Behind the 'Green' Screen
Despite premier's emissions progress, BC nature is under attack.
Rivers for private power?
We are faced with a threat few of us have considered. We've been distracted, and deliberately, by governments, most particularly by the Campbell government, into ignoring the real environmental issues that face us.
No one, least of all me, would deny the problems of greenhouse gases which, for everywhere but Vancouver it seems, are accompanied by global warming. But this has become, so to speak, a smokescreen behind which massive rape of our environment is not only permitted but encouraged.
Throughout this province we see a massive environmental degradation started and cheered on by the Campbell government.
It's called, with Orwellian Newspeak, "run of the rivers."
Heedless of precautions
The precautionary principle sensibly says before you mess with the environment, the onus is upon you to show you will do no harm. That's been turned on its head.
Fish farmers don't have to demonstrate that they can operate safely. Courageous people like salmon researcher Alexandra Morton must risk prison and slander from both governments as she demonstrates the obvious harm being done.
Citizens in Tsawwassen must prove that transmission wires, which cause radios to scream with static and literally make hair stand up, might be dangerous.
Lovers of Burns Bog and nearby wildlife preserves must prove that the new adjacent highway will be harmful by hugely increasing and making more proximate traffic.
And lovers of the environment must demonstrate that private power plants, reducing river flows by 95 per cent in some cases, will hurt fish both resident and migratory. They must also demonstrate that dirt roads into streams will hurt wildlife and that clear cutting huge swaths of trees to permit transmission lines is bad for wildernesses. They must demonstrate that when you destroy a river you destroy its valley and all the flora and fauna that depend upon it.
What is notable about these massive environmental intrusions is that there have been no meaningful consultations before the decisions have been taken.
Public protest after public protest is occurring with the notable absence of Liberal MLAs and ministers. People must, apparently, accept that powerhouses, roads, tunnels many kilometres long and clear cutting for power lines are an improvement on nature.
The need is unproven
If one is to justify changing the environment, two things must be done.
First it must be shown that there is a compelling public need for it.
And second it must be done in a manner so as to do as little harm as possible.
The so-called "run of rivers" policy has no redeeming features whatever.
To begin with, the government has not established any need now or in the foreseeable future for drastic action to produce power. In keeping with this government's economical use of the truth, we're told that it's either a new mega dam on the Peace River at what's called Site C, or "run of the rivers" development. This is an old debating trick called the false dichotomy. That is not the issue for there's no need for Site C or a new era of "run of rivers" private power development. If you care to see the reality, have a look at John Calvert's book Liquid Gold or Google Dr. Marvin Schaffer for a number of excellent presentations.
These proposed run of river projects are environmental catastrophes and I invite you to go to www.saveourrivers.ca and look at the video Powerplay and others by Damien Gillis to see what they really look like.
The Campbell government constantly denies that hundreds of rivers and streams are at risk. It tells those who oppose the premier's plans that we are wrong when we say that "applications" are "licenses." In fact they are de facto licenses for this very simple reason. Once the application for a run of river operation is filed, all the applicant must then do is undergo an environmental assessment process -- which is a sham. The Environment Ministry has no power to stop any project and can only recommend "mitigation" -- the worst of many weasel words in "governmentese." Moreover, if the project is for less than 50 megawatts, no environmental process is required at all!
Power to the USA!
Let me just conclude on one point that has not been emphasized and must be.
Once our power is no longer created and sold by a vertically integrated public power company, BC Hydro, we become subject to the "proportionality" clause of NAFTA, which, simply put, says that if we wish to reduce our power exports to the United States, we must reduce our own use by the same amount. If we find in B.C. that because of low water or any number or reasons we need to reduce exports and use the power for our own needs, we cannot do it.
But here's the worst part. Once we start damming, weiring or tunneling our rivers, and providing private power to the United States, we change who profits.
We take the money that BC Hydro now earns and puts into the provincial treasury for hospitals, schools and the like and we give it instead to shareholders in companies like Ledcor and Westinghouse.
That's right, folks, we take our environment, our power, and our money and send it to shareholders (mostly American) in large international corporations! But it gets even worse than that. For once we start, how do we stop? We will have American governments declining to risk their own environments for power. Why should they when B.C. is delighted to bugger up its rivers for them?
Hydro down the drain?
Forgive me for spoiling your digestion with this final thought to chew on. BC Hydro, the jewel of our Crown corporations, is living, barely, under a death sentence that is being executed in three stages.
Stage one was selling the bureaucracy to Accenture, the bastard child of Arthur Anderson Consulting of the Enron scandal.
Stage two was stripping BC Hydro of its transmission lines and placing them in a different Crown crporation, British Columbia Transmission Corporation (BCTC), the very same outfit caught spying on the citizens of Tsawwassen.
Stage three sees Hydro left with its dams and Burrard Thermal and a $7 billion debt they will no longer have the money to service.
If Campbell wins the next election, BCTC will be privatized, BC Hydro will default on its bonds and the premier known so well for crocodile tear TV presentations will sadly tell us that since the province had guaranteed Hydro's bonds and must pay them, well golly gee whiz, while we sure didn't want to do it, we must sell BC Hydro's assets to the highest acceptable bidder.
Looking for an election issue?
The Independent Power Projects (IPPS) called "run of the river," are a ghastly mistake however you look at them. They will destroy the province's streams, rivers and the ecology of their valleys. The destruction will be permanent. The private power companies will be rich beyond description. We will lose the revenue from Hydro and Hydro along with it, leaving us with but one more giveaway left -- sell the water to the U.S. as well. After all, if the fish are all gone, why not?
All this because Gordon Campbell believes that all public enterprise is evil and that all private enterprise right. He clearly believes that having the best power policy in North America, the envy of all, must be sacrificed to the barren ideology of Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, the Fraser Institute and George W. Bush.
And the polls tell us he will do this with our blessing.
Whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad -- or terminally naïve.
Related Tyee stories:
- Private River Power Draws Diverse Foes
'Green' claims disputed. - 'BC's Hinterlands Are Opened Up for Business'
River power projects bring roads, people, wildlife threats. - Another Side to Private Power
First Nations, municipalities explore controversial energy source.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
Skywalker
15-06-2008
Excellent Rafe!
I just wonder how much longer we have to put up with the arrogance of this government. I'm reminded of all those consultation groups that were so abundant they became a liability for the NDP in the 90's. At least there were forums that one could be heard and politicians on both sides attended.
Luke Skywalker
15-06-2008
I Dunno...
That sounds a little Machiavellian to me.
BC Hydro's credit rating is "AA" by Standard & Poors and is also guaranteed by the Province of British Columbia.
http://www.powerex.com/trading/credit.htm
Any default by BC Hydro on its issued bonds would result in enormous negative financial consequences upon BC's own "AAA" rating.
Not only extremely doubtful... but Machiavellian.
Grumpy
15-06-2008
Black as...........
Gordon Campbell 'green'? No, he is as 'black' and dirty as lignite coal. He cares little for the environment; he cares little for nature. A former land developer, all the Campbell can see is build more and more and more, and watch his cronies grow rich while the province dies.
If coastal salmon become extinct, a good chance with the massively polluting fish-farms, kiss wildlife good-bye, kiss BC's ecology good bye. Our forests will become silent as wildlife has starved away, this is the Liberal's and Campbell's legacy - the destruction of BC!
murdock
15-06-2008
Power is never 'taken' it is always 'given'
Answer me this Rafe,
"Whom can or will stop him?"
"Who else can we vote for?"
I should very much like to have someone to vote FOR.
I already know I will not vote for the Non-Democratic Party, their connection deep down with union movements and their very obvious connection to the federal NDP make them a total non-choice for me.
The BC Lieberals are turning out to have very little in common with the former Socreds, even though they have had many supporters from the old socreds with them in the past...well that is the past. There is no vision for the common benefit of all in the province and a total lack of desire to leverage the advantages, that were built be collective builders in the past of this province, we had into something better. No the approach has been to sell (or 999 year 'lease') is all away, lock-stock-and-barrel. Leaving nothing for future generations.
This has been the dichotomy of BC, either demented socialism under the NDP or the mad-hatters version of mercantilism with the BCLibs.
Informed voters we may be, but left with what for choice?
Green?
Marxist-Leninist?
Rhinoceros?
Cocktail?
brian gough
15-06-2008
Murdock
Whats wrong with the NDP? We need unions,we need are social programs repaired,its certainly better than the corporate BC Liberal giveaway.
At least with the ndp the voice of the masses will be heard,we have no voice no future no nothing with Campbells corporate(american profits) goverment.
Everyone loses with Campbell, I voted for him myself in 2001--Unless the greens move up to 40% or more in the polls,then you have to vote for the NDP--I believe Premier James will make thoughtful well imformed decisions,not like Campbell with his goon squad holding you down and force feeding you.
zalm
15-06-2008
Quote:That sounds a little
BC Hydro's credit rating is "AA" by Standard & Poors and is also guaranteed by the Province of British Columbia.
Any default by BC Hydro on its issued bonds would result in enormous negative financial consequences upon BC's own "AAA" rating.
Not only extremely doubtful... but Machiavellian.
And your point is....? I think you stopped reading too soon as Rafe gave you one possible scenario. If you can't see another one, there isn't much hope for you.
Meanwhile, read a little Joseph Stiglitz as he repents, if that's not too loose a word, for having led the charge of globalization for the World Bank as its chief architect. It seems in every case, the sale of assets for ideological reasons has been fouled by the lack of possibility for the countries so affected to recover some measure of funds in return for the sale of their assets, or some control (read, taxation or regulation) over the corporations that bought the assets at fire-sale prices. In other words, globalization has not worked out as the World Bank and the IMF had expected, and in every case, the countries were worse off before the intervention than after.
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/stiglitz93
http://www2.gsb.columbia.edu/faculty/jstiglitz/articles.cfm
Think it couldn't happen here? Only Machiavelli would try to convince someone of that.
murdock
16-06-2008
Whats wrong with the NDP
brian gough asks:
Whats wrong with the NDP?
The list is long, and I only have time for a few:
"Affirmative Action": wherein the new Non-Democratic candidate for Corky Evans' riding will have to be a woman. Not the best candidate, but the best female candidate. This is left over from the 1970's and does not belong in any party of any stripe anywhere. Please tell me what is 'democratic' about this sort of rule?
"Connection to Federal NDP": The Non-Democratic Party of BC takes at least some of its funding from the federal wing of the party, meaning that at least some of its direction is coming from Toronto. This is something that I think all of BC could do less of. I can never vote for any organization that would purport to lead BC when it is beholden to some other place in the country for its funding. Triple that never when that other place is in the 'golden triangle' of southern Ontario.
"Union Delegates": At the recent NDP retreat it was announced that the special powers of the Union Delegates were to be curtailed and no longer could these 'super delegates' determine anything. I have not heard that this proposal was accepted either by the BC wing or by the Federal mandarins that really control who gets to have a shot at power. You say that the 'people' get to have a say with the Non-Democrats? I say that the only 'people' that actually are heard are the Union Leadership, meaning that the NDP are not 'democratic' at all.
The other items are small and petty compared to these three GIANT non-democratic elements within the 'so called' New Democratic Party.
Skywalker
16-06-2008
Looking for an excuse Murdock?
"Connection to Federal NDP": The Non-Democratic Party of BC takes at least some of its funding from the federal wing of the party,"
No there is not. They are financially two separate entities and organizations. Election rules ensure this.
"Union delegates"? They no longer exist. In any event would this be any worse than corporate donations and influence in the liberal party? Hardly!
If you are looking for an excuse to not vote there are likely other reasons. Two out of your three don't wash. You might hold the liberal to the same standard and the choice between one or the other becomes less clear.
Skywalker
16-06-2008
Luke
Would promising not to sell a railroad and then doing it after the election be Machiavellian? Would Campbell have the capacity to do it with BC Hydro? I think he would, Machiavellian or not and Rafe points out a pretty accurate road map of the process. When you are watching a duck, expect a quack!
billyedtimmy
16-06-2008
Not just government...
Sadly, BCSEA, an organization usually on the green side of things, has beed duped into supporting this run-of-the-river madness.
Not only is ROTR horrific environmentally, it makes no sense economically! For the BC goverment to essentially throw the BC energy consumer to the proverbial wolves (i.e., the supposed 'free-market' tied in with Western US power producers) will inevitably cost the province (and tax-payers) billions in the long term (see Calvert's "Liquid Gold").
mcdull
16-06-2008
With BC ferries mortgaged to
With BC ferries mortgaged to the hilt and taking investors for 5 star trips on the german rennaisance. It will follow BC hydro. The name should be changed as it is no longer BC ferries but BC gouge the Islanders Viva a new province of Vancouver Island. If it hasn't all been demolished by the present Government of lower mainland shills.
NicS
16-06-2008
King of Carbon Taxes- Gordon Campbell
I was in "All India Sweets" the other day and we couldn't help but overhear the conversation at the next table. All of whom I would guess were left leaning enviros. They were discussing the Liberal's Carbon Tax and how Gordon Campbell came up with it and what possessed him to do such a thing? Apparently this "spin cycle" got him "greenwashing" behind his ears after having read the book "The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery.
Did he even consult with anyone in BC about this tactic? As Rafe Mair pointed out above:
Yet everyone is talking about this Carbon Tax that has done nothing to date except boost Gordon Campbell's image into Greener pastures. I have had a number of people say to me that its the principle of a "Carbon Tax" that is important and that we shouldn't be treating this effort by GC as politics as usual. We have to treat it with the respect the environment deserves. These so called enviros have played into the hands of Premier Campbell and swallowed his ploy to fool us all. As Rafe Mair puts it:
Anyone who cannot see this is living in a fools paradise, more precisely "Gordon Campbell's Pardise". This is all about politics. As far as Gordon Campbell and the Liberals record goes this Carbon Tax has nothing whatsoever to do with the environment.
As for the politics of it, Carol James of the NDP has made exactly the right move in opposing Gordon Campbell's Carbon Tax. Of course it is really all about the environment, but GC's CT is not doing a damn thing to save our environment. The increase in gasoline and diesel prices has done more to save our environment in the last 6 mths. than GC's CT ever will.
There is no silver bullet for climate change. We have to use less, economies have to grow less, and we need good responsible governments to do the right thing and not constantly be trying to pull the wool over our eyes. It is time to sign up with the NDP and vote for them in May.
Des Emery
16-06-2008
Hydro
I would be as worried as Rafe is about the future of any power base if the environmental problems were as stable as they seem to be right now.
Corporations look to the next 'quarter' on which they base the projections for 'profit. Invariably their longer-term plans are based on immediate conditions, which they tend to assume 'are stable.'
But we are living in a time of climate change which is in an accelerating mode right now, and which is ignored in the 'future' plans of private enterprise, who like to assume that everything except their ability to make a 'profit' is stable.
Electric power from hydro sources which are drying up will ultimately serve neither customers nor shareholders, although government, as usual, will have to take the blame. And pay the price.
North of Hope
16-06-2008
Paul Nettelton
Remember Paul Nettelton, he was the MLA for Prince George-Ominica who spoke out against the privatization of BC Hydro in the Liberals 1st term. he was kicked out of the party for speaking out. That's how the BC Liberals work, they work for business, not for the citizens in BC.
RickW
16-06-2008
Quote:Despite premier's
Four (count 'em - 4!) near-pristine lakes in BC are slated to be redesignated toxic dumps, as a subsidy to the mining industry.
Peter Evanchuck
16-06-2008
water water everywhere
the USA will take what it wants and give ur little of what we want in return and guys like Harper and his nose in the Bushes will reinforce them to do so - it's all so sad, silly and political - power !!
greengreen
16-06-2008
Environmental groups?
Where are all the environmental groups on this? Have they all been bought off by Campbell?
If one does not hear from them, one wonders if Rafe is off base on this. I doubt very much if he is, but where are the environmental leaders. Where's the Green Party?
murdock
16-06-2008
Where's the Green Party?
good question greengreen.
I seem to recall a very active green party, at least federally, during the Martin election (the one he narrowly held a minority). The greens managed to get a 'status' so that they qualify for federal spending.
Following that election the leadership in the greens started to change and since then I suspect an inordinate number of nominees are not as active or really green as they make out to be, more watermelons or kiwi fruits than really green.
(you know green on the outside and pink in the middle or green and fuzzy on the outside and the color of money in the middle)
The green movement, at least in Canada, has become side-tracked or subverted by 'other' than enviromental concerns.
Luke Skywalker
16-06-2008
I Still Don't Get This Argument...
During 2000, BC Hydro, under the post-Clark NDP, put out a call for IPP green micro-hydro.
BC Hydro even provided a list of 600+ rivers, as well as an IPP development manual, for these green run-of-the river projects to occur.
BC Hydro has continued that policy ever since.
Where were people over the past ~8 years????
ME2
16-06-2008
Unions and the BC NDP
Sywalker, if the quote from your post is accurate, and since I'm one who has been very critical of union influence within the BC NDP, I'm at a loss to understand why this is the first time I've seen such an assertion on these threads. You write :
""Union delegates"? They no longer exist ....."
I'm sure an expanded discussion of this would be of considerable value to TYEE readers.
Skywalker
16-06-2008
ME2
From the NDP Convention 2005.. Try (don't know if this will work but) http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20051126/ndp_bc_051126/20051126?hub=TopStories
John Meech
17-06-2008
Geothermal Energy
Rafe: Your comments on hydro-power whether run-of-river or large-scale hydro are completely valid. The impact on the environment is significant. Fish (salmon)habitat is disrupted and any flooding that occurs releases mercury into the water and then into the fish.
We do need more power systems however if our economy is to continue to grow and our electricity is to remain carbon-neutral.
What I cannot for the life of me understand is why our government does not look at Geothermal Energy as the source - we have close to 7,000 MW (~80% of our current system) of potential geothermal power systems available along the Coast Mountain Range from Mount Meager in the south to the Wrangell Range in the north.
This form of energy is the cheapest in the world since production costs are extremely low and the equipment used is long-lasting and relatively maintenance-free. The capital costs are high but when amortized over 30 years, no other source of energy is as cheap as geothermal.
Run-of-River could generate at the most perhaps 1,500 MW distributed over 100 sites. Similarly Site C represents only about 2,000 MW at most.
Any excess power we have can be marketed to the US to displace coal-fired electricity and help them (for a price) decrease their greenhouse gas emissions.
Why don't we do this?
Gary
17-06-2008
Raif missed something
In talking about "The Independent Power Projects (IPPS) called "run of the river," are a ghastly mistake however you look at them. They will destroy the province's streams, rivers and the ecology of their valleys. The destruction will be permanent." He forgot to mention (or possibly wrote this before it happened) that GC, at a fundraiser let it slip that "when we build Cite C" then said "oops...If we build Cite C".So there you have it Rafe. Not only is he going to kill all the small rivers. There is another mega project in the making. And if hydro is in debt just who is going to build it? I suggest probably the Americans. And what will be their payment? More than likely free hydro for 999 years. And nothing for BC. Sounds to me a lot like giving away a Railroad.
murdock
17-06-2008
worse? yes.
asks Skywalker
At the very moment the NDP was first elected with Mike Harcourt, I watched with horror as the BC Federation of Labour leader hollared into a megaphone that,
"...now we have OUR government!"
I'll take a monied position over an idealist position ANY DAY.
At least the monied one you can know if/when you have reached their limit...with the idealist you may never know. This means that policy becomes impossible to design, especially when the competing idealist interests start to argue.
I think that this is why the NDP was so impotent during the recent healthcare workers issues that started off the BCLibs first term. The 'Dippers had no clue how any intervention on their part was going to affect their other Unionized patrons.
So YES, such influence is clearly WORSE than just financial influence. Just look at the mess it has made within the NDP since the 1958 convention...
RickW
17-06-2008
greengreen
And all it took was a $100 cheque.......
SharingIsGood
18-06-2008
back to Rafe's topic
Rafe,
I wish to thank you, once again, for your continued heroic efforts to protect BC's rivers.
Having grown up back east and having seen the devastation that unfettered development of rivers and the land surrounding rivers can cause, I wonder how British Columbians allow it to happen here. The pristine quality of the BC rain forest has been under constant attack by people who care not for the forests nor the mighty salmon that feed those forests. Their short-sighted objectivist goals reduce nature to bits and pieces. It must be that the objectivists do not fully comprehend the big picture. It is either that or they are selfish sociopaths. The followers of Ayn Rand believe that selfishness is good. I disagree.
Remember, "Sharing Is Good" - that includes sharing the planet with the plants and animals that also need it. Our grandchildren need those plants and animals to survive. We need the rivers to sustain the plants and animals.
Skywalker
18-06-2008
And back to Rafe
Excellent article Rafe. The three stages of Hydro down the drain were spot on. I've seen it all before with other political moves.