It may sound strange but there are people who voted against the Green Party for environmental reasons.
While largely silent on core issues like overpopulation, the party is very vocal lately on the cost of moving away from fossil fuel. Many feel the Greens have been hijacked by NIMBYs masquerading as environmentalists. The party position brings to mind the late U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy when he blocked an offshore wind turbine farm that would have been visible from his summer home in Martha's Vineyard. Do the Greens only favor clean energy projects that carry no cost to our province?
Whatever the motivation, the party is squarely aligned with fossil fuel advocates when it comes to Site C. On that topic, their message is united: green energy is too expensive to pursue for now. That troubles many in the party base. Here are a couple of particularly odd notions promulgated by the party.
"Site C isn't necessary because British Columbia doesn't currently need more electricity."
The first thing wrong with that argument is that Site C is not electricity.
Electricity is a method to transmit energy. Site C is a green energy source that will replace coal, oil, and gas-generated electricity. Making that correction reveals the real party message: "B.C. doesn't currently need more green energy." That's a shaky position to take when you call yourself an environmental organization.
Contrary to the party line, many believe we need Site C today, not years from now. Today, B.C. runs most of its vehicles and heats most of its buildings with fossil fuel. How is your home heated? What powers your car? Even if B.C. prefers to remain on fossil fuel, there's a market for Site C energy outside our province. Make no mistake, all the energy generated by Site C will be consumed somewhere. Every kilowatt from Site C translates into smoke that doesn't go into the air from a fossil fuel power plant. Perhaps the benefit will be in California but Mother Nature could care less where the smoke is eliminated.
A second flawed Green Party message: "Site C is a needless assault on the Peace River ecosystem."
The reality is that Site C will change the Peace River Valley from one natural condition into a different natural condition. That sort of transformation has occurred with every wind turbine farm, every solar cell farm, every wave collector field, literally every large green energy project ever built. The Green Party seems to reject that to embrace the idea that any project is bad if it requires huge trucks and bulldozers or if it condemns private property for the public good.
In truth, any serious challenge to fossil fuel must include large scale infrastructure projects like Site C. Electricity doesn't just fall out of the trees. Usable energy must be coaxed from nature. In exchange for converting some Peace River farmland into a lake environment, Site C will provide 5,100 gigawatt hours of clean power every year.Coal plants belch almost two million tons of CO2 into the atmosphere to make that much electricity.
And the farmland argument? In actuality, Site C will remove less than one per cent of the Peace Region arable farmland. B.C .has plenty of unused farmland to replace what's lost to Site C.
The commodity in short supply is carbon free energy. If you prefer other ways to coax energy from nature, have a good look at Northern Alberta. There, oil sands production creates moonscapes with carbon smoke on every horizon and colossal atmospheric damage on a global scale. Energy production doesn't get much dirtier.
Compare that to the clean air escape for outdoor enthusiasts that will exist near Fort St. John after Site C construction.
So let's conclude that green energy faces opposition from every quarter. Fossil fuel advocates say that green energy is too expensive.
The Green Party says there's more green energy than we need. Despite the contradiction, both positions kill clean energy projects. How can meaningful renewable energy efforts overcome resistance from both sides? Population growth and overconsumption drive the need for green energy as fast as we can build facilities - starting yesterday. Site C isn't the cheapest way to generate electricity and there are facilities that are less disruptive to construct.
But if that's what you want, let's build another coal-fired plant.
-- Jerry R. Johnson, Vancouver
