According to a recent report from the University of British Columbia, “Site C has more significant adverse environmental effects than any project ever reviewed under the history of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, including impacts on dozens of species, aquatics, vegetation, wildlife, Aboriginal use of lands and resources, and cultural heritage.” The British Columbian and Canadian governments are most likely breaking treaty #8, which gave local first nations usage of the land that will be submerged. BC Hydro has not properly evaluated less destructive, and far less expensive, alternatives like geothermal energy. We won’t need the power for decades, if ever. Why do the Liberals push Site C?
More than a week has passed since the New York Times carried the story. The author, Dan Levin, told Global News, “If this were in Russia or China or the Balkans or some developing-world country, it would just be written off as nepotism or corruption, but here (in British Columbia), because it’s not illegal, it seems to just get a pass.” Corporate and union donations to political parties are banned in Nova Scotia, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario, but not in British Columbia. NDP MLA David Eby believes the corruption runs much deeper than the $50,000-a-year “commission” Premier Clark receives from her party’s campaign chest. The rich & connected appear to run British Columbia.
More than 1,000 British Columbians participated what appears to be more off a spin exercise than a “poll.” Though critics constantly point to the lack of need, respondents to the BC Hydro commissioned survey were asked if they supported the dam “to help meet the rising demand for electricity in B.C.” Despite this, unconditional support for the controversial project has dropped to 49%. The poll finds opposition to Site C growing.
On June 1, 2016, the Governors of Washington, Oregon and California joined British Columbia’s Environment Minister and representatives from six West Coast cities, in the Borgia Room of San Francisco’s Westin St. Francis Hotel, to sign what history may show was a key milestone in the struggle to mount a concerted defence against the ravages of global temperature rise. The 2016 Pacific Coast Climate Leadership Action Plan has a strong emphasis on issues like ocean acidification; the integration of clean energy into the power grid; “support for efforts by the insurance industry and regulatory system to highlight the economic costs of climate change; and so-called “super pollutants” (also known as short-lived climate pollutants).” This sounds good, but do the Pacific Coast’s “Climate Leaders” mean business?
The ECOreport summarizes new evidences of the continued miscarriage of government at Site C
By Roy L Hales
The proposed $12 billion Site C Dam has been controversial since it was originally proposed, more than 50 years ago. This project appears to violate Treaty 8, which granted use of the land that will be submerged to local First Nations. The B.C. Utilities Commission turned the project down twice, because B.C. Hydro could not prove there was a need for the power. Many believe that is why Premier Christy Clark’s Government has not allowed the commission to review the project during her tenure. The Canadian Government is now deeply involved in this project, which means local landowners, First Nations and environmentalists are attempting to defend the Peace River Valley against the very people who were elected to look after their interests. There are new evidences of the continued miscarriage of government at Site C.