects?
Also, I would like to know your position on the West Coast Express service. In your paper on transit alternatives to Gateway you quoted some guy named Paul Rees to the effect that commuter trains with park and ride stations were instruments of urban sprawl.
So, as a daily WCE user I want to know what your position on the WCE service is, and that of SPEC for whom you wrote your transit paper. Do you seek changes to the WCE service which would make it more like the main GO line in Ontario, operating in both directions 18 hours per day? Or do you seek to limit that service, closing the park and ride lots you identified as a problem, and seeking ultimately to replace it with an extension of the Evergreen LRT line, in which case a trip to downtown will take 1.5 hours instead of 45 minutes.
As a commuter and transit user, I believe I have the right to expect answers on transit related questions from people who pose in public commentary as transit advocates and supposed transit experts.
Janie Jones
08-04-2009
Socially progressive businesses
Thanks for the link Jstog, I had not heard about that fatality which brings the total to eight lives lost on the Toba project. People who work in the bush risk their lives everyday.
The article also afforded a peek at the destruction involved in building the penstocks. Blasting out the bones of our Mother.
Did y'all catch the official All Fools Day opening of the Flack Block, "the new home to the Tides/Renewal Centre, a collection of socially progressive businesses including Renewal Partners, Tides Canada, Hollyhock Leadership Institute, Forest Ethics, Rainforest Solutions Project, Penner & Associates sustainable design, and Raised Eyebrow Communications, among others."
http://tiny.cc/4mzno
Is this the business that Berman is getting so rich at?
As for me, I tried to go to the global warming conference but couldn't find a parking space.
Frank
08-04-2009
Prime ministers and queens
I wonder if it would be enlightening to see the deposits to the bank accounts of certain front-and-centre enviros?
snert
08-04-2009
The focus should be on electrical generation.
Rob_
Electricity can be used to replace carbon based fuels in many areas only one of which is home heating.
Through the use of our electrical generation potential we have the ability to significantly reduce out GHG production.
There's a really good chance that will never happen if we keep trying to shift the focus away from increasing our capacity.
Environmental modification to develop new energy sources is a necessary evil but we have the ability to make sure that these projects don't turn into disasters.
Far too much effort is put into trying to prevent projects instead of making sure they are done with minimal environmental disruption.
FWIW In this matter the current government does not appear to be operating in the best interests of the people of BC. I am not confident that any viable opposition will do better until the focus is shifted towards making sure these projects are not only done but done right.
freebear
08-04-2009
Waiting for the Precipice
Until we are at the cliff's edge; we humans will not change our unsustainable ways....
so why not make some 'green' bucks until then, right Tzeporah!
Maybe she will get a new native name:
'One who pulls green wool over sheeps' eyes'!
politico
08-04-2009
Run of the River IPP's are
Run of the River IPP's are criticized for good reason. While it is tempting to accept that our energy burden is so great that we must pursuit alternative generation especially given the context of climate change it is not necessary for us to abandon reason.
The Campbell government has enjoyed photo-ops with Arnold Schwarzenegger while ignoring the failed experiment of damning up most American waterways. We have all the examples we need of failed river hydro projects to the south.
The BC IPP's are in lock step with the undercurrent of all Campbell's policies which are designed to produce exorbitant private profit at public expense while offloading environmental impacts and externalizing costs onto unexpecting British Columbians. The dazzling Berman and her entourage of IPP boosters are over looking serious flaws in these so-called "green power" initiatives while waving the global warming flag.
They are rightly accused of abusing the all consuming issue of Climate Change in boosting these projects especially given their inability to prove any direct benefits of the projects in this respect. To boldly dismiss the criticism and purposefully split the movement is an exercise in classic divide and conquer tactics.
As the debate rages on we must not forget the impacts of privatization in our take no prisoners pursuit to implement alternate generation plants while battling climate change. This bold new frontier will have us exploiting the few corners of our Province not yet over exploited while boosting nuclear power development around the world, both of which offer no better future then doing nothing at all with respect to climate change.
Privatization and environmental conservation are oil and water. Take for example the somehow conveniently forgotten episodes of privatized BC Rail cars falling into our rivers and poisoning them. It was not long ago that every other day privatized rail cars were leaping from the tracks with some delivering a deadly arsenal into our rivers destroying countless fish and ecosystems. This is a precise example of why the Campbell privatization agenda and our rivers do not mix and how the two agenda's at play are the antithesis of each other resulting in a futile exercise born from ignorance and the blind race for profit.
politico
08-04-2009
By the way
I have to admit that I am personally stunned and completely disoriented having just completed a rant in defense of Rafe Mair and against a stunning enviro!
My god things have changed either that or I am just getting old.
Rob_
08-04-2009
snert
snert wrote:
Quote:
"...Electricity can be used to replace carbon based fuels in many areas only one of which is home heating...."
Yes, of course. The problem is that the focus is just on expanding electircal production and not on replacing the fossil fuels.
We need to focus on reducing carbon based fuel use and on doing it in the most efficient way possible. For homes this might mean ground-source heat pumps. And for transportation this means electrified mass tansit (LRT and trolleys) where ever possible.
Simply focussing on expanding electrical production will not reduce ghg emissions. In fact they will continue to increase - at least here in BC.
Quote:
"...Far too much effort is put into trying to prevent projects instead of making sure they are done with minimal environmental disruption...."
I don't know of anyone who opposes RoR projects under all circumstances. If you look at the position of groups like the Wilderness Committee they actually support these projects if they meet specific criteria.
Saysme
08-04-2009
Common ground, anyone?
It seems there are still some old-style enviros and other progressives who can't get over their need to find discord among their own allies.
Fortunately, for the rest of us (and for the world), that is a shrinking group.
Many now "get" that you can design policies, as well as on-the-ground hardware, intelligently.
You can do things like make green taxes that benefit the poor.
You can do things like ensuring wind power turbines are not on migratory flight paths.
You can do things like putting in hydro power where it will have little or no environmental impact.
This stuff is easy. It's not a zero-sum game, and we don't have to fight over scraps.
I think the bigger challenge will be to show the old-style, silo-bound enviros and progressives that they can find common ground with their natural allies.
You don't have to do things stupidly. And you don't have to accept the sucker-bait offered by the anto-enviro, conservative provocateurs.
Fortunately, blue-green alliances and green jobs strategies are getting a higher profile.
Now these stories about discord among enviros and progressives are becoming a rarity - newsworthy even!
That's a sign of progress.
Now let's get busy.
Campbellwearsatutu
08-04-2009
Multible issues
There are many diverse opinions but one thing I know for sure.........
Before we do anything we must stop the theft of our resources,the theft from our wallets from Plutonic Power......
Until these pirates are out of the picture we will get nothing but spin!
I.this morning emailed the Auditor general about resolving a dispute before the election.......
Are we a importer of electricity or are we a exporter of electricity?
Do we make money on exports or lose money on imports?
We the people need a un-biased answer before the election,both sides say the opposite.
I ask,suggest that everyone email,phone,ask the auditor to do a review of these questions,before the election...
Just google up :bc auditor general: there is a contact click on their web site.
I have found one reliable source for the import/export debate,and from what I read we export far more than we import.
Here is the link
http://www.squalk.com/bc2009/001560.html
I implore all of you,and the Tyee bosses to get on this,I don`t know if the auditor general would do this or can do this,but one thing i know for sure,if we don`t ask him,it won`t be done.
We the voters,especially the unimformed need this question answered before the election.
carfreed
08-04-2009
climate change
Ms Berman should get behind the Save our Rivers people.
She would be better off putting her energy towards getting people out of cars and the drive everywhere habit.This is a HUGE part of climate change.
When people choose to drive less and use and demand smart public transit, THEN the rest of the actions on Climate Change will flow more readily.
Campbellwearsatutu
08-04-2009
Import/export numbers
I messed up the link.
Here it is,again
http://www.sqwalk.com/bc2009/001560.html
snert
08-04-2009
Rob_
Maybe so but appearances lead to other conclusions.
Janie Jones
08-04-2009
Berman Bashing
Finally got to listen to the CKNW coverage of PowerUp Forum.
This issue is definitely head spinning material. I'm becoming convinced that much of the push for IPPs actually about keeping massive amounts of men (80% out of province) and equipment working so that the corporate hierarchy of huge multinationals like Kiewit & GE benefit from these earth shattering, landscape & watershed altering mega projects.
I know that Kiewit is an investor into the Cloudworks Harrison/Stave project and I would therefore assume into the Plutonic projects as well. That means Kiewit will continue to see revenue from these projects while the public gets soaked for higher energy costs that Berman says we need to just get used to in the name of greater global good and future electric cars. Too bad they haven’t developed the electric bulldozer.
There seems to be a sub thread of Berman bashing running like a river through this so here's my two bits.
Berman did not "lead" the blocades at Clayoquot Sound. They were organized, led and financed (one American heiress pretty well underwrote the whole thing) by the group the Friends of Clayoquot Sound of whom Berman became a member. However, most of the original Friends, all residents of the area, had already been convicted of protesting the ongoing clearcut logging the summer before and, as part of their conditions, could not attend the daily blockades at Kennedy Lake which is why they issued the invitation to have the world come there and protest there for them.
Ms. Berman, a former fashion student from Toronto with no direct experience or knowledge of the forest industry or the BC culture it supported was one of over ten thousand who showed up.
Because of the void at the site combined with her natural leadership qualities, the charismatic and photogenic young Berman rose to prominence as model/spokesperson for the daily ritual of blockading, readings of injunction and arrests.
Surely the best account those zany days contains Andrew Struthers' satirization of Berman his brilliant The Green Shadow:
"The Friends set up a Peace Camp in the Black Hole clearcut. Peace Camp. What a joke! Like a concentration camp is a place you go to concentrate."
"Summer faded. The face of Mother Winter appeared in the sky over the Black Hole. Things got tense. Tzapata got into a giant queen bee struggle with Artemis, a woman who had been with the Friends since the Sulpher Pass days. Artemis got fired. When The Boss can tell you to clean out your desk, it's just not anarchy anymore."
Apparently Berman continue to queen bee her way through the FOCS, Greenpeace and then into her own organization ForestEthics and now, PowerUp Canada.
Tbarnston
08-04-2009
Is it a coincidence?
Pure speculation here, but is it a coincidence that we see the Great Bear Rainforest Deal within days of Berman appearing on CKNW 980 pimping ROR?
Easy trade for her to make: Gordo signs off on GBR, Berman agrees to divide the green vote and push for ROR.
Janie Jones
08-04-2009
Divide and Conquer
Yes Tbarston, Berman has already been publicly censored by other BC environmental groups for negotiating behind closed doors with no input from any BC regional or membership based organizations.
Forest Ethics head office is in San Francisco and the bulk of her foundation funding is American. I personally don't think that her GBR deal is worth the old growth forest it is printed on.
NicS
08-04-2009
Berman - Save the World - Destroy BC
I cannot say I know Ms. Berman, although I heard her speak in San Fran. in 07. She appears to stand on the same side of the fence as David Suzuki and they both appear to be indebted to Gordon Campbell for being the first leader in North America to declare he has green washed his government and all is fine in Lotus Land.
When Berman & Forest Ethics announced a few years ago that they had saved the Great Bear Rain Forest, there was much ado in this province. Gordon Campbell caught us all off guard and we wondered aloud what the consequences of this alliance might be. I think we now know.
EDITED FOR LEGAL CONCERNS -- TYEE MODERATOR
We can only hope, pray and vote for the NDP in May as we know neither one of the incestuous three will be voting for the NDP.
edoherty
08-04-2009
Gateway & GHGs
Rod Smelser wrote:
"As you well know, neither the Gateway project in general nor the PMH1 project in particular will lead to any substantial increase in GHG outputs from base case levels."
Freeway expansions such as Gateway do result in very substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions and localized air pollution. The 'base case' you refer to implies an unacceptable increase in GHG emissions in any case. We can and must rapidly reduce emissions in the transportation sector. I have documented these points in Cooking the Books: Cooking the Planet at http://www.livableregion.ca/pdf/Cooking_the_Books_Report_Final_05-02-07.pdf
"It's my understanding that during your recent appearance in Maple Ridge, you offered no comment on either the new Pitt River Bridge or the new Golden Ears Bridge? . . . Are you in favour of or opposed to those two bridge projects?"
I oppose both of these projects. And made it clear during my presentation that urban roadway expansions such as these must be ended and the money re-allocated to transit if we are to meet our greenhouse gas reduction commitments. But I don't focus on road projects that are mostly complete in my presentations, I focus on the ones that can still be stopped.
"Also, I would like to know your position on the West Coast Express service. . . do you seek to limit that service, closing the park and ride lots you identified as a problem."
West Coast Express service should be expanded to operate in both directions 7 days a week, but should primarily serve town centers and connect to improved transit rather than expanding park and ride lots. That is, it should be a general purpose regional passenger rail service rather than just commuter rail. I am also in favor of electrifying our railway network to reduce noise, local pollution, and GHG emissions.
Eric Doherty
www.livableregion.ca
Dr Alexander
09-04-2009
There is a silver lining to the Cloud
I am heartened by the seeing how such a significant portion of the discussion is the sanguine examination of the people and groups who are supposedly advocates for the environment and the peoples of British Columbia.
The take-home message that I am hearing is that one is always beholding to whoever is feathering their nest.
At any rate, where I come from, there is no such thing as Good Propaganda, only Good Truth.
Thanks to you all for such an engaged exchange of views as I have been quite enlightened by the information provided and thus am better able to judge who gets my vote and my advocacy dollars.
Janie Jones
09-04-2009
Tell Your Friends!
More from the PowerUp affair:
Bill Good: Is it true that there's a relationship with First Nations that's critical and I'll get Paul Taylor [Naikoon Wind Energy] to speak to that because I think in both of your companies [Naikoon & Plutonic] you've had to work out negotiations with First Nations that might have been much more difficult for a government or a crown corporation to do.
Peter Taylor: Exactly Bill and in our case we have commercial relationships with Haida Nation and the Tsimshian bands on the coast and those have taken a number of years to develop and evolve but they are sound commercial relationships. You get the government involved or Hydro for example and it turns into a government to government negotiation, it becomes very complex but we've been able to sit down and understand both side's objectives and come up with a commercial arrangement that's good for the Haida, good for us and ultimately good for BC Hydro in buying the power off of us.
___________________________
Anything in there about what's good for the rest of us?
Given that the Aboriginal Recognition Act is yet to be passed, by what legal precedent are corporations negotiating with Indian bands as if they and not the general public owned the coveted resource? Not having the government (i.e. the people) involved is a complete dereliction of duty.
And now I just read on Twitter that Ecotrust is setting up a fund so BC First Nations can be further feathered with equity investment into the IPPS.
It is time for a new definition of what native land means as regardless of Berman's semantics, once a foreign entity puts an IPP in a BC watershed, the public loses the privilege of doing it for their own benefit, so the effect, like when an old growth tree is cut and hauled away, is that of privatization.
Rod Smelser
09-04-2009
ERIC DOHERTY: Good reponse on WCE
edoherty
I oppose both of these projects. And made it clear during my presentation that urban roadway expansions such as these must be ended and the money re-allocated to transit if we are to meet our greenhouse gas reduction commitments. But I don't focus on road projects that are mostly complete in my presentations, I focus on the ones that can still be stopped.
Eric, I think this is a nice dodge. From everything I can gather from either the MR News and from people who attended, at no time did you even mention either the Golden Ears or Pitt River Bridge projects. You stuck to the usual Livable Region line of focussing your attack on the Port Mann project. That's pure pandering to the audience. You weren't going to walk into the ACT and tell people there that their two new bridges, badly needed and long overdue, are unworthy projects that take money away from needed transit projects.
West Coast Express service should be expanded to operate in both directions 7 days a week, but should primarily serve town centers and connect to improved transit rather than expanding park and ride lots. That is, it should be a general purpose regional passenger rail service rather than just commuter rail. I am also in favor of electrifying our railway network to reduce noise, local pollution, and GHG emissions.
Basically, this is good to hear. However, I am still curious as to your opposition to park and ride lots and what exactly you mean by saying that the WCE should connect to "town centres".
I don't hear you saying that park and ride lots in West Van and White Rock should be closed, why would you wish to close the park and ride lots along the WCE? What do you hope to accomplish by this manouevre?
HydroGreen
09-04-2009
Run-of-river IPP Facts
Independent Power Producer (IPP) Run-of-the-River Technology FACTs:
Independent Power Producers pay 3 times more social benefits to government than BC Hydro does.
Private power IPPs pay $25 per MWh in taxes, water license rental fees, and community benefits to the government. About half of that is paid to the local government as property tax (while BC Hydro pays no local property taxes for 25 billion dollars of assets that it owns).
BC Hydro, on the other hand, pays only $8 per MWh as dividend and taxes to the government (2008) while most of that power is produced by dams that have permanently altered the Columbia River and Peace River basins with cumulative environmental impacts. To meet our current energy shortage, BC Hydro wants to build yet another dam (Site C) at 3 times the cost per MW, compared to low-cost low-impact private run-of-the-river technology.
A small 10 MW run of river IPP plant pays about $1,400,000 a year to various levels of government, most of it to the local government. BC Hydro pays only $420,000 for the same amount of power to the Province, and none of it to the local government.
No IPP run-of-the-river project is on a salmon bearing reach of a stream, and the environmental impact is minor and can be compensated. Run-of-the-river technology can co-exist and share the habitat with fish and other wildlife. IPPs do not build dams – but low weirs or taps on generally a steep stream that has little or no resident fish. The impact is far less than dams built by BC Hydro, logging, mining, oil and gas, coal, real estate development, transportation, pulp and paper, pipelines, utility telephone and cable poles, etc. And unlike mining, oil and gas, coal, transportation and real estate – run of river technology is sustainable, renewable, clean and significantly reduces greenhouse gas emissions.
Janie Jones
09-04-2009
Although you have to
Although you have to radically increase GHG emissions in order to build the IPPs but I agree, Site C is a travesty. So why don't we have BC Hydro expand into low-cost, low-impact run-of-the-river technology instead? According to Plutonic chief plutocrat Donald McInnes Plutonic (who lied on CKNW even when he didn't have to) it's because in the guise of BC Hydro, the people of British Columbia lack the "entrepreneurial zeal" and "intellectual capital."
I think that's kind of insulting. I have already worked for your employers HydroGreen, and have no desire to continue doing so. Now that I've found out valuable, how doubly green, hydroelectricity is, I'm much more interested in living off my BC Hydro royalties.
Besides, haven't your heard? California rules it's not green energy.
Rob_
09-04-2009
ghg emissions from Gateway
Rod Smelser
wrote:
"... I think it's interesting that you're refering to a BC Govt document. Some would complain bitterly about that...."
My point is that even the government's own documents contradict Campbell's and Falcon's claims on this issue.
"... basis are minor..."
When the science indicates we need a 80% - 90% DECREASE and the governments own goals are for a 30% and then 80% DECREASE and don't think any INCREASE should be considered "minor."
" Would any of them be recognized experts at UBC or SFU?"
I believe the report was compiled by someone with a Masters from UBC. But don't take their word for it. Take a look at the government report. The government took on-road projected emissions in the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) and Fraser Valley Regional District (FVRD) and compared that to to the total emissions from Whatcom County USA, the GVRD and FVRD (South Fraser Perimeter Road Regional Air Quality Impact Assessment:
Technical Volume 16 of the Environmental Assessment Application - p 47). Note they added Whatcom county to the projected totals so the percentage increase seems smaller.
Rob_
09-04-2009
ubc and sfu professors on gateway
Rod Smelser, you seemed interested in the views of UBC and SFU academics on the Gateway program. Here are a few:
Anthony Perl, Professor and SFU Director, Urban Studies Program:
"We need to redesign Gateway...[if we continue with the current design]...we will have wasted that money...we will have sunk it into a design that was inappropriate."
Larry Frank, currently the UBC chair of sustainable urban transportation systems:
"Building these highways in the absence of strict growth controls will only result in more congestion and auto dependency.....You cannot build your way out of congestion."
quoted from: http://www.straight.com/article/plan-to-build-city-for-fitness-not-fatness
Bill Rees, UBC professor:
“In our province, we have the ludicrous Gateway project, ...There’ll be more cars, and in about three months, we’ll be jammed up and more cars will be idling than now.”
quoted from Vancouver Sun May, 2007 and http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2007/05/07/pushing-the-planet-to-its-limit/
Gordon Price, director of SFU’s City Program:
"[the Gateway emissions projection] just doesn't pass the smell test."
http://www.sfu.ca/sfunews/Stories/sfunews09280701.shtml
John Robinson, a professor at UBC's Institute of Resources, Environment and Sustainability,
said the controversial Gateway Program could undermine the premier's climate change goals by creating more car-dependent sprawl rather than more compact communities. He said there has been no serious analysis of the long-term implications of Gateway on climate change.
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=7833cf0a-b519-4b51-9a59-b14fcb9a3f51&k=43792
Patrick Condon Professor, UBC Design Centre for Sustainability:
"The Port Mann project is propelled forward by assumptions that are 20 years out of date."
http://thetyee.ca/News/2009/03/25/LightRail/
Mark Jaccard,Simon Fraser University professor is also critical of the Gateway project
http:www.sierraclub.bc.ca/quick-links/publications/cool_b-c.pdf
Christopher Barrington-Leigh, PhD, Department of Economics, UBC:
"These deep problems with the Gateway rationale, its published documents, and its public accountability must be addressed ...."
HydroGreen
09-04-2009
Janie - BC Hydro pays little royalty - 1/3 of IPPs
Janie - you dont make sense.
Constructing ROR IPPs releases GHGs at the amount of 2% of 1% of the GHG that the IPP reduce !
That is, an IPP in its first week of opeation reduces same amount of greenhouse gasses that was produced in its construction !
BC cannot expand low-cost low-impact ROR because BC Hydro has so many layers of management and unionized workers that its cost of production is 2 to 3 times that of an IPP !
So do you want that society to get impoverished with burning up all this capital, when the IPP can do the same job at half the cost (and no cost to the taxpayer for the capital)?
BC Hydro's cost of Aberfeldie construction was $110 a MWh. That means if BC Hydro were to build the ROR's, your rates will almost double.
And then BC Hydro pays very little to the government. So there is no royalty for you!
Do the math and economics please.
California said BC ROR under 30 MW is green.
HydroGreen
09-04-2009
Facts on IPPs
Independent Power Producer (IPP) Run-of-the-River Technology FACTs:
IPPs using run-of-the-river technology can produce green renewable electrical energy at about half the cost of BC Hydro.
IPPs generate power at about $50 to $85 a MWh. Ashlu Creek IPP is selling its power to BC Hydro for $55 for the next 40 years (term of the BC Hydro contract). IPPs pay $25 a MWh in taxes, water license rental fees, and first nation royalty to governments – mostly to the local government. BC Hydro pays only $8 a MWh in dividend and taxes to the government.
On the other hand, BC Hydro is a very high cost producer - $110 a MWh, from its own Aberfeldie run-of-the-river project that it has just completed. The cost of production at the proposed Site C mega-dam on the Peace River will be about $160 a MWh.
BC Hydro has extremely high internal overhead and costs. Although BC Hydro can produce some power at less than $6 a MWh from our gigantic heritage dams paid by BC citizens (in the 1960s) with no interest expense remaining – BC Hydro then sells this power at 13 times the cost ($80 a MWh) to BC citizens who own these dams. The average salary and benefits at BC Hydro is $100,000 per employee per year. This is 2.5 times the average private salary in the province of $40,000. The average salary at BCTC, a unit of BC Hydro is $130,000 per employee.
BC Hydro charges the ratepayers and taxpayers $1.4 million per GWh in costs to produce non-green power (Site C). Due to high costs, BC Hydro is unable to produce power if the project is less than 50 MW.
On the other hand, private power IPPs can produce green and clean power at $0.6 million per GWh, none of that charged to ratepayers - and less than half the cost that BC Hydro charges ratepayers. Private power producers can produce power from projects as small as 5 MW by using local talent and labour.
The cost saving by IPPs is passed on to the consumer when large number of IPPs compete for the few power purchase contracts offered by BC Hydro. 17,000 GWh of power is being offered by about 150 competing IPP projects to a single buyer, BC Hydro – which will only purchase 3,000 GWh. BC Hydro offers on the average only 3 buildable power purchase agreements a year and no more than 2 or 3 IPP projects can be built in a year. Without a power purchase agreement from BC Hydro, no IPP run-of-river project can get built. There are 12,000 major streams and 280,000 minor streams and creeks in BC and only 40 IPP plants in all of BC (10 under construction). The water license held by an IPP terminates in about 25 years and it is up to the government to renew it.
It is not possible to export power to the US without the authorization of BC Hydro. And BC Hydro and BCTC demand a cut of at least 25% of the sales to allow exports. The price of power in Washington State is generally same as in BC, and the transmission lines to California are all congested.
jimmy_laroux
10-04-2009
@ Rod Smelser
Thank you for your kind words :)
Including Metro Vancouver:
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=898b4ec0-85b6-4ec6-a08d-4c918c9b2e1e&k=9240
In other words, the Gateway estimates are meaningless.
jimmy_laroux
10-04-2009
@ HydroGreen
Your comments are identical to comments on other news sites. For example:
http://columbiavalleynews.com/news/2009/03/23/call-for-private-power-moratorium/comment-page-1/
http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=6b575bf3-511d-4653-b21e-c60536d92e19
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Hydro+slows+green+energy+development/1148747/story.html
Are you a PR agent? Do you work for IPPBC or Plutonic or some other IPP?
Dr Alexander
10-04-2009
This is not your father's environmental movement
When environmental movement start acting like the big business that they rail against, red flags start going up.
Again, thanks to the the thoughtful and well-read Tyee readership, I find myself getting an education that I certainly won't get from the mainstream media.
For example, the Tides Canada Foundation. Listed as a charity with Revenue Canada
http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/ebci/haip/srch/sec/SrchInputOfcr01Validate-e?bn=868947797RR0001&fpe=2007-12-31&pageNum=1&formId=19&name=TIDES+CANADA+FOUNDATION
and has Joel Solomon listed as a vice chairman and Ross McMillan as President.
A quick look at Hollyhock, which has Tzeporah Berman listed as being on Hollyhock's Board, also has Joel Solomon as Chairman of the Board and Ross McMillan as a Board member.
http://www.hollyhock.ca/cms/page1600.cfm
I start getting worried and suspicious when environmental groups start getting as self-serving, self-promoting and self-perpetuating as big business. What you have is an environmental movement that is now big business and it will promote and defend itself with the same ruthlessness as seen with big business.
Janie Jones
10-04-2009
The Plot Thickens
The G&M lists Joel Solomon, whose father was a millionaire real estate developer that headed up the General Services Administration during the Carter Administration, as giving $60,000 to the Vision Vancouver sweep. In comparison, Concord Pacific gave $35,000 and Pattison $10,000.
It has been my experience, growing up in places like Whistler, that rich kids from all the world come here, fall in love with us and move in. But of course, the first thing they want to do is change us into something that matches their vision for a perfect green world.
Of course, they have the wherewithall to back it up and can thus hugely expand their sphere of influence in our money hungry world. That is why Whistler now contains only two kinds of people, rich people and sucking up to rich people, and woe unto them that dare transgress the writer of the cheque into humiliation and banishment.
You saw it in Clayoquot Sound, at Ista and Gustafson Lake: large amounts of discretionary income taking direct action.