Stephen Rees's blog

Thoughts about the relationships between transport and the urban area it serves

Archive for September 7th, 2008

Shell suspends drilling in the Sacred Headwaters

leave a comment »

After considerable pressure from affected communities and conservation groups, Royal Dutch Shell has announced a suspension in coalbed methane drilling in British Columbia’s Sacred Headwaters.

Native groups, local communities, tribal councils, fishermen and gamesmen came together to fight against irresponsible development in the birthplace of the Skeena, Nass and Stikine Rivers. This is a major victory for local, national and international environmental groups.

Read the original letter sent to Royal Dutch Shell last year here and learn more about coalbed methane development in the Sacred Headwaters here.

source: Dogwood Initiative via the BCEN LW list (and thanks to Pamela Zevitt for the link)

Meanwhile in Britain coalbed methane is being hailed as a new energy saviour – and by environmental groups yet!

Written by Stephen Rees

September 7, 2008 at 5:59 pm

Posted in energy, Environment

Tagged with

John Cummins and the SFPR

leave a comment »

I am indebted to Donna Passmore for the following information

On Friday last Delta-East Richmond Member of Parliament, John Cummins, was invited to an announcement Saturday morning, to be held down at Surrey-Fraser Docks regarding the South Fraser Perimeter Road. John called the heads of the groups fighting the project – but he also told the government he would would oppose any support they planned to give to the SFPR (so far all federal money has gone directly to Deltaport and the twinning of Highway #1 – they have not given the province a cent in commitment to the SFPR). Within hours the announcement was called off.

Written by Stephen Rees

September 7, 2008 at 11:31 am

Posted in Gateway, politics

Tagged with

Save our Rivers

with 4 comments

UPDATED 11:24 September 7, 2008

The following is a letter written by Damien Gillis which responds to a recent article in the Globe and Mail. While I could not find the article in the Globe archive one of my readers did (see comments below) so I have now put the link in where it should have been in the first place.

It is such a well written letter that I am passing it along in its entirety.

My name is Damien Gillis and I’m a Vancouver filmmaker producing the POWERPLAY documentary series for Save Our Rivers Society on the attempted give-away of BC’s rivers and historic public power system by the Campbell Government to multinational private power companies and global capital.  I strongly urge you to visit to check out POWERPLAY, articles by our official spokesperson Rafe Mair, and other detailed information about private river power licenses and this private power agenda, which represents the greatest threat to our environment, economy, society, and ultimately, sovereignty.

Your recent article on attrition rates in BC Hydro’s “clean” power call tells only a small piece of this important story and almost leaves the impression that British Columbians should sympathize with poor little companies like General Electric-backed Plutonic Power, the largest player in the private power gold rush secretively initiated by the Campbell Government with neither the knowledge or consent of the public or indigenous peoples of BC who rightfully own these watersheds – the lifeblood of our ecosystems and foundation of our future energy security.  I assure you that Donald MacInnes and General Electric are the last people we need to feel sorry for in this story.

Since I can observe from your article that you have been under-informed about what is really going on with our energy policy in British Columbia, I’d like to take a moment to precis it for you – for future reference.

Under Gordon Campbell’s private energy plan, BC’s historic public power utility, BC Hydro, is banned from developing any new public power of its own and forced instead to buy ever increasing quantities of costly and needless private electricity – mostly from disastrous private river power projects that will destroy our invaluable watersheds, killing our fish and wildlife and releasing huge amounts of carbon into the atmosphere.  We are told these projects are green, while few utilities, neighbouring states or provinces recognize “run of river” power as green.  Note: this list includes PG&E, California’s largest utility and would-be buyer of BC electricity exports.  No cumulative studies have been done on what the overall ecological impacts would be to our province if anywhere near the over 600 rivers with private power licenses or applications on them were blown apart for private power. Nor have any eco-footprint studies been done to show that these projects would result in a net reduction in GHG emissions, as each project involves thousands of hectares of logging for elaborate road systems, transmission lines, the pipe that diverts up to 90% of a river’s flow for between 5 and 20 KM, the “headpond” are, which in some cases approaches a full-on dam, the power station, and more. Plutonic Power is one of the worst offenders in this category, with close to 100 km of transmission lines through an old growth management area just for one project on the East Toba and Montrose rivers.

Another myth used to justify what is ultimately the greatest resource theft in Canadian history is that we somehow /need/ this new “green” private power.  According to SFU economist Dr. Marvin Shaffer and other experts on BC Hydro like Dr. John Calvert , we do not: BC is already self-sufficient and only imports and exports power to make a profit for BC and keep our taxes and rates low.  And if we were in a panic to develop new power, why on earth would we /forbid/ our own public power utility from at least competing with private industry to develop new renewable public power?!  This is the same tactic – the manufactured crisis – that has been used all around the world to break totally viable and beneficial public power utilities and opening the door to a takeover by private power (note: California and Enron, for a recent example).

Another aspect of this heinous plan the public is not sufficiently aware of is the drastic way that it will effect their pocket books. Dr. Shaffer has termed BC’s private energy plan as “buy high, sell low” economics, because this new private river power comes at up to 20 times the cost of the public power we develop today from our historic dams – and is much more expensive than the rates Hydro sells power for today to consumers, industry and our neighbours. This can have only two results: one is much higher power bills for consumers and businesses, equaling job losses and tough times on the homefront; the other is the ultimate bankrupting of BC Hydro, our most important crown corporation – and the last public power utility in North America to be exempt from NAFTA and its “proportionality clause.” Private power boosters will say, “Yeah, but it’s no fair comparing new private power to our old dams – of course it’s more expensive today, just look at the budget for Site C – blah, blah…” The fact is is an entirely fair comparison if we don’t /need/ any of this new private power – theirs becomes a moot argument! But the key issue here is that we pay for the infrastructure and power, but we own nothing.  We are going from landlords of our own energy and destiny, to tenants – at the mercy of corporations for whom the public’s interests run exactly contrary to their own strict profit imperative…and all this for no good reason!  You must at some point ask yourself, “Why, for God’s sake would a people ever go along with such a thing?” They would and they are – only because they don’t know about it.  And that’;s where you come in.

In addition to ultimately bankrupting our last profitable crown corporation, BC Hydro, these new private river power contracts will deprive us of control over our water and energy – the very things wars will increasingly be fought over around the world. The ultimate irony with this disastrous, secretive scheme, is that while British Columbians fund the new private power infrastructure, we will wind up owning nothing, being in serious debt, losing our prized public power assets, and being stuck with crushing electricity rates like Californians – more than four times higher than the rates we enjoyed up until Gordon Campbell got ahold of our province and public energy system.

When you write of attrition, you neglect the fact that many – perhaps /all – /of these projects are simply not environmentally viable to begin with and should be rejected with any level of environmental assessment (which we don’t have), not to mention the fact that these companies got ahold of our rivers virtually for free (the initial license application fee was $168.50, eventually rising as high as a whopping $10,000 – for a potential multi-million, even billion dollar asset!!! I paid more than $168.50 to obtain a deck permit from the City of Vancouver; by comparison, the right to control and profit exclusively from an invaluable natural asset seems like, well, a /steal/, wouldn’t you say?).  As for the relatively minor investment (and I include in that the several million dollars in deposits and initial investments you refer to, /relative /to a multi-million dollar project), just how little risk do you think it’s reasonable for these folks to have – /zero?  /Are you are aware that the infrastructure costs for these projects are either born directly by the BC taxpayer/Hydro rate payer (as in the case of transmission lines) or indirectly, as the lucrative 40-year contracts that successful projects garner underwrite the financing needed for them? In the end, a few million dollars is about all these companies will ever go out of pocket – again, /chump change/ relative to lucrative annuities these private projects on our public rivers provide.

I hope that today’s article was the last sob story for the poor old private power industry that I read from you – and I sincerely hope that you look into this story a little – or /a lot -/ deeper in the future. British Columbians and Canadians alike desperately need to know that their watersheds are being given away for bogus reasons right under their noses…and apparently under your nose too.

I look forward to your next article on the subject.  Thank you for your time, Patrick.

Damien Gillis
producer, POWERPLAY series

Written by Stephen Rees

September 7, 2008 at 7:49 am

Transport minister cancels federal road toll study

leave a comment »

CTV Toronto

Well, of course.

The Transport Canada study would have examined “how pricing can be used as a tool to induce greater efficiency and sustainability in urban transportation,” according to a funding request document.

The document says that the effectiveness of road tolls and other fees, such as parking and fuel taxes, have not yet been studied in Canada.

“A better understanding of urban transportation pricing in Canada will prove invaluable to cities, provinces, and other stakeholders in the formulation and implementation of more sustainable transportation practices.”

Six Canadian cities were to be included in the study: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Calgary and Edmonton.

The reason it is cancelled is Lawrence Cannon thinks that electors are as stupid as he is. That they cannot tell the difference between a study and a proposal. That we feel better off not knowing rather than have someone look at how it might work.

Cancelled because Cannon wants the votes of sububurban commuters. It is a bit like the way Ujjal Dosanjh decided to cancel the vehicle levy in Vancouver. Now that was a proposal that had actually been authorised by legislation, and approved by bothe regional bodies. It was unpopular with the same sort of people but they would not have voted for the NDP then – or now. And it did not do him a bit of good.

Of course there are other things Cannon could have done. He could have admitted that the issue of road tolls is actually moot in cities which do not have adequate public transport alternatives. In other words every city in Canada, which is the only country of its economic development level which does not have a federal government funding programme for urban transit. Or he could have had the study postponed, so that pollsters were not out doing the study for the next couple of months. That sort of delay is not unusual in studies of this kind, mainly becuase the hightened political atmosphere of an election period tends to skew attitudes. Cannon coould also have admitted that the decison on tolls will not be made by the pesent government – but at best by the next one (although that is unlikely given that it will probably be another short lived minority). And that they will probably defer the decison until the transit funding has been both introduced and given a chance to provide an alternative. Which is well beyond any politician’s horizon.

But Lawrence Cannon is not that sophisticated – and he doesn’t think you are either. Except being a reader of this blog you would probably not consider voting for a party that thinks like this. I hope not anyway.

Written by Stephen Rees

September 7, 2008 at 7:32 am

Posted in politics

Tagged with