Why?
wrong decision
for many reasonsWhy?
yes to all of this.With a coast like BC's, we could have tidal power and we have tones of geothermal. Site C destroyed thousands of acres of good, productive farm land. We needed it more than a dam since the lower main land has buried its farm land under condos and golf courses.
for many reasons
1) it rewards the previous government for lying about all the original costs and for unapproved spending. They basically created a fait accompli by investing so much in site C we said **** it - too late to change now
i could go on. I will add when I dream up some more.
it also is doing it all to support Christie Clarkes pie in the sky natural gas production which she won a reelection on by telling BC she would pay off all public debt through natural gas profits - and then someone invented fracking and natural gas beca,e next to worthless.
and still we go with the power plant for it all.
all these projections made on false data.
How the hell do you idiots think you are going to deal with rising energy demand, especially if electric cars come on line in a big way?
Reality.
Deal with it.
Please.
With a coast like BC's, we could have tidal power and we have tones of geothermal. Site C destroyed thousands of acres of good, productive farm land. We needed it more than a dam since the lower main land has buried its farm land under condos and golf courses.
i could go on. I will add when I dream up some more.
Someone up the food chain at BC Hydro spent all sorts of time lying about the relative costs of various generating options. They teamed up with the BC Liberals party to foist the Site C dam on the public. Because they know better.
The funniest part is all the righties who now support the Site C and it's destruction of family farms and government appropriation of privates lands.
That is hilarious or is it only natural that they support lying and cheating in public officials since that's how its done in oil and gas?
Permanent losses are estimated at 541 ha (1,340 acres)of currently cultivated land
and 1,183 ha (2,920 acres) of land under grazing licence or lease areas.
In all, 2,775 ha (6,860 acres) of land will be removed from the ALR for the project. The Joint Review Panel accepted BC Hydro’s assessment that "production from the Peace River bottom lands is small and is certainly not important in the context of B.C."
Not a hole lot of valuable farmland being lost
A little more pasture land
So over all the productive land loss is pretty minimal for a project this size .
I would probably complain more about the displaced wildlife than the loss of farmland.
edit: oops the link