Brainless environmental policy damaging the economy

[Smallc]

Hydro power fits with exactly what Trudeau would want. There was no reason to expect that they would pause it.

[Derek 2.0]

Hydro power fits with exactly what Trudeau would want. There was no reason to expect that they would pause it.

But I thought Trudeau wanted First Nations treated with dignity and respect? I thought Trudeau endorsed the UN declaration that stated Aboriginal people must give full consent on development on their land? Odd, I don't remember the local nations giving Trudeau consent to build a Hero Project on their burial grounds...I thought Trudeau clearly stated "While governments grant permits for resource development, only communities can grant permission"

[TimG]

Hydro might very well be a "good source of power" for export if it wasn't in the middle of nowhere and then required expensive transmission lines combined with the realization that we would loose nearly 25% of the power generated over such distances to electrical resistance.

Site C is no further from population centers than Hydro Quebec's dams and that has not stopped Hydro Quebec from being a huge money maker for Quebec. In fact, I can't think of an major dam project that ended up being a net drain on taxpayers. Do you have any examples? Edited September 17, 2016 by TimG

[Derek 2.0]

Site C is no further from population centers than Hydro Quebec's dams and that has not stopped Hydro Quebec from being a huge money maker for Quebec.

Hydro Quebec's massive James Bay Hero Project and Montreal/Quebec/New York State aren't bisected by the the Rockies or the Coastal mountain ranges..........none the less, you're correct James Bay-Montreal is only several hundred Kilometers less a distance then Site C-Vancouver.....or Vancouver and several other major dams built by BC Hydro in the same region............the difference is then and now......a 1950 Ford sedan is less efficient then a 1970s Ford Sedan, just as that 70s car is a stark difference with a Ford sedan today.....

BC Hydro wants to build the 1978 Ford Crown Victoria of Hydro Dams today...

.....in the middle of nowhere, to service an industry that is no longer coming to North Eastern BC.......when there is no need and it makes zero sense financially......BC Hydro slapping ~$10 billion dollars on the credit card is a gamble that could destroy the Crown Corp with as much as a 1% interest hike......resulting of course in a government bailout or an increase in hydro rates, either way British Columbians are going to pay for this massive mistake.

In fact, I can't think of an major dam project that ended up being a net drain on taxpayers. Do you have any examples?

You'd have to look towards Soviet Russia and the "Hero Projects" started by Stalin, that wasted huge amounts of resources constructing dams, other forms of power plants, railways, airfields and roads etc out into the ass end of Siberia......the problem of course such investments went nowhere......literally.

Outside the Soviets, I can't think of any major dam project proposed, in such a remote region, to service an industry that isn't going to happen, for a population that doesn't require the amount of power it is suppose to generate........

In Soviet Russia....Dam builds you.

[TimG]

none the less, you're correct James Bay-Montreal is only several hundred Kilometers less a distance then Site C-Vancouver.

It is also several hundred kilometers closer to Edmonton and Calgary when compared the Quebec Dams. More importantly, Site C is on the other side of the Rockies so it has a relatively clear path into Alberta. IOW, the power can be exported easily and cheaply to Alberta and allow Alberta to reduce its reliance on coal while generating a tidy profit for BC.

BC Hydro wants to build the 1978 Ford Crown Victoria of Hydro Dams today...

This makes no sense. Hydro dams are more economic when they are larger so Hydro projects have to be large. Smaller dams rarely make economic sense.

BC Hydro slapping ~$10 billion dollars on the credit card is a gamble that could destroy the Crown Corp with as much as a 1% interest hike

And how much will it cost to pay Justin's national carbon price? Whether we like it or not environ-ninnies are going to make natgas and coal more and more expensive. Hydro and nuclear are capital intensive but they won't be subject to those kinds of taxes. More importantly, Hydro, unlike wind or solar, is a net contributor to the economy. If investing in Hydro means less money will be pissed away on wind mills and solar panels then Hydro is a good investment.

[Derek 2.0]

It is also several hundred kilometers closer to Edmonton and Calgary when compared the Quebec Dams. More importantly, Site C is on the other side of the Rockies so it has a relatively clear path into Alberta. IOW, the power can be exported easily and cheaply to Alberta and allow Alberta to reduce its reliance on coal while generating a tidy profit for BC.

Cheaply for who? The Province that isn't paying for the installation and maintenance of the transmission lines or the actual dam........There is zero evidence (or BC Hydro would have demonstrated it ) that supplying power to Alberta is a net benefit for BC or that Alberta wouldn't just build their own (cheaper) power generation plants......North Eastern BC and across the border into Alberta would actually be one of the more viable (and cheaper) wind farms......but it still doesn't square the circle as to why BC taxpayers should subsidize Alberta's power needs.

This makes no sense. Hydro dams are more economic when they are larger so Hydro projects have to be large. Smaller dams rarely make economic sense.

It makes perfect sense in the context of all forms of power generation......building mega projects in the hinterland is the thinking of the 1950s.....versus the construction of smaller, tailored, power generation systems as close as possible to the end user, negating the technical losses through extensive transmission lines caused by electrical resistance.

This is but one method of conservation and greater efficiency found within a modern power grid.

And how much will it cost to pay Justin's national carbon price? Whether we like it or not environ-ninnies are going to make natgas and coal more and more expensive. Hydro and nuclear are capital intensive but they won't be subject to those kinds of taxes. More importantly, Hydro, unlike wind or solar, is a net contributor to the economy. If investing in Hydro means less money will be pissed away on wind mills and solar panels then Hydro is a good investment.

Who knows what his carbon tax will be, but I'm speaking to the economic climate and the money BC Hydro will have to borrow to build Site C.

Site C Hydro isn't a contributor to the economy if British Columbia can't afford it and doesn't need it......if exporting energy was to be such a boon to the Province of British Columbia, the gas plant in Port Moody, which can generate nearly an equal amount of power as Site C, but at a cheaper cost, wouldn't be sitting idle.

[Argus]

And how much will it cost to pay Justin's national carbon price? Whether we like it or not environ-ninnies are going to make natgas and coal more and more expensive.

The environmental idiots shriek and wail about global warming, and act as if anyone who opposes their moronic plans is akin to a Satan worshiper.

But here is what isn't in dispute: The insanely expensive cost of carbon reduction in Canada will accomplish absolutely ZERO in terms of slowing global warming. It will have ZERO impact on world CO2 rates. The only purpose behind our spending so much money is so progressives can puff out their chests and act noble about how we're fighting climate change.

Canada hopes, through enormously costly carbon pricing, to reduce our emissions by roughly 160,000 metric tonnes per year.

India, alone, plans to increase it's emissions by 10,000,000 metric tonnes per year over the next two decades. And it's far from alone.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Argus

[?Impact]

anyone who opposes their moronic plans is akin to a Satin worshiper.

I prefer satin to cotton, and especially polyester.

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.wnyc.org/story/ten-signs-you-might-be-libertarian/

An interesting perspective: at 39:00 Libertarian Jerry Taylor, president of a Libertarian Think Tank states:

"the reality is that the climate is changing... driven by industrial emissions... this is a straight up risk management exercise and the best means of addressing this risk... is to price carbon"

[eyeball]

Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's presidential candidate, likes to say that most Americans are libertarians but don't know it yet.

Oh yeah, you just watch - in twenty years past resistance to doing anything about climate change will be blamed on leftists.

[TimG]

the best means of addressing this risk... is to price carbon"

The trouble is enviros are never satisfied with a straight up carbon price. The want cap™ and hard reduction targets. They want useless energy sources to be subsidized while blocking low carbon sources that are actually useful. If supporting action on climate change was only a matter of a carbon price I would be on board. It is the other crap that makes me skeptical of politicians pushing climate change policies. Edited September 20, 2016 by TimG

[eyeball]

Again I ask, what is it that conservatives refuse to get about conservation?

[Smoke]

Again I ask, what is it that conservatives refuse to get about conservation?

Let me explain it to you eyeball. What many conservatives don't get is the same thing many liberals also don't get. We don't get why some people are extreme left or extreme right. Let me tell you a little story to illustrate my point. I once asked my uncle Bert (96 years old at the time) why his 100 acre bush was in such great shape, despite the fact that he had 3 huge stacks of cord wood at his rural Ontario property. He said that some idiots would just clear cut their bush land and then they would sell the land rather than wait for 30 years until the trees grew again. He told me that every year he would first take all the fallen timber, then he would cut some 30 year old trees. The following year he had some new 30 year old trees to cut (last years 29 year old trees) and thus he maintained a beautiful forest all his life. We used to hunt there all the time.

My point is, on the far right you have the "greedy unethical capitalist" mindset, the idiot clear-cutters, that would rather get their short-term gain and leave someone else to clean up the mess.

On the far left you have the "whacko enviromentalist" mindset, those who would prefer to leave those in colder climates to freeze to death so they could pat themselves on the back for being a conservationist.

Then there are those on both the left and right who are from the "we can extract energy from the earth while still being responsible" mindset, like my uncle Bert. That seems to me to be the argument TimG was making. You on the other hand...well it's obvious which group you are in.

[eyeball]

So conservation is is only extreme when lefties practice it.

That's kinda what I thought.

[?Impact]

he would first take all the fallen timber

Not a sustainable practice. Fallen timber decomposes and returns nutrients to build better soil.

That being said, your Uncle Bert was a far better steward than most.

[Smoke]

So conservation is is only extreme when lefties practice it.

That's kinda what I thought.

Thanks for missing the entire point.

[Argus]

I prefer satin to cotton, and especially polyester.

I notice that while you pounced on a spelling error you couldn't actually refute what I said.

[eyeball]

Thanks for missing the entire point.

Your point is obvious - I'm an extreme environmentalist whacko.

That's what I was called when trying to introduce your uncle's methods to forestry management in my region. Our "uncle's" name and example was Merv Wilkinson. Even the NDP at the time thought this was too whacko and maintained the status quo which is big humongous tree farm licences, big humongous companies and big humongous clear-cuts.

I don't recall conservatives complaining too loudly.

[?Impact]

I notice that while you pounced on a spelling error you couldn't actually refute what I said.

Perhaps I didn`t see anything in your rant worth refuting. If you want to understand what is happening with India, then I suggest you read their actual plan and comment on it.

[Smoke]

Your point is obvious - I'm an extreme environmentalist whacko.

Yes my point is obvious...to most. However, your sense of self importance has lead you to believe that my insinuated insult (which I will readily admit to being included in my post) was the main point but alas...you were wrong.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Smoke

[Smoke]

That's what I was called when trying to introduce your uncle's methods to forestry management in my region. Our "uncle's" name and example was Merv Wilkinson. Even the NDP at the time thought this was too whacko and maintained the status quo which is big humongous tree farm licences, big humongous companies and big humongous clear-cuts.

I don't recall conservatives complaining too loudly.

Kudos on your efforts in your region.

Conservatives don't typically complain too loudly compared to those affiliated with other unnamed political parties. But we do complain.

Edited September 20, 2016 by Smoke

[Argus]

Perhaps I didn`t see anything in your rant worth refuting. If you want to understand what is happening with India, then I suggest you read their actual plan and comment on it.

Gullible people believe whatever they read which suits their political views. China says it will reduce emissions in, oh, thirty years, and all the progressive stand and cheer. And in 30 years when China does nothing of the sort, what then?

As for India, the devil is in the details, which of course, you don't know or understand. You certainly didn't read that thirty eight page cite. This guy did.

And oh, by the way, the estimated cost India puts on its plan is $166 billion per year, which it expects us to pay for. If we're not willing to pay them, oh well, then they won't do it. Not their fault. All our fault.

What does this all mean, when we take away the smoke and the mirrors. The following points stand out:

• No actual CO2 target has been set.
• Although the talk is of “increase the share of clean energy in its total energy mix by as much as 40%”, when you get down to the small print, as we will shortly, the commitment is only to 40% of capacity, and not generation. As we know, renewables give very poor utilisation, so the amount generated will be much, much less than 40%.
• Also, this 40% is not of its total energy mix, as reported, but only of electricity mix.

Even with mammoth climate aid payments from the West, India’s CO2 emissions will likely treble by 2030. Moreover, there is absolutely no commitment, or for that matter likelihood, that there will be any drop in those emissions after 2030.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/10/03/indias-proposed-cop21-climate-plan-will-triple-emissions-by-2030/

Edited September 20, 2016 by Argus

[eyeball]

However, your sense of self importance has lead you to believe that my insinuated insult (which I will readily admit to being included in my post) was the main point but alas...you were wrong.

Oh, I see. You fancy yourself as some kind of mind reader who can divine other's sense of things from afar.

And I'm the whacko.

[eyeball]

Kudos on your efforts in your region.

Conservatives don't typically complain too loudly compared to those affiliated with other unnamed political parties. But we do complain.

In my region when a lefty says conservation most conservatives hear the word preservation and then go on to explain that whackos want to kill the economy.

[The_Squid]

First world (the richest) countries have to be the ones to lead environmental change.

Others follow. If we wait and do nothing hoping a place like China will take the lead, then things will get worse until we're beyond the tipping point.

Edited September 22, 2016 by The_Squid