Stimulate Geothermal, solar, wind and wave clean energy and stop site "C"

Site C is a $10B, 10 years legacy development that will submerge farms and have a negative effect on small scale, local, green power generation. Commit to alternative, small scale green energy close to its use, to create more jobs and improve BC quality of life.


How would you tag this suggestion?
Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.
  • Sunil Singal
    tagged this with Important 2017-02-16 19:35:29 -0800
  • Bill Masse
    commented 2016-12-14 19:29:10 -0800
    Simon, as Research and Policy Chair and Vice Chair of the Platform Policy Advisory Committee I want to thank you for your input. You have raised some important points and enlightened our discussions.
    Bill Masse
  • Simon de Weerdt
    commented 2016-12-06 12:35:37 -0800
    Site C is a dinosaur, an old solution proposed by a largish institution, which keeps itself and affiliated largish business going and has painted us into a fiscal corner, it seems. The cost of proceeding with this project may be that BC clean and green is largish established industry, which does ok in the short term, but looses long term to exponential growth of smaller high tech, ultra connected, bottom-up solutions.It just recognizes us as a technical backwater, holding on to old thinking.
  • Simon de Weerdt
    commented 2016-12-06 11:49:49 -0800
    Quite a bit of money has been committed to Site C, which confounds, but does not change whether Site C is, or is not, a good investment.

    Part of the problem with Site C is that its a mega project with attendant long term investment and payback. If it satisfies (disputed) projected demand, it reduces the need for smaller, local solutions which may bring smaller local paybacks rather than this large institutional play. It also reduces the demand for alternative solutions such as geothermal and solar whose projected costs are falling and will continue to fall over the life of the project.

    If at all possible, it is advisable to question and/or verify projections and claims made by BC Hydro, not due to bad faith, but due to their vision momentum and tendency to substantiate built-in assumptions and not recognize emerging disruptions in the energy industry.
  • Gavin Mcleod
    commented 2016-12-06 10:48:43 -0800
    The government takes in a lot of revenue from “sin taxes” on liquor tobacco, ICBC insurance etc., the money goes to general revenue and the government becomes addicted to the money so there is no incentive to change, the federal and provincial government does give incentives but who gets the incentives is important, billions go to fossis fuel industry. The purpose of taxes and incentives is to foster change. Taxes on tobacco is supposed to reduce consumption, if effective it would reduce government revenue. This should be considered to be a good thing.
  • Reena Meijer Drees
    commented 2016-12-06 10:35:37 -0800
    Hi all, this is a good discussion. As the Green Party’s energy policy lead, I’d like to make a couple of comments: one is that using tax income from a gas or carbon tax, or ICBC insurance, to RUN things is not a good idea. What ends up happening is that as the tax starts to bite and behaviour changes, you get less and less revenue from the tax (or from ICBC) and you actually starve what you are trying to run. One CAN, however, use carbon tax revenue to fund capital projects (ie. help build things, but not run them). And yes, that is certainly part of our policy discussions. On the issue of site C, your proposal is also definitely part of our discussions. Part of the problem is, however, that quite a bit of money has already been “spent” in terms of signed contracts, and this money cannot be recouped (and hence has to be added to the costs of any “alternative energy” sources proposed – makes them more expensive). It forms a barrier to change, and I’m sure there’s political calculus going on with the current government to cement their decision prior to the election! Finally, I’d like to mention that even “green” energy sources like wind and run-of-river (the two cheapest sources here in BC) are currently a little bit more expensive than site C (10-20% or so), and that they also do “industrialize the landscape” to a degree. And in fact (very roughly) the same land area has to be sacrificed to get the power output of site C, it’s just that with these dispersed sources one can spread it out in space and in time. Which has its advantages. We love the idea of “localizing” energy sources – creating local jobs, empowering First Nations to become energy generators, and stimulating a green tech sector in this way.
  • David Pearce
    commented 2016-11-11 17:18:54 -0800
    The loss of farmland concerns me the most.
  • Gavin Mcleod
    commented 2016-11-08 15:14:10 -0800
    The government receives revenue from ICBC and taxes on fuel. The money is dumped into general revenue while alternative energy and public transit goes begging for money. I want all government revenue from ICBC transferred to public transit and some money from fuel taxes going to public transit and the rest of the fuel tax revenue going to alternative energy.
  • Gavin Mcleod
    tagged this with Important 2016-11-08 15:14:09 -0800
  • Simon de Weerdt
    published this page in Make a suggestion 2016-11-03 17:00:21 -0700
Donate Get Involved