Topic
CONTEST: Share your local faves, win $2,500 in prizes! What!?
And other arguments against letting the 'economy' trump nature in BC.
Moran dam proposed site. Project was defeated by salmon defenders decades ago. Will Enbridge's economic arguments fail similarly? Source: BC Archives.
Now is the critical time to rise to the defence of salmon habitat.
Gordon Campbell signed away our right to enviro-assess pipeline projects. You can get it back.
Four documents extolling oil sands and Gateway pipeline more 'propaganda' than business cases, says Robyn Allan.
Robyn Allan is the former president and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. and is an economist by trade. I have enormous respect for Allan and concur with her conclusion, stated frequently and as recently as July 6 in the Vancouver Sun, that the proposed Enbridge pipeline will have a deleterious impact on the Canadian economy generally and that of B.C. in particular.
The economics of this huge issue are, of course, very important to the decision-making process and to the decision itself. My caveat, however, is that to dwell on the economy brings with it great risks.
Back in the days before independent power producer boondoggles, fish farms, pipelines and tankers, the argument regarding salmon always involved sports fishermen, commercial fishermen and to complete the circle, Aboriginal fishing. The money each group brought into the B.C. economy was an ongoing political theme. I, amongst others, argued that this was a dangerous argument since it invited comparisons to other ways the rivers and oceans could be used to much greater economic advantage -- such as power dams doubling as flood control dams.
Indeed, that argument has been lurking in the political shadows for 75 years with a fair amount of governmental and commercial issue.
When they wanted to dam the Fraser
If one were to debate a dam on the Fraser River near Lytton, the economic argument is all in favour of the dam. While the salmon runs to be ruined will cost the province and those who fish a lot of money, that is offset, we're told by industry and government, by the enormous financial gains from the dam itself many, many times over.
In fact such a dam, called the Moran, has been on the drawing board since late in the Second World War when it was pushed by the federal government. Premier WAC Bennett raised this issue again in the 1960s and was only stopped by the outcry of those who put the heritage of our salmon ahead of the incredible profits that would come from a huge dam.
Here are the stats according to Wikipedia:
"The dam would have been 261 metres (856 ft) high, generating as much power on average as Grand Coulee Dam and twice of Hoover Dam combined -- much of this energy would have been sold to the northwestern United States. It would form a gigantic reservoir 260 kilometres (160 mi) long, containing some 35.4 cubic kilometres (28,700,000 acre ft) of water at maximum pool reaching almost to the town of Quesnel. A significant portion of this capacity would be reserved for flood control."
The argument that our Pacific salmon are worth more than money prevailed then. Would it prevail today if the issue was revived, which I'm certain will happen?
Pipeline full of expensive risks
With the proposed Enbridge pipeline, the financial benefits are not worth the candle, as Allan so clearly and accurately says. The trouble is that the governments won't pay the slightest attention to her or to the Common Sense Canadian's economist, Erik Andersen. There will be a barrage of one-liners about progress, jobs, blah blah blah, so that economic truths will be trumped by public relations.
The environmental implications of the proposed Enbridge pipeline are serious beyond belief. We're talking 1,100 km over 1,000 rivers and streams. The environmental implications are huge and my point to Allan is that before we get to economics, let's see what this pipeline will do and glance at tanker traffic too.
The main thing to note is that there will, not may, be ruptures and spills. These are mathematical certainties. not "risks." My example is the revolver with 100 chambers and one bullet. If you put this to your temple and will only pull the trigger once, or perhaps a dozen times, indeed 1,000 times, you can calculate the risk. If on the other hand you are going to pull it forever the risk becomes a virtual certainty -- as pipelines and tankers are certain to leak or rupture.
In the revolver example, if the one bullet is actually marshmallow, who cares? Except as I explain below, we're not dealing with marshmallow here.
Enbridge has an appalling environmental record -- about one rupture or spill per week. There is no question that if the pipeline goes through there will be multiple spills. And as Allan astutely points out, due to the structure Enbridge has set up to own and operate the pipeline, their liability for a spill will be severely limited, leaving British Columbians holding the bag for cleanup costs.
What would Jesus do?
The substance being transported is not crude oil as we understand it, but bitumen, a near solid, which unlike other oils sinks like a stone and is infinitely more toxic. Enbridge has shown in the Kalamazoo River case that it simply cannot be cleaned up, even when it can easily bring workers and machinery into the area.
In short, the pipeline is a series of ongoing disasters simply waiting to happen.
The Northern Gateway pipeline goes through some of the least accessible places in the world, where the only way to get in is by helicopter. There is no way in the world that workers and equipment could be brought to the site and even if they could, the damage from the spill could never be properly cleaned up.
It's interesting to note that Enbridge and its supporters sneer at the possibility that they would have to file plans for crossing 1,000 rivers and streams. This, they say, is absurd.
I ask why is it absurd? The common environmental requirement for pipelines is that they must file plans for crossing watercourses. Why should that not be the case just because there are a lot of watercourses?
I thoroughly agree with Allan, but simply say we shouldn't let ourselves get to the spot where the economics are considered. In the economic argument, money trumps environment arguments every time.
For those who really care about the environment there is a compelling spiritual argument that deserves our full attention. Salmon and other fish (indeed the entire environment) have a value that transcends commercial interests. We're talking the very soul of our province, and Jesus's poignant question hits the heart of the matter in Mark 8:36. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
What indeed? ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
19
Login or register to post comments
Chuck Dickens
49 weeks ago
Yah, yah, yah! I remember so
Yah, yah, yah! I remember so well Rafe setting his hair on fire on CKNW daily about a ten or twenty year old scandal that finally sank the "Greenest" Premier that this Province has ever had. Remember Mike Harcourt...dippy? Reading this article is hillarious, all of those anti-environment moves by the Liberal Government which he rags on about are moves which he supported by supporting this Government.
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVED - MODERATOR]
Grumpy
49 weeks ago
The NDP revisionists are at it again
Quote: "......twenty year old scandal that finally sank the "Greenest" Premier that this Province has ever had. Remember Mike Harcourt...dippy?"
Mike Harcourt was/is a fumbling clown, who never got it right. Since his accident, the NDP types have put him on a pedestal of sorts, where he/they continue to pretend that people listen to him.
For Embridge and it's pipeline, if they want it so bad, make them put put up a $20 billion bond before construction to ensure there is money to clean up any oil spill.
I doubt they could, ergo no pipeline.
Fiat lux
49 weeks ago
Money is supposed to
Money is supposed to represent real values. Today's monetary system represents gambling games by a ruling sector to distort realities and, used as a weapon for colonization, to take control. In short, it is a fraud.
Monetary and real economics have little, or nothing in common, because present day, imaginary monetary values, grabbed from the air, are used to distort realities, physical facts and measurements for the taking of control of resources and people.
There may be some real economists around, but very few and far in between. Those who work with imaginary monetary values are nothing more than priesthoods for mental enslavement.
The only real economics of today is environmentalism, because it works with and represents physical realities.
We need money for practical reasons and purposes, but the present system is a monumental fraud, used to enslave.
Ed Deak.
seth
49 weeks ago
Better Alternatives
With Eastern Canada now being served with dirt cheep shale gas from Appalachia easily replaced with even cheeper nukes, Transcanada's mainline gas pipe is already running at only 25% capacity and dropping fast. TransCanada has applied to switch the pipe to oil, eliminating the need for the Northern Pipe and replacing Canada's Saudi oil imports with home grown crude.
Meanwhile,,just south of Kelowna, the Columbia generating station with 3 times the output of Site C turns out dirt cheap clean and green zero environmental footprint nuclear power 24/7 at 4 cents a kwh from a tiny industrial park. Site C at 13 cents a kwh, will destroy 10000 acres of prime farmland spewing more GHG's than the same size coal plant because of methane emissions from rotting vegetation.
Crazed GHG spewing gas power schemes at 17 cents a kwh are hatched by BC Fascists, killing and sickening thousands of BC citizens annually from air pollution. The LNG plant power requirements they serve could be easily met at 20% the cost with zero environmental cost nukes.
There are no cogent arguments against nuke power. Washington state rabid environmentalists, Democratic Party Governor Gregoire and US Senators Cantwell and Murray know it and are urging the DOE to expedite new nuclear builds just south of Kelowna. How will BC firms compete with energy at 3 to 5 times the cost of Wa state nuke power?
Unfortunately BC, Alberta, and Canada's Fascist governments and almost all our media are 100% owned by Big Oil, which knows only nuclear power can put it out of business.
snert
49 weeks ago
Ed Deak
Since when? You keep forgetting, Ed, wealth and value are both highly subjective terms. They keep shifting like gossamer cloth in the the wind. You'd be better off to tilt at windmills. Oh, that's right you're doing that now.
Jim Baird
49 weeks ago
Sea Level Rise
Rafe, SLR is projected to be one of the most severe consequences of Climate Change.
Dr. Yadu Pokhrel recently lead a study which found aquifer pumping played a significant roll in raising sea levels. http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/ngeo1476.html
The runoff we have recently witnessed in this province produces the same result even as other areas of this continent are tinder dry, in flames, or are being desiccated.
Bulk water sales have long been a contentious issue in this province but tankering or diverting some of our excess to areas in need could have a beneficial environmental effect.
As the smoke for the Colorado fires demonstrates, we are not immune to the impacts of Climate Change occurring beyond our borders.
burbster
49 weeks ago
If the dollar ruled, Gateway would die
Overlooked in the argument that Alberta needs to maximize the price of the oil, is the input cost of gas. BC natural gas is being sold to the bitumen sands at less than 20% of world price. If we can sell gas to Asia at $15/mmbtu, why are we selling it to Alberta at $2.50? The greatest net economic benefit to Canada would occur by cutting off the bitumen sands from all natural gas and selling it to Asia.
boondoggle
49 weeks ago
Premeditated Destruction of the Salmon Fisheries
Don't think the destruction of the Fraser River salmon fishery is an accident. DFO and the provincial government have stonewalled all attempts to prevent the total decimation of this fishery for this reason. It is certainly well understood within the ranks of DFO! Unfortunately the general public has no idea of the destructive capacity of unfettered capitalism but they may figure it out once their ecosystem is totally destroyed.
Hakuin
49 weeks ago
precisely Ed:
"The only real economics of today is environmentalism, because it works with and represents physical realities."
That is the only truth, absolutely everything else is just about the greedy and the left out.
Jim Baird
49 weeks ago
Destruction of the Fisheries
The real threat to all fisheries was outlined in the Nature article, Global phytoplankton decline over the past century http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html
Daniel Boyce of Dalhousie and his team estimates, "we are killing the base of the ocean’s food chain at a rate of about 1% per year due to increasing ocean surface temperatures."
"What we think is happening is that the oceans are becoming more stratified as the water warms," said Boyce. "The plants need sunlight from above and nutrients from below; and as it becomes more stratified, that limits the availability of nutrients."
Phytoplankton are the base of the ocean food-chain and the lungs of the planet.
Their importance to the BC salmon fishery was suggested by Tim Parsons, a research scientist at the Institute of Ocean Sciences in Sidney, B.C.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2010/10/25/volcano-bc-eruption-sockeye-salmon.html
He believes a 2008 volcanic eruption in Alaska lead to a massive phytoplankton bloom that nourished the young Sockeye swimming in the area at the time, which in turn lead to the Sockeye run of 2010 which was the largest since 1913.
BC technology that would cool the oceans surface and promote gentle upwelling that would reproduce the ocean environment that lead to the 2010 run was outlined in the Times Colonist piece, The dubious merits of Northern Gateway.
http://www2.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/comment/story.html?id=88466b34-9d75-4912-a4a6-260183619cc1&p=2
Not all economic activity is either evil or detrimental to the environment.
miguel
49 weeks ago
Common Sense
I worked in the oil & gas fields of N. Alberta in the late 70's. One project specifically, was an electric transmission line form Slave Lake to Syncrude, north of MacMurray
Today they are fracking the Peace River gas fields, to supply gas by pipe to the thermal generating station on Slave Lake, to send electricity to the Tar Sands, to pipe oil to the Pacific or the Gulf of Mexico.
Tar Sands oil is only marginally profitable if oil prices stay high, & no one person can control that.
Two major watersheds poisoned for a zig-zagging web of pipes, for some questionable good.
Skywalker
49 weeks ago
In response to Chuck Dickens and Grumpy
It is inevitable that whenever Rafe write a good piece on the Tyee that someone comes out of the woodwork to "poison the well" but never responding to the content of the article. We don't know if this is from a person with real environmental concerns or just from a pro-pipeline shill just trying to poison the source. Does that tactic even work these days?
As for Grumpy, in a sense he is right that Harcourt was viewed by some in the MSM as bumbling. That was part of their tactic but the fact remains that Harcourt introduced more environmentally friendly legislation and consultation processes than any Premier in B.C's history. After decades of Socreds in power he started with a real social and environmental as well as economic deficit. The NDP has not raised him on a pedestal and instead have done the same to him that they did to anyone who was involved in the 90's.
The MSM on the other hand have likely given Harcourt more consideration out of guilt and belated compassion over his accident. Phoney, I know but that is the way they work.
Carry on Rafe, it is always good to read about how we all got to into this mess. The only positive I can see in even raising the issue of daming the Fraser is that all those southerners might have to accept some back yard risk for their insatiable appetite for resources outside their region. maybe they will understand how Northerners feel about Enbridge and Site C.
rangerkim
49 weeks ago
You're dreaming Rafe
I mean that in the kindest and most ironic sense.
I used to listen to you on the radio describe the days when you were a boy fishing in Burrard Inlet and off of Pt Atkinson. You recounted how the herring would ball up so dense that a ball would acsend 3 or 4 feet out of the water.
Well Rafe, except in your dreams those days are gone!
As are the days of respect for nature, respect for the values of honesty and integrity and the belief that man is but just one aspect of the natural world. Now it's all about the money, all the time.
If you can a make a profit, then by definition, it must be good. QED
No! my Tyee friends if this thing is to be stopped it will take blood. We are long past the time and place to sway the decision-makers with arguments; cogent, emotional, rational or otherwise.
Fiat lux
49 weeks ago
Seth.... I wrote "money is
Seth.... I wrote "money is supposed to represent real values" not that it does.
In my work I have defined money as a form of religion of " often forcibly induced temporary perceptions for the control of energy." If money would represent realities it would be permitted to change the dimensions of trade goods at will.
I think this should be understood even by people who claim that BC's economy could not compete with energy 3 to 5 times the cost of nuke power.
Especially when the operators are "cutting costs to be more efficient", as they've done it in Japan, et al.
The more the energy used, or "created", the bigger the ultimate reactions.
Ed Deak.
Fiat lux
49 weeks ago
Correction: should be "it
Correction: should be "it wouldn't be permitted to change the dimensions of trade goods at will. "
Ed Deak.
lynn
49 weeks ago
Nature's Right To Be
"For those who really care about the environment there is a compelling spiritual argument that deserves our full attention. Salmon and other fish (indeed the entire environment) have a value that transcends commercial interests. "
Indeed, Rafe.
In fact, they all have a value, a unique value, that transcends the narcissistic propensity of human beings to define them and to accordingly thus determine their significance... or their insignificance.
Jim Baird
49 weeks ago
Generating power to save the Salmon
Basic physics teaches that 1 Calorie is the equivalent of the work done against a gravitational field of 1 by a mass of 427 kilogram falling a distance of 1 meter.
Conversely 1 kilogram falling a distance of 427 meters produces the same result, which is the raising of 1 kilogram of water by 1 degree centigrade.
Between the 30 degree latitudes North and South of the equator are thousands of miles of ocean where the temperature differences between the surface and deep waters are as high as 21 degrees.
Effectively these regions are thermal dams of a height of 8967 metres or 350 metres more than Mount Everest.
The Carnot efficiency given a cold reservoir of 278K and a hot reservoir of 299K is 7 percent but practically it is closer to 3.25 percent for Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion so the height of the ocean’s thermal dam is effectively reduced to 291 or 51 meters higher than the Mica Dam 240 that produces 2,104 MW or power.
Every watt of power produced by OTEC is a watt of heat removed from the oceans and thus a reduction in the hazard to the fishery and a reduction in the thermal expansion of the oceans which is one of the major causes of sea level rise.
A win/win/win is available even as we place are bets on a scientifically certain loser.
daveb
49 weeks ago
Great article
Thank you, you're forgiven for being a Socred all those years ago.
Tar sands and asbestos. What a country! Where did it go??
dave49
49 weeks ago
Burbster -- LNG vs. Gas for Tar sands
Burbster,
For me, the key unanswered question is where will the vast supply of cheap natural to power the tar sands come from when a higher profit option, conversion to LNG and export, is available.
The supporters say these projects have huge upsides, but in addition to environmental risk, there is significant business risk as these contracts are typically for 20 years. How will the pain ripple through the BC economy if one or more of these energy supply or transport projects fails?