# NDP Makes the Right Decision in BC



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

The NDP has actually made a really good decision and agrees to finish building the Site C dam. Not going ahead with it would have cost each tax payer something like $238 a year paying some 4 billion in debt for absolutely nothing. This way BC will have power in the future and can sell energy to repay some of the dam costs. Of course brainless environmentalists and others are up in arms over this but they have no idea what money, work, productivity or what it takes to live in this province.

Sure a few years ago this thing could have been cancelled and other ways to find the power could have been found. The Green party holding this minority government in power and is in an even worse spot, will have to decide if they still want to bring the government down on this. At the end of the day however this was the right move for the NDP to take in my opinion. 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/site-c-dam-decision-1.4435939


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

man, do i ever wish i had found somebody to bet with on that one ... i was saying from the git-go that horgan is blowing it right out his patootee

all that whining and bitching and in the end he realizes that this is a project that will eventually be a godsend if we have any hope of a modern economy with high demands for affordable clean power

all along he has been looking for jobs for his union buddies

that dam will deliver clean power for 100 years

what a load of crap out the ndp on this one


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Weaver throws his playbook (principles) away due to addiction to balance of power. Imagine all the Greenies in Saanich crying in their organic tea over that one!


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Weaver throws his playbook (principles) away due to addiction to balance of power. Imagine all the Greenies in Saanich crying in their organic tea over that one!


what a goddamn clown show the greens are ... as you say, the smell of power has bent their tiny little organic brains


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I suppose the greens realize that there is no way their policies would ever work. The greens however have done a great service to our province over the years by keeping the NDP out, by splitting the vote.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

new dog said:


> The greens however have done a great service to our province over the years by keeping the NDP out, by splitting the vote.


I applaud them for their contribution!


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

new dog said:


> The greens however have done a great service to our province over the years by keeping the NDP out, by splitting the vote.


Naw, it was time for a change. The Liberal party had grown way too lazy, entitled, and lacking in principles. They were so ideologically bankrupt that they basically stole the NDP's platform at the 11th hour, only when it became clear that they might lose. That ended up being an idiotic move, because now they will have to support those same NDP proposals, or risk being called hypocrites who will say anything in order to cling to power.

I have no issues with the NDP's performance thus far, but I won't hesitate to boot out their asses in 8 years or so, when they inevitably run of out of ideas and become corrupt and entitled like all parties who stay in power for too long.

I will say that Horgan had balls to continue the dam, especially with so many voters on the left and people in his own party calling for it to be cancelled.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

I've supported Site C on principle even though it could have waited a few years, to me it would not matter how many years be it 5-10 before going ahead at some point it will be needed and cost far more in the future plus come with the same baggage.

There is a reason why we here in BC enjoy the second lowest power costs in Canada and power hungry manufactures do notice things like this as well. There have been many projects over the years that went forward despite all the BS from opposition groups.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

It does prove that the so called clean hydro-electric power option is not nearly as clean as people would have you believe. It is only clean after all the environmental devastation has already been done.

I supported it and was amazed that an NDP/Green coalition would approve it. It seems that every savvy political party will compromise their ideals to retain power.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

nathan79 said:


> Naw, it was time for a change. The Liberal party had grown way too lazy, entitled, and lacking in principles. They were so ideologically bankrupt that they basically stole the NDP's platform at the 11th hour, only when it became clear that they might lose. That ended up being an idiotic move, because now they will have to support those same NDP proposals, or risk being called hypocrites who will say anything in order to cling to power.


I do agree with you on those principles. The Libs needed to be punted for a cleansing process, if for nothing else than, for example, to get rid of pay for access and political donations. They will now have to continue with those commitments when back in power. The main stupid thing the NDP did so far was to remove tolls from the Vancouver bridges. All expensive infrastructure should be user pay, but that is a separate subject.

To pick up on Keith's point, no form of power is truly 'clean'. Hydro-electric dams have significant environmental consequences, and the equivalent capacity in solar and wind farms would do the same. Especially wind farms which are extremely ugly and hazardous to birds and human health. I would truly ban wind generation given the choice.


----------



## ian (Jun 18, 2016)

So....here is a comparison for you. Take a look at the review that was completed on Site C and the the decision that followed it. The review and the decision to proceed made sense. But at least all the data was on the table and open to public inspection.

Then take a look at the absolute mess of a project in Newfoundland called Muscrat Falls. It is such a mess that the Provincial Gov't appears unwilling to have a full and forthright review of the project and it's finances. Probably for fear of a public revolt. It gets even more concerning if one looks at the demographics in terms of Provincial tax revenues. There is only so much milk in a cow.

The prediction is that Newfoundland will require a massive injection of federal funds on this project disaster simply to maintain some semblance of financial solvency.


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

NF got addicted to oil royalty revenue, spent like drunken sailors, and reality is setting in. A hard, but necessary, lesson.


----------



## Daniel A. (Mar 20, 2011)

AltaRed said:


> I do agree with you on those principles. The Libs needed to be punted for a cleansing process, if for nothing else than, for example, to get rid of pay for access and political donations. They will now have to continue with those commitments when back in power. The main stupid thing the NDP did so far was to remove tolls from the Vancouver bridges. All expensive infrastructure should be user pay, but that is a separate subject.
> 
> To pick up on Keith's point, no form of power is truly 'clean'. Hydro-electric dams have significant environmental consequences, and the equivalent capacity in solar and wind farms would do the same. Especially wind farms which are extremely ugly and hazardous to birds and human health. I would truly ban wind generation given the choice.


I've never been a fan of tolls anywhere in the province, if infrastructure is needed the cost should be carried by all. Its far to easy to pit community against community over these issues. Provincial decisions involve everyone.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

AltaRed said:


> Hydro-electric dams have significant environmental consequences, and the equivalent capacity in solar and wind farms would do the same. Especially wind farms which are extremely ugly and hazardous to birds and human health. I would truly ban wind generation given the choice.


indeed, no power generation is completely clean but if we are looking at "cleaner" options, wind farms are a nightmare (though they have improved) of noise, visual blight and damage to wildlife, tidal power is a long way from being ready on a large scale and it will surely have a negative effect on sea life in some way or other, solar is inefficient, expensive and not functional in many places

this dam will provide _relatively_ clean and reliable power for a long time at what seems a cheap investment in 20 years or so when we are sucking up juice like sailors home on leave

the greenies are clueless and simply oblivious to the demands of our economy and our province


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

If it was up to the deniers, we would still be using whale oil.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I agree fatcat and I also feel very fortunate that we don't have nuclear power in BC. Nuclear power is clean until something goes wrong and then you could lose the entire province to it. So I am glad we have a lot of hydro-electric power in BC.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

The only one that I have heard of is solar glass panels for high rises that generate electricity. Still experimental but have future potential.


----------



## milhouse (Nov 16, 2016)

I'd like to see more solar and wind but I'm not completely sold on it on how scalable they are yet. I need to learn more about it though. 

IMO, the Greens are going to go along with anything and everything for now because their only focus is to get some kind of proportional representation system in because it's likely the best way they may be able to consistent get some members elected.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

now that they hold government the ndp would, of course, love to stick with fptp but they are backed into a corner by their agreement with the greens who are going to make nice until they get pr ...


----------



## s1231 (Jan 1, 2017)

We've been observed many wildfire, flooding and other natural disasters all over the world.

Consideration of any future projects --- economic downtime & maintenance cost, weather pattern change, social justice cost, time delay, 
ecological restoration affects natural disasters (important to protect of old forests – in deep roots system), (replace hazard flammable building materials) etc .


- Questions and Answers About Large Dams
https://www.internationalrivers.org/questions-and-answers-about-large-dams

Q. Why is there so much opposition to large dams?

A: Large dams have provoked opposition for numerous social, environmental, economic and safety reasons. The main reason for opposition worldwide are the huge numbers of people evicted from their lands and homes to make way for reservoirs. The livelihoods of many millions of people also suffer because of the downstream effects of dams: the loss of fisheries, contaminated water, decreased amounts of water, and a reduction in the fertility of farmlands and forests due to the loss of natural fertilizers and irrigation in seasonal floods. Dams also spread waterborne diseases such as malaria, leishmaniasis and schistosomiasis. Opponents also believe that the benefits of dams have frequently been deliberately exaggerated and that the services they provide could provided by other more efficient and sustainable means.



- Dam Decommissioning
https://www.internationalrivers.org/dam-decommissioning by Patrick McCully, Executive Director, International Rivers

Dams do not live forever. A dead or dying dam may have silted up, stopped producing electricity, or become increasingly unsafe, at which point it may be a candidate for removal. 

...An Ontario Hydro study of data from several hundred North American dams shows that on average hydrodam operating costs rise dramatically after around 25-35 years of operation due to the increasing need for repairs. When the cost of maintaining an old dam exceeds the receipts from power sales, its owners must decide either to invest in rehabilitating the dam, or, if the cost of repairs would be prohibitive, to disconnect the dam from the grid and cease producing power.

Many old dams in the US have simply been abandoned by their owners. According to the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), several abandoned small dams have been washed out during storms in recent years. "These failures," says the MDNR, "have caused extreme erosion, excessive sediment deposition and destruction of aquatic habitat accompanied by the loss of the fisheries." Michigan taxpayers, through the MDNR, have had to pay for removing several "retired" hydroelectric projects, while their ex-owners have suffered no financial liabilities.


- River restoration by dam removal: Enhancing connectivity at watershed scales
https://www.elementascience.org/articles/10.12952/journal.elementa.000108/

Over the past several decades, more than 1,100 dams have been removed nationally (American Rivers, 2014; O’Connor et al., 2015) due to increasing public concern over their safety, an unwillingness to invest scarce resources in infrastructure repair, and a growing interest in restoring degraded ecosystems.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Why didn't you post the pseudo question about 

1. Why is there so much support for a large dam.
2. Why do large dams seem to last forever?
3. Why are environmentalists so supportive inspite of the challenges to produce expensive wind & solar power yet opposed to cheaper and greener hydro power?


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

ian said:


> Then take a look at the absolute mess of a project in Newfoundland called Muscrat Falls. It is such a mess that the Provincial Gov't appears unwilling to have a full and forthright review of the project and it's finances. Probably for fear of a public revolt. It gets even more concerning if one looks at the demographics in terms of Provincial tax revenues. There is only so much milk in a cow.


I wonder how much different it would be if they didn't have to build a trans lab highway and hydro line from Goose Bay to Nova Scotia to avoid the existing trans lab highway and hydro line via Quebec? Look up the history of Quebec's implication in hydro projects in Labrador


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

While it's encouraging that this project is going ahead, and I have a personal interest in the industry, I tend to agree S1231, that there are long term considerations and expenses that are not well understood, and a large inventory of old dams out there with no good plan about what to do with them. Though one could speculate that because of this large looming problem of hundreds/thousands of legacy dams, effective and inexpensive methods of dam decommissioning are bound to be developed over the next 50 years, so we should not be afraid of building new dams today. The solutions will become apparent for today's dams needing decommissioning in another 100 years.

It's a tough situation to think through though... Do we leave an expensive problem for our great grand children to solve, for the benefit of our children and ourselves? Most might say 'no' to such a blunt question, but modern societal views and politics demonstrates the answer is a resounding yes from the majority, with short term spending and policy solutions that all but guarantees that the people decades from now will suffer more than they ought to.

This is why I generally find the concern from environmental proponents to be either misguided, or purposefully disingenuous, as they are comprised of the same people who practice short term thinking in the the rest of their political/societal views. Most cannot see the obvious economic and societal consequences of their policies which will manifest in mere years... yet when it comes to environmental concerns they suddenly become clairvoyant about pipelines of the next decade, dams of the next century and oceans of the next millennium.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

Or 3rd world countries ruined by our country exporting our pollution problems onto them in an attempt to make ourselves appear progressive.


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

Although I think he was right to finish the project, I think this will just cause even bigger price hikes for electricity. Electricity rates are increasing yet again. More people are burning wood, which is very toxic, in an effort to save on heating costs. If we want a cleaner environment, perhaps electricity costs should be made more affordable


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Engineering and industry will solve the problems in the future, like they have in the past...............not.


----------



## new dog (Jun 21, 2016)

I would think any old power infrastructure would be costly to maintain or upgrade. How about old nuclear plants that are now starting to be a big problem in the world. Eder is right about other green energy and the problem of building reliable power for the future is not an easy or cheap undertaking. Then you also shouldn't forget about all the jobs and businesses that a reliable power and energy grid will bring to the province.

This particular project may not have been needed at this time but there is no choice since throwing 4 billion down the toilet would be the result of cancelling the project.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i don’t see a future growing and profitable british columbia without a corresponding and large need for electric power and i don’t see alternative sources of energy meeting the need which is why i favour the dam

better to be overprepared and not need it (this seems unlikely) than the reverse

in terms of peter’s comments i would say that human beings mostly have, out of necessity, been making it up as we go, we are a large, decentralized, complex and democratic society and that precludes long term planning ... even if we could know what our needs will be 100 years from now

we mostly lurch from one somewhat bad-somewhat good idea to the next and hope we come out ahead


----------



## AltaRed (Jun 8, 2009)

Mechanic said:


> Although I think he was right to finish the project, I think this will just cause even bigger price hikes for electricity. Electricity rates are increasing yet again. More people are burning wood, which is very toxic, in an effort to save on heating costs. If we want a cleaner environment, perhaps electricity costs should be made more affordable


BC has the second lowest electrical rates in Canada and that is because of our legacy hydro-electric power. Granted Site C will definitely raise bills in the short term until the project comes online and some of the costs are amortized, the stlll longer term is looking good. The big BC hydro-electric projects built decades ago are still humming along. I still see a grand opportunity for AB to tap into this source and retire coal earlier, if BC and AB could ever coordinate their electrical needs better.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

We need a lot of cheap energy up in the oil sands...perhaps when we elect Kenny reason will convince all party's to cooperate. Notley thinks we will produce wind power for 3.8 cents/kwh from Capital Power , lets see after we sign 20 year contracts what was not included lol. (Land right of ways,transmission corridors,First Nation appeasements, decommissioning/restoration..on & on)


----------

