B.C. rejects Northern Gateway project over environmental concerns

[TimG]

We already produce far more electrical power via Hydro than we use. We sell massive amounts of power to California.

So? It is a big world. If BC uses its hydro itself then CA will have to use coal.

There are of course other renewable resources like windmills, solar etc.

Which are economically useless and likely will never be economic unless there is a major new technical breakthrough.

You'd need to actually build them and we are conservatives in power so we never will.

No party will ever build them not matter what they promise on the campaign trail because governments cannot ignore economics.

[Pliny]

It's nauseatingly self-righteous stuff like that which makes me wish Alberta would just cut off all oil shipments to BC. Then you could either walk wherever you wanted, or import your oil by big, fat tankers...

Mr. Huxley. I would like a reply to this. Would you like no oil in BC to keep it pristine and sustainable and would you lobby the BC government to keep all oil out of BC?

I don't know. I have a feeling you would like some after all there is an economy to sustain as well. Yet you would prefer a less safe means of transport, such as rail, to get it.

I think Premier Clark is hot on LNG and fracking. The wave of the future?

Edited June 2, 2013 by Pliny

[G Huxley]

Mr. Huxley. I would like a reply to this. Would you like no oil in BC to keep it pristine and sustainable and would you lobby the BC government to keep all oil out of BC?

No, only to greatly reduce our dependence on oil.

I think Premier Clark is hot on LNG and fracking. The wave of the future?

Drill baby drill.

[G Huxley]

No party will ever build them not matter what they promise on the campaign trail because governments cannot ignore economics.

That was the laugh of the day.

[Guest]

_{Deleted - I'm saving it.}

Edited June 2, 2013 by bcsapper

[ReeferMadness]

I honestly don't see it ever being forced. As I stated earlier, any company that wants to put a pipeline in should satisfy the requirements. While it's not possible to rule out accidents completely, I'm pretty sure the technology exists to make sure the effects of one are manageable. Combine that with a fund provided up front by the company to clean up any spills. When the money runs out you shut in the pipeline until they top up the funds.

I think you're living in a dreamworld. Do some research. Despite spending millions (or billions in some cases), spills don't get cleaned up. The company makes a show of it, gets the stuff that's easy to soak up and leaves. If the government really insisted that companies clean the stuff up properly, the companies would be bankrupted.

[ReeferMadness]

I have no idea of the answer to this question so I am not trying to catch you out. I ask out of genuine curiosity.

If all the vehicles in BC were electric, how much more hydro power would be needed to keep them charged?

Would you be okay with the flooding of pristine wilderness to build other dams, if required, given that it wouldn't make that much difference in the long run?

Edit> It would make a lot of difference to the air quality in the Lower Mainland, but negligible difference to Climate Change, or to the use of fossil fuels in the rest of the world.

There are other possibilities such as wind, solar and tidal.