Hey All,
Here’s a bit more from Michael, this time questioning the energy policy of the government.
2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HANSARD
The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.
The printed version remains the official version.
official report of
Debates of the Legislative Assembly
(hansard)
Monday, October 19, 2009
Morning Sitting
Volume 4, Number 6
Energy Production
M. Sather: The problem for the opposition in trying to discuss the energy plan with this government is that it’s so patently laden with politics that to comment on it is to comment upon what the other side’s whole strategy is. For example, they’re always couching things, as the member for Kamloops–North Thompson did, as green energy. Everything is green energy with this government — so they say.
It’s too bad, however, that the reality doesn’t match the rhetoric. In fact, if you look alone at their IPPs — their independent power projects, the run-of-the-river projects — they have absolutely no public input. There is no way that one can determine whether or not these are green projects because there’s no process by which we could do that.
So although some of them might be green, certainly a whole number of others are not. I look at what happened in my back yard with the Upper Pitt, an IPP that was going to — and still may, depending on the whim of the minister — destroy a fine, fine salmon system. How can you call that green? This is happening across the province.
Yet the government persists in calling this green energy.
Interjection.
M. Sather: Well, yes, it’s hypocrisy, as the member said.
We also hear this: “Well, you know, we’re a net importer of power. Therefore, we’ve got to get exporting more power.” In fact, they know that most years we are not a net importer of power. When we are, the way they like to contrive it is that, of course, we buy power.
B.C. Hydro buys power, when it’s cheap, from Alberta and sells it at a high price. That hardly can be considered as that we’re destitute for power. That’s a matter of making money, because we have the ability to store our power, unlike run of the river, which is an ephemeral, mainly spring runoff situation.
So we need dedicated, dependable power. That was recognized in the recent ruling by the B.C. Utilities Commission, where they turned down Hydro’s long-term acquisition plan. One of the things that the BCUC talked about in their decision was Burrard Thermal.
This government says: “Oh, Burrard Thermal is terrible. It’s awful.” Well, Burrard Thermal is obviously a greenhouse gas–producing facility, but then so are the bioenergy or waste-to-energy projects that this government insists are green. We need stable power. They burn natural gas.
You’ve got natural gas on the one side; you’ve got wood waste on the other side. We’ve got a whole lot of beetle-kill wood out there that is presumably to be used for incineration — waste energy, as it’s called — and the rationale this government makes is that it’s green because the trees grow back.
But you have to look at it a little deeper than that. The fact of the matter is that it could take a hundred years for these forests to grow back sufficiently to replace the amount of carbon that is incinerated through the process. The member mentioned the David Suzuki Foundation as a supporter. Well, the Suzuki Foundation came out very, very much against the bioenergy strategy that this government has put forward, along with other organizations like the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society.
So we have to be careful when we’re looking at the rhetoric. Madam Speaker has alluded to that. Certainly, if the bioenergy strategy, if the waste-to-energy, can be made to be green or — at least, on balance — valuable and useful, then we could support it.
But again, we’re not seeing the business plan. We’re not seeing the explanation. We’re not seeing the details. We’re just seeing the flag-waving and saying: “Trust us, because — don’t you know? — the Premier says we’re green, so we must be.”
