James is

inelectable. The re-tread socreds got in again due to voter laziness (they didn't). Best try for a coallition of all decent folk against the BC Fiberals.

Sorry Rafe

As much as you are correct about Site C...

You are way off on thinking the hatred of Liberals will wane with Campbell`s departure.

They are running huge deficits, gouging the Public, wages are flat, there is no comparison to the past.

And you have forgot the really big one,

"Recall in the fall"

I can guarantee you that Campbell resigns before he is the first Government removed through recall,(He has a legacy to consider)...

Kash Heed will have to step down by June..

We have over 5000 canvassers ready to move onto Recall, we will target the close ridings, after Campbell steps down, Kash Heed steps aside, those 2 bi-elections will turn Orange, that leaves 5 ridings to

"Recall in the Fall"

Donna Barnett...Don McCrae...Magaret McDiarmid... Mr. Lake...Pat Pimm...

And poof, their gone, Those riding have enough NDP voters for a successful Recall campaign.

And Rafe....Recall is binding, it can`t be ignored, and when Campbell ignores the successful HST petition, it will anger the electorate, especially when they will be paying it everyday..

The "Recall in the Fall" campaign will be led by citizens, not the NDP....

Lastly, Dianne Watts is not going to join a defunct party, PERIOD!

In my entire life I have never seen this hatred like the one over the HST and deficit lies, that goes for the NDP or Socred revolt, this one crosses party lines.

And lastly, the NDP have a leadership vote in 2011....Carole is out, unless she is already Premier through "Recall in the Fall" ...

Meet John Horgan..New Leader.

You need to get out more Rafe.

Cheers

got to agree Toobad

actually got anti-HST email from a neighbour today who I KNOW was hard core socred all her life. EVERYBODY is angry. And the gods know I hope we finally see some of these scumbag politicians actually stand trial at the end of their terms in power.

I hope you guys are right (TooBad Takuan)

ReCall campaigns are hard, you need a much higher percentage of the local vote and they have to have lived in the riding during the last election. The Delta South campaign against Val Roddick almost succeeded, they had enough signatures, but not all the signatures could be counted. I will sign for the recall in my area and hope you guys are right, but it's a lot of work.

@bluerev

I can`t divulge hard numbers about the HST initiative but...I can tell you that the peace river riding is almost at 40% sign-up with 10 weeks to go...

My riding we blasted past 10% already..

Nanaimo got over 10% in one week..

40% is a big number, but we don`t need 85 riding`s, just 5......

Donna Barnett won her riding by 60 votes...There is over 40% just with existing NDP voters..

Mission riding went red by 100 votes....

2 Burnaby riding`s went red by a few hundred votes..And remember, the Green vote will sign the recall petition too.

NDP and Green vote in the close riding`s equate to well over 60% of the vote...Add disgruntled Liberals...MAGIC

I have collected nearly 500 signatures, you wouldn`t believe how many ex-Liberal voters are signing the HST initiative.

This is a new movement...The only way Campbell can fend off a successful "recall in the Fall" campaign is to cancel the HST...

Keep the faith my friends!

And.........

The Peace riding`s were big and red after the election, what does that tell you!

And remember..We can target red ridings that have big HST petition numbers, like the Peace region, those riding`s weren`t even on my "Recall in the Fall" list. THEY ARE NOW!

As I see it

I think that Campbell made the announcement on the site "C" for a different reason. In his demented thought processes, he thinks that this announcement will lead the great unwashed to really believe that we are short of power and therefore justify the IPPs that were approved with no doubt more on the way.

Site "C" still has many hurdles to clear before it could be a reality and he knows this. In the interim we will be hearing of more IPPs being accepted by BC Hydro. This announcement is nothing more than a ruse. Of course the MSM bought it hook, line and sinker because they have been in the back pocket of Campbell and Co.ever since Gordo assumed his position as the leader of these band of miscreants. This announcement does nothing more than deflect peoples' attention to site "C" while he fills the pockets of more of his buddies at the expense of the taxpayer.

Coalition

I still want the NDP and the Green to get together. Then, perhaps, we can really become progressive in this damned (play on words...get it?) province. In the meantime...all current MLA's supporting Campbell need to go and, hopefully, will carry their rank smell in to the future.

The voting process

The way I was told, a voter casts her/his vote for the individual, and not for the party. In theory, that makes the successful candidate accountable to the voters in her/his constituency, and not the some vaporous "party". Too bad it doesn't work that way.............

Further.............

A candidate who presents her/his self as representing such and such party, also presents her/his self as wanting to represent the voters of a particular constituency. That is quite plainly a conflict of interest - especially when an issue arises (such as the HST) that voters are beginning to indicate they DO NOT WANT.

Shouldn't each and every MLA be scrutinized by the Conflict-of-Interest Commissioner? The definition of what constitutes a conflict of interest, according to the government, is: "The Members’ Conflict of Interest Act stipulates that a Member of the Legislative Assembly must not be involved in a decision during the course of public duties with the knowledge that there is an opportunity to further the Member’s private interests."
http://www.gov.bc.ca/oci/
But Rafe (see above post) plainly says that backbenchers toe the line, otherwise they risk missing out on "plum positions" within the government/party. This is quite plainly placing their personal interests over those of the constituents in the MLA's riding.

Site C - Clean energy for Mordor.

It's true that Site C Lear Jet circus could be little more than a smokescreen for the IPPs. This way when they are eventually forced to relent it will seem as if they are being reasonable and giving a little in order to gain a whole lot of private profit for themselves and their corporate users as one by one, our coastal watersheds are quietly sold off and former MLAs move to energy boards to retire off of the shares they've earned for being political frontmen.

The real deal with Site C is that it is needed to power the Horn River shale gas extractions (hydraulic fracturing) and Mordor itself, the Alberta tarsands. Despite Campbell's insistence that Site C power will be only for the use of British Columbians, February's throne speech also promised new transmission lines that will extend the NE power grid into Alberta and the U.S. with the Hydro ratepayer on the hook to finance all of this through higher electricity bills and carbon taxes.

According to their own criteria then, Campbell and the AGW crowd, specifically Andrew Weaver, calling Site C a "green" energy project is way off the mark.

Could also be a set up for an environmental fight that the Berman/Suzuki crowd could "win" in order to re-establish their cred.

Industrial power demand &

Energy storage, as the run of river and wind projects need to be able to store the energy they produce, and re-sell at profitable times.

The gluttony continues!

thanks for that Janie

a very important point indeed. Those tar sands always end up entangled in anything dirty it seems.

On a sidebar, can "proceeds of crime" laws be used to strip the fat cats of their ill gotten gains if insider dealing is proven after a corrupt government is overthrown?

Just some thoughts.

Anybody who would want to see what's left of the wild Peace destroyed has obviously never seen it or else just another conniving fool firmly in the pocket of big oil and the good life its made.

The animal habitat that is left here is abundant and critical. It's the only place I've ever seen herds of deer along with moose, caribou and elk. It seems to be the perfect balance between multigenerational homesteaded farms and wildlands. I support residents of all races who are fighting against this fifties-era environmental atrocity 100%.

Nuke site c

After Site C was announced we started to see a lot more interest in nuclear power from the media and no wonder.

Gordo has spend $65B on Pirate Power so far and is about to add $10B more buying the equivalent of one Candu plant worth $3B. That nuclear plant can burn American nuclear waste as fuel from Hanford.

The worn out nuclear waste argument has been debunked. A football field in the centre of the tar sands could be devoted to storing the worlds nuclear waste for a few hundred years until it is burned up powering the world in Generation IV reactors.

Andrew Weaver, Michael's Campbell and Levy, David Schreck, Bruce Ripley and now Michael Smyth are liking the Nuclear option.

Palmer doesn't think BC would go for it. Yet because of the elimination of all discussion of nuclear from the MSM in BC, the almost continuous spew of antinuke propaganda from Big Oil and their astroturf organizations like Pembina, Greenpeace, and Suzuki, few BC citizens know of the 25 to one cost advantage, the zero land destruction, and zero pollution nuclear brings.

Yet enough seeps through that 65% of Canadians where polling has been done support nuclear. After the controversy in the US over the Obamas loan guarantees support has been rock steady at 75%.

Alberta is already planning a four reactor complex. If we are too stupid to build it here, I'm sure EPCOR or Bruce Power would be happy to build a few Candu's for us in Alberta and send us the power at a nice profit for them but still a lot cheaper than Site C.

recall

The problem with TooBad's scenario is that it depends on the BCLiberal's being so stupid that they will allow those recall votes to happen without some sort of a palace coup replacing the Gordo and clan with the well regarded Watts. This would nip recall efforts in the bud.

This is doubly so if the NDP refuse to dump Carole which seems likely at this point as they seem to be a collection of utter incompetents.

Seth

Dianne Watts doesn`t want to lead the Liberals.

That is nothing but a desperate rumour, Dianne Watts folds under pressure, she is not good with conflict.

Who wants to take over with the education cuts, the healthcare disaster, massive deficits, angry voters etc etc etc...

Sorry Seth, you know power and Nuke but you don`t know politics...

Like your plan to infiltrate the BC Liberal party and overwhelm the grass roots, or the Green party.

You are under the impression that the last election was a blow-out..It wasn`t, 7 riding`s Seth was the difference..There was a dozen close ridings, 60 votes, 100 votes, 400 votes..etc etc...

A close election with Canwest Global pimping for Campbell/CTV pimping/CKNW pimping)I hear you all the time on radio)...Plus the 3 stooges and a dishonest PAB...

And with all that it was close..And remember the enviro`s who pimped for Campbell!

Cheers

One more thing Seth

It appears Sean Holman agrees with my take...So does Vision critical...

Have a read Seth....

http://www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/004928.html#more

Perhaps if you were out canvassing like me and 5000 others you would know what I say is correct.

Lastly, you are very wise about cost effective/clean power/ Contact G West.....

My offer still stands.

Cheers

dianne watts

You make excellent points toobad. I agree Diane Watts may not be the answer to recall but I'm sure the BCLiberals are will try the old him bad me good trick. It's worked before.

BC Voters have been made before but voting when Carole is the alternative is like taking an enema. Most would rather stay home and avoid it.

I've got my fingers crossed you can do it!!

What I would like to see.

I listened to Minister Lekstrom. try to say in one breath that we were a net importer of power and in the next breath tell us that site C was so we could export the power. I didn't make a lot of sense then. I kept thinking that if the CBC wanted to actually do something useful with their noon hour show they should have a debate between Rafe and Blair Lekstrom so we could actually get a handle on just how much BS is being peddled by the liberals. Of course it won't happen. Good article Rafe!

But I would also like to see Carole go. That would ensure that after Campbell leaves there isn't another Campbell clone to take his place. My conversations with all these old socreds makes it clear they are furious and it is mostly because he lied and about how great the cash grab is.

There are really only a few pundits like Tom Fletcher, who have been drinking the Press Gallery bathwater so long, who still think that the Fight HST movement is a Vander Zalm joke. He like any of the others just don't get the groundswell of anger that is out there.

If nice Carole vacated, the liberals would be toast for sure.

A Mano-A-Mano Duel Between Watts and James

The sheeple look at who they like better and who is more likeable in their voting intentions. Who do people here think that they will like better - Watts or James? I suspect that the sheeple will go for Watts.

Campbell is just as hated now as Bennett was in 1986. Vander Zalm with his shiny pearl whites and smile wins the Socred leadership (Good-bye Bill Bennett) and the MSM treat him like a movie star.

Watts a movie starlet? James always a bridesmaid, never a bride?

Jenny Kwan

This intelligent well spoken women is an outstandingly media savvy leader.

She'd kick Dianne Watts butt right off the podium.

Replacing the dull, dowdy, and just plain dumb Carole James with Jenny and the NDP would win every election for the next 30 years, starting with that recall campaign.

My working class buds who'd rather have their teeth pulled than vote for Carole James so great is their dislike, claim they'd get out and vote for Jenny.

Sad sacks

Good article Mr. Mair. It just goes to show how sad sack the liberals really are to not have already pulled the welcome mat out from under Campbell. I am surprised that the good ship "PORKBARREL" hasn't crashed on an island yet as they are so preoccupied with filling the friends of Gord's pockets. Nobobdy is at the helm. BC jobs in the NOrtheast are disappearing faster than mountain caribou or healthy pine trees. Nobody cares as long as the flow of cash to natural gas producers in Calgary, Texas and the IPPs continue. OOOps forgot roof and consino builders too.

From Prince George/Opinion 250

Here are current totals from 3 strong Liberal ridings,and this after 2 weeks of the petition, 10 weeks still to go..Keep your eyes in their socket Polakite!

Prince George MacKenzie 2,126 signatures collected, threshold... 3,244

Prince George Valemont 2,960 signatures collectd, threshold 3,427

Nechako lakes 843 signatures collected, threshold 1,615

And .....They only started collecting in Nechako lakes 6 days ago..,Prince George had no canvassers for the first week of the petition.

Cheers

Liberals Site C move is a tough one for left

Check out the VanSun op-ed piece by IPP-hater Marjorie Cohen Griffen, "Why I support Site C, with conditions"
(vancouversun.com/technology/support+Site+with+conditions/2946500/story.html), and you'll see the masterful Campbell strategy of cutting off the left at their knees. Been done before, likely will work again.

Basically, WAC Bennett expropriated BC Electric in order to build his Two Rivers hydro mega-scheme. Wenner-Gren and BC Electric couldn't see a profit in it so they didn't want to play. Bennett took 'em on and pushed the envelope for the early 1960s. Now, we see something similar afoot. Like the earlier projects, Site C will be really an export project. More money, and political support - and this time, First Nations will climb on board a very rich train of economic development for their interests.

Yup and the Socreds had 4

Yup and the Socreds had 4 terms between Barrett and Harcourt. Harcourt only won because the right was split. I do not know why Ms. James is so selfish and does not step down or why the NDP won't ask her to leave. She must think she will win due to HST. If Dianne Watts becomes lib leader she will be in for 2 if not 3 terms.

Ms. James may be a nice person but she is unelectable. The BC NDP is destroying itself and just becoming one big joke. No direction and jumps on the flavour of the day..

so vote

Green then! Anything! get the vote out, build a coalition if need be, the socreds did it with less than half of half last time because of voter laziness.

And yes: Carole James: you are selfish beyond belief. You can't do it, step down for all our sakes! The only disgrace is if you stay. THINK about it.

Raife cannot add

Raife is wrong on the capacity of various projects. Site C - 4,600GWh per year; Butte Inlet 2,912; Klinaklini 414GWh. 4,600 is bigger than 3,326. Environmental review of the latter two very questionable, of site C should be easier.

Using green power from site C to process shale gas makes little sense. Processing shale gas is a base load project - steady power requirement, day in and day out. Why use expensive peak power for a base load application?

Site C is a good project that any government of BC will follow through on. If the NDP are in power, they will be shovelling money off the back of the truck to their supporters - the cost will be double what it would be under the Liberals.

And all you wacko HST haters - sit down and think for a minute. It is the right tax - for economic reasons. If you truly believe that companies won't pass through their cost reductions, they you believe that all those companies are already gouging you. Why would they not be doing it now if they will do it starting July 1. Either there is a market and the market works, or it does not. The presence or absence of the HST does not affect the market. The PST, on the other hand, had a million exceptions and did affect the market.

A broadly based value added tax is always a better tax than a tax like the PST with all its exceptions. Why is there an exception of female hygiene products. How can that make sense?

You people let you unhappiness with the NDP failures affect your intelligence (the charitable interpretation).

Hi Folks, I have been

Hi Folks,

I have been enjoying the different view points and arguments and have to say that I agree with a lot of what has been said.

However, the HST could be a great tax providing the businesses paid their share of taxes on the billions they earn and send out of British Columbia. This would remove the almost impossible taxation burden Campbell has put on the average British Columbian.

As far as Campbell is concerned, he pretty much leaves me speechless. What he has done to BC is tentamount to treason/arson under the guise of government. I fully expect that man to have to have a security detail with him, for the rest of his life. He has no idea how many lives he has ruined, how many businesses he has ruined. A lot of other places in the world he would have been dealt with long ago.

It is a real shame really - here we had one of the most beautiful provinces in the land and one of the worst political leaders who is intent on ruining it, all because of his worshipping the US dollars! Maybe we can get lucky and convince him to move down there permanently - cos he won't be wanted up here.

A coalition would be a great way to start a new government - it should prevent excesses like we have just gone through with Scampbell. Let's use the recall and get down to business.

Thanks

mariner

Old crank

The damn dam is going to cost at least $13 billion under the Libs, and likely more. Yet you say, the NDP would double this?

I think you've been at the tipple (again).

But listen old sport - at $13 billion to supply 410,000 households come down to a nifty 32 grand per house. I don't know about you, but I pay $75/mnth for the electricity I use. So that means the cost of the dam, spread over those hypothetical 410,000 homes, will get paid for in --oh -- 450 years, principal only.

Oops!

450 MONTHS! Or 35 years.

My bad!

All you wacko HST lovers.

OLd Crank asks, "If you truly believe that companies won't pass through their cost reductions, they you believe that all those companies are already gouging you. Why would they not be doing it now if they will do it starting July 1.?"

The are and they will, except after July 1 it will be with a bit of stealth from their friendly liberal government. There will be no monitoring or checking to see if it happens. Competition in most things is no existent today. It is a wacko pipe dream not shared by any except the most loyal Campbell liberals. A lie is justified by some hairy fairy economic theory. What next?

Tiny Fight HST Update

Just thought I'd log in (trying to stay off the internet comment-wheel) and follow up on Toobad's comments with a brief Initiative Update.

I just looked at the stats, and I was beaming - positively beaming. I can't go into it, but target has been smashed or almost reached in a lot of ridings. Let's keep it rocking and hit the 40% mark - that'll be the bell tolling for recall!

My riding has been a tad slow (up until a week ago I was the only canvasser) because our volunteers were not receiving badges from Elections BC. In the last few days, though, I've been delivering canvasser badges like crazy, quickly training and activating our pen and paper soldiers!

British Columbians! If you have not signed, hit www.fighthst.com as we have a new central signing location list, constantly updated with many new locations and times to sign. Big one coming up for Vancouver: Art Gallery Saturday May.1! 10:00AM to 6:00PM! Be there! Make it a day and hit Stanley Park too - petition and a picnic!

Site C Confirms Libs' Energy Claims Don't Compute

Mr. Mair's comments are spot on. I agree that the NDP cannot win an election with Carole James as leader. She is a nice person but lacks administrative and leadership skills, judging by the last election.

Pay no attention to dirty corporate fossil fuels!

Rafe says: "B.C. is NOT a net importer of power...if private power was needed for our own vital needs that would be a very serious matter"

Exactly!

About 80% of the power we consume in BC is from private companies...most of it nasty-dirty fossil fuels. If you are worried about private power isn't this a "very serious matter"?

Doesn't Rafe know we rely on private power for almost all our energy in BC? If not, how much faith should we put in his views of what to do? If he does know it, why does he make statements that ignore this primary threat to our energy security and environment?

BC citizens consume more climate-dirty oil than any other power source. In fact we now have to IMPORT 75,000 GWh per year worth of oil. That is double BC Hydro's total clean energy production. If you are concerned about energy self-sufficiency and imports that ugly fact qualifies as "very serious matter" doesn't it?

So by Rafe's own criteria -- being totally dependent on imported corporate power -- we have a very serious energy problem that requires the "debate" to be totally different.

So why is it? Why are Rafe and so many other folks talking about very tiny bits of private electricity while totally ignoring gigantic piles of private dirty fossil fuels?

BC citizens are morally and legally required to cut our fossil fuel emissions 90% per person. Yowza...that is a massive task that requires a very serious discussion about energy choices in BC.

Isn't this a huge problem Rafe?

Shouldn't we finally have an honest energy debate that includes our overwhelming reliance on dirty corporate power and our massive private power imports?

Can't we talk about the "mountain" instead of obsessing only the "molehill" for once?

Stonebreaker

Okay, how do we not use private power and not destroy our environment?

BC produces more than enough electricity for its own needs NOW

And if we were to adopt many of California's conservation measures we would have more than enough energy for the future too.

California has led the way in energy conservation. That state uses less energy per capita than any other state in the country. Since 1974, California has held its per capita energy consumption essentially constant, while energy use per person for the United States overall has jumped 50 percent.

California did this by adopting a mix of mandates, regulations and high prices. It has also cut greenhouse-gas emissions, kept utility companies happy and maintained much of its economic growth - at least until the crash of 2008.

The average American burns 12,000 kilowatt-hours a year of electricity, the average Californian burns less than 7,000 -- including renewable energy sources.

There is no way that we need site C; no way we need Run of River.

The solutions aren't easy, but they are simple - follow California's example. Period.

Frank

I don't care what the exact mix of public and private power the citizens of BC choose: currently they choose 80% private and 20% public.

What I care about is that we meet our legal and moral obligations to stop using fossil fuels starting yesterday. That means dramatic power down of fossil fuels which fuel our lives today.

Many people have proposed POSSIBLE pathways which include different mixes of power down, conservation, efficiency and fuel switching to cleaner energy sources.

So far the citizens of BC are not choosing any of these POSSIBLE pathways.

I don't care what mix of public and private...or what mix of conservation, efficiency and new sources BC citizens actually choose. We just need to start informing people of the full energy picture and threats so we can get moving on it.

In my view a big reason we aren't meeting our moral and legal responsibility to cut fossil fuel climate pollution is that most "BC energy" debaters avoid all mention and context of our fossil fuel suck and spew.

Many of the loudest voices continually make incorrect and misleading statements on:

-- BC energy imports.

MYTH: Many people claim, like Rafe in this article, that BC doesn't import power. This blatant error is repeated endlessly by people in article after article. Why?

REALITY: We import the majority of our primary energy source: dirty oil. We import more oil energy than BC HYDRO produces. BC Oil production peaked years ago and is in freefall. Peak Oil threatens to emerge worldwide. Climate change requires we stop using most of our oil. We have a serious energy IMPORT problem in BC.

QUESTION: How are we going to get off our addiction to dirty imported energy if we don't even mention it in energy debates? Do we need some more cleaner electricity to fuel switch some of that oil energy to? How much? Who will develop it?

-- Pubic vs. Private.

MYTH: BC has a history of mostly public energy that is being threatened now by private corporations developing clean energy.

REALITY: BC citizens and biz currently buy 80% of their energy from private corporations. Most of it dirty fossil fuel from the Exxons of the world. Only 9% of BC energy production is BC Hydro. 91% is private...mostly dirty fossil. 1% is private clean energy.

QUESTIONS: Why the hype over our 1% private clean energy while totally ignoring our 90% private dirty energy? If we accept 80% private now, what percentage are we willing to accept in a post-fossil fuel world? How are we going to get public buy off on that mix if the people arguing the issue don't even talk about the big picture?

I'm personally going for fossil-power-down, solar panels and efficiency in my life. So far I haven't seen BC society moving that direction -- or any direction -- on our fossil fuel beast.

We won't get moving until the public debate clarifies BC's private fossil fuel reality rather than hiding it.

crankpants?

You say my assertions have been debunked...but don't say which ones or by who. Why?

All my stats come from publicly available energy data from BC Hydro, BC government, federal government and enviro groups like Pembina. Happy to supply links to any you have questions about.

I was willing to point to specific things in the article and provide counterpoints. Perhaps you would be willing to do the same with points of mine you say are "kool-aid"? Or has the "BC Energy" discussion now devolved to fact-free name-calling?

Also can you please explain what PAB is?

Stonebreaker

This article is about electrical energy and the need (or not) for more of it.

I don't disagree that we use fossil fuels and create GHGases with our way of life.

The Campbell Tax was meant to address that and suggested that GHG production would be slashed by a third by 2020. IN fact, since 2008 our production of GHG has 'increased' not gone down. This points to the utter futility of addressing the issue with a money-spinning tax like the Campbell Tax.

But that's NOT the subject of this discussion.

This discussion is about electricity. And, we are a net importer of power ONLY if you don't count private electricity production. Rafe has covered this point adequately in his article.

Perhaps you missed it?

PAB - refers to the Public Affairs Bureau of the Campbell government. It happens to run the biggest newsroom in the province.

GWest...yes it is possible

GWest, you make excellent points that I've made many times. California is a model for how to avoid building new power plants and encouraging conservation via energy pricing and efficiency laws.

What many people leave out is that California did that by dramatically raising per unit electricity costs in tiers. Californians now pay over 30 cents per kWh at peak. We freak out at 10 cents.

But high kWh prices have led to lower per person spending on electricity in California relative to states that kept low per kWh costs. California is the 7th or 8th largest economy on earth and it does great with 30 cent kWh for high-consumption tiers.

We have to make energy too expensive to WASTE. Cheap energy is wasted because it is cheaper to do that than conservation and efficiency.

To protect poorer folks we need rates tiered to be low at base level.

Note that the prices many people here in BC lament will be charged for new private clean energy projects like run-of-river are still far below the upper tier prices Californians pay today. Upper tiers being too expensive to squander is good for society and the environment.

The big point you miss in your comment is exactly the same one Rafe missed...namely that you are only talking about ELECTRICITY. But Californians, like us, primarily use fossil fuel energy. Electricity is a small part of the energy picture.

Sure it is POSSIBLE for California and BC citizens to cut energy use 80% in order to eliminate most fossil fuels while also not building any more clean electricity to replace it. Anything is POSSIBLE.

The moral and legal quandary we face is why haven't we done that yet...and what needs to change so we will do that now?

The California story tells about not building so many new electricity plants. The task we face is far larger: shutting down most of our existing energy sources (aka fossil fuels) quickly.

If we do what we have in the past we will continue feeding on the climate trashing teet of imported oil from the global Exxons of the world.

What do we have to do differently with our energy policies to prevent fossil-as-usual?

How much cleaner electricity will BC citizens demand in our democracy before we give up our fossil fuels? Where do we want this built? By whom?

Let's quit pretending we don't primarily use fossil fuel energy.

Let's quit pretending we don't need to finally start cutting our fossil fuel use quickly.

Let's have an honest discussion of what our entire energy future should be.

The issue is do we need more clean electricity

GWest, in your most recent comment you say the article is about "electricity" only. But that isn't true and it isn't what Rafe says.

The clean energy debate in BC is about whether BC needs more clean energy. Right? How can you have that conversation if you don't talk about our dirty energy alternative?

The anti-clean energy folks keep saying BC doesn't need more clean energy. How can that be true if we also need to meet our moral and legal obligations to cut fossil fuels 90% per person?

The only way you can say BC doesn't need more clean energy is if you either:

1) are calling on BC citizens to cut energy use 80% and have some plan to get them to do that.

OR

2) you don't care if we keep burning fossil fuels despite our moral and legal requirement to stop.

Which is it? They won't ever say. They won't even talk about fossil fuel energy.

And the public-vs-private energy issue is a distraction to make citizens mad without informing them of the reality today.

Here is Rafe: "This is key, for if private power was needed for our own vital needs that would be a very serious matter, and the debate about damming our rivers would be different."

But private power is needed for our own vital needs apparently since it powers almost all our lives, biz, society and economy.

You have to live down Alice's rabbit hole to not see that ending fossil fuel use is intimately tied to the debate on how much clean electricity we will need to pull that off.

Just look at the fossil fuel heat going into the buildings of BC and explain how that goes away without more clean electricity. Or what about transport?

BC has a gigantic immoral energy pollution problem that we are now required by law to solve. And people who insist on hiding this fact when they discuss clean energy alternatives are doing our society and our failing environment a huge disservice.

Thank you for clearing up the PAB issue. Anyone who suggests my comments are in line with PAB isn't paying attention. The BC Liberals love fossil fuels just as much as the NDP. I wish there was a political force in BC that actually wanted to do the right thing with our future destroying dirty corporate energy suck and spew.

Stonebreaker

"Many people have proposed POSSIBLE pathways which include different mixes of power down, conservation, efficiency and fuel switching to cleaner energy sources.

So far the citizens of BC are not choosing any of these POSSIBLE pathways."

Actually Stonebreaker, the people are choosing to conserve whenever they can. Most people do turn off unneeded power and most do choose fuel efficient vehicles when they can.

As for clean power, what do you suggest, nuclear?

"Why the hype over our 1% private clean energy"

What is this? Are you claiming IPP power is "clean"? It isn't. Or to use your way of putting it, its a myth.

Simple example: Vancouver building heat

Vancouverites burn 7,500GWh per year in natural gas to heat their buildings.

How do they meet their moral and legal obligation to cut their fossil fuel use 90% per person without at least some more clean electricity?

Anyone in the anti-clean energy crowd want to explain how that will happen?

That is just one city in BC...and just one use of fossil fuels.

Let's quit pretending we can have clean energy discussion restricted to just "electricity".

Stonebreaker

I'd rather burn natural gas (a relatively clean fossil fuel) than wreck BC rivers.

Morally I can't understand why anyone would want to tear swaths through the forest, pour cement into the rivers and direct river water into long tubes.

In fact, looking at it that way natural gas is "cleaner" than IPP power.

Nuke GHG's - problem solved.

To end BC's GHG production you'd need about 15 Gw of nukes paid for by eliminating the use of very expensive fossil fuels.

The conversion would begin by replacing natural gas in residential and industrial heating applications with nuclear electricity and steam. The freed up natural gas would be used for CNG auto fuel and NG derived methanol and dimethyl ether. The latter would replace ethanol in current E85 flex fuel vehicles and diesel in trucks and locomotives.

Like the gas utility in Utah, Terasen could easily sell natural gas vehicle fuel at your home delivery rate of 30 cents a liter equivalent instead of the ripoff 75 cents now available from TBoone Pickens' "Clean Energy" operation which has the usual sweetheart deals in place with the Gordo. Utah sells CNG for a $1 a gallon equivalent and mass produced conversion and home fill kits would likely be under $2K installed in your average vehicle. Almost all of BC's gasoline/diesel usage would be eliminated saving billions annually financing nuclear construction, auto gas, refinery, service station and home electric heat conversions.

As we switch to electric vehicles, and enough nuclear capacity is available off peak nuclear produced methane or methanol would fuel non electric vehicles.

The current cost of the enhanced Candu 6 is less than $2B/Gw and both AECL and Westinghouse are predicting less than half that for their new Gen 3+ units when production levels get into the scores.

http://www.cnnc.com.cn/tabid/168/Default.aspx

Candu's in China (Qinshan) are now running quite nicely burning nuclear waste from the light water reactors (American style) as fuel at a zero net cost.

Campbell just spent $65B buying one gigawatt average of run of the river and wind power and is proposing anothe $10B for .5 Gw more from Site C. A $3B Qinshan copy would produce the same amount of power at 4% the cost.

10 Qinshan copys would produce enough power to eliminate all of BC's GHG's at 40% of the cost of Gordo's insane and corrupt energy plan. BCHydro would make $billions annually selling the very valuable dependable power into the US market us the conversion ramps up.

Big Oil are fans of wind, solar and small hydro because they know the more money spent on highly erratic undependable power sources the more money they get in NG sales to low efficiency gas plant required for load balancing. Better to skip the wind and built high efficiency CCGT gas plant instead.

Big Oil and Big Coal are both terrified that folks will find out that it is feasable to replace their sickening pollution spewing economy wrecking product with mass produced nuclear power. They've purchased Harpo and the Gordo to make sure that doesn't happen.

Uh, fossil fuels ARE IPP power

Frank, thanks for having the guts to admit that you would prefer BC IPPs to frack, drill, mine and import fossil fuels rather than develop things like run-of-river electricity.

Since we use 100,000 GWh of oil in BC as well I assume you are also in favour of IPPs developing lots more oil too instead. Drill, baby, spill?

I've always felt that many of the folks against fossil alternatives really just like our fossil fuel industry better but don't have the guts to say so. It is refreshing to have someone at least admit it openly.

Oceans 30% more acidic already and nothing to stop it for thousands of years? Forest collapsing? Streams drying out? Bigger forest fires? Estuaries disappearing? Hey, big deal. Who cares if we keep burning gobbles and snortings of fossil fuels?

It is just so easy when you stop worrying about too rapid climate changes and ocean acidification. Let's all do it!

Oh wait a minute...that is what we have been doing for the last two decades. Well...carry on.

Lots of Nukes?

Certainly Nukes are one POSSIBLE alternative to fossil fuels. Is that what BC citizens will accept? I hope not...but who knows.

There are lots of alternatives including wind (BC has some of the best wind anywhere in the world)...solar hot water and PV panels on homes and buildings (germany and japan do it)...conservation-level tiered energy pricing and carbon pricing...efficiency regulations...tidal...hydro...geothermal.

So far we seem to just like mostly fossil fuels. Lots and lots of fossil fuels.

And so far, BC has happily added 10,000 GWh per year in new fossil fuel extraction year after year after year. Hush. Don't disturb the fossil lullaby.

I'd rather not build nukes.

But considering nearly every big cleaner-than-fossil alternative in recent years has been attacked...who know what we will end up with.

Probably fossil fuels and failing ecosystems like now...only much worse.

Nuclear safety

Modern nuclear power has by the best safety record of any technology - zero deaths in 50 years in the USA or Canada.

Hydro, solar and wind kill quite a few folks falling off roofs cleaning and installing solar, falling and getting chopped up by shattered blades on windmills, or drowning and falling in hydro mishaps.

Frank

This is right out of Lekstrom's mouth as of today (28 April). Site C is intended for domestic consumption, which will free up ROR's for the export market...........