‘Storm The Riding’ Puts Energy Issues On Election Map
Prince George, BC – As part of a province-wide campaign to get all provincial parties to come ‘clean’ on energy issues in the upcoming provincial election, door-to-door canvassers will ‘storm the riding’ of Prince George-Mackenzie later this month…
PowerVote BC organizer, Cam Bell, says the campaign’s goal is to get people to base their vote in May’s election on energy issues. Canvassers will be asking residents in the riding to sign a pledge saying they will vote for a party that has ‘clean and just’ energy policies as part of their platform.
Bell is a member of Students for a Green University at UNBC and says energy issues are key for many ridings in the region. "Obviously, in our riding, we’ve got a lot of fracking further north, we’ve got pipeline proposals coming through, hydroelectricity is a major part of our economy and energy consumption here," says Bell. "So it’s an issue that we really want to make sure people are thinking about in the upcoming election and something that’s very important for our society, our environment, and our economy."
Bell has organized a training session for canvassers at UNBC today that runs from 10am until 2pm in the boardroom of the university’s Student Centre. He says it’s open to all members of the community and is hopeful many will sign on to ‘storm the riding’ on March 23rd.
"We’ll be hoping to educate people a little bit on some energy issues if they don’t already know a little bit about them, engage in some dialogue, turn it into a discussion, and try to get people talking to other people about this," says the PowerVote organizer.
Bell says the event is a nonpartisan one, that aims to hold all parties accountable. He concedes some parties have policies in place that are better than others, but says, "We’re letting people make their own decisions and just hoping that they take these considerations into account."
He says the ultimate goal is to get politicians to heed the warning that clean energy policies are front and centre in this campaign.
Comments
What a ridiculous waste of time. How in the world would anyone ever know who violated their pledge when you have a ‘secret’ ballot at election time instead of a recorded vote? If the organisers are serious about their cause why don’t they seek a pledge from the candidates running in the riding rather than the residents? At least that way someone can be held responsible for violating their pledge, if they’ve made one,if and when they get to the legislature as a MLA.
I no longer believe anything that comes out of a politicians mouth, so they could tell me until they are blue in the face what thier “clean energy policy” is, but thier word means nothing to me anymore.
have to give these Kids credit, their not here crying the blues their out on an issue they believe is important.What ever the outcome they are ingaged
I agree with this pledge thing It is just a gimmick and isn’t worth the paper it is written on.
So let us go to the issues.
1. Hydro ….. we generate a lot and should be doing more … it is clean
2. Wind …. we generate some and should be generating more … it is clean
3. Solar … virtually none other than private …. it is clean
4. tide waters … none I am aware of … it is clean
5. natural gas … like everyone in the world, we are increasing reserves due to easier access with new technology – fracking … not an issue here at the moment but may be north of us – it is not “clean”
6. oil … we have very little at the moment, but more may become available through improved technology and higher prices to cover more costly extraction … not “clean”.
7. coal … dirtiest there is …. we use little if any .. Alberta used it … the question is whether we should export dirty energy …. that is on the votersâ minds in Washington State, for instance and a significant number say they do not want to export it to Asia where it will keep on polluting
So, there is nothing in the blurb which has taken the opportunity to point us to a web site where some awareness raising of the pros and cons of the issues are and allow discussion. Little bit too early to have gone out with this maybe?
Oops … forgot the most interesting of all, nuclear.
Energy problems are easy to solve. All those things you do not like, quit using them. Against oil – Quit driving and walk everywhere. Stop eating as our food is brought here in fuel draining trucks. You get the picture?
As of now, wind and solar can’t work unless they’re heavily subsidized.
And gus, hydraulic fracturing has been around for 50 years. If anything, the technology has improved. It is ‘new’ to a lot of people because the media has put it in the spotlight.
There is no energy form that doesn’t have some sort of impact, environmentally, economically, or some combination thereof.
I am not sure where you get the idea from that I am against fracking. It like everything humans do, there are negatives and there are positives, often depending on someone’s point of view more than anything else.
Yes, fracking has been around for some time, but as prices rise due to the low hanging fruit ceasing to exist, the more expensive methods become more economically viable.
There are no natural gas or oil wells around PG, so fracking is not a local problem at the moment.
There is virtually no industrial process which is not heavily subsidized at start up. The more quickly the process is improved and the more people take advantage of it, the less the subsidy will become….
In fact, when one really thinks about it, Hydro energy is solar energy at work activating the global water cycle.
Then we have the gravitational forces which causes the tidal movement of the oceans.
gus: “I am not sure where you get the idea from that I am against fracking.”
I am not sure why you think I think you’re against fracking. I was just clarifying a point you made.
Fracking has been around awhile, and has changed quite a bit since it began. Water use is an issue, as is the list of chemicals in the mix. But it’s not going anywhere.
Although hydro is clean, it has environmental costs. Power on demand is nice. We need more exposure into the failed RUN OF RIVER IPP’s. Christy was going to look into that, but got sidelined.
1/5 of Canada’s NG goes to FORT MAC. We will soon begin exporting LNG. These LNG plants will be massive consumers of electricity. With cheap and plentiful gas, turbine generators might be a viable option. But, our government doesn’t want to make power with fossil fuels. We’ll buy power made with fossil fuels, and we’ll sell fossil fuels for others to burn, but we won’t do it because we’re green.
And I forgot geothermal, which even a few buildings around PG have begun to harness. I would love to hear some factual reporting out on those rather than keeping it hidden in the vaults at City Hall, which our Council and Administration just loves to do.
Good post govsux. I wish the UNBC students would get their act together before they went political with it. I would love to hear their thinking before they go activist with it. The impression I get from the article is that they are premature creating a storm.
So far, it is barely a breeze.
1. Hydro ….. we generate a lot and should be doing more … it is clean
True but not with very expensive IPP’s to whom the taxpayer owes 58 billion.
2. Wind …. we generate some and should be generating more … it is clean
Wind very expensive intermediate power which cannot be built with subsidies and expensive contracts as its very expensive power. Just ask people in England and Germany for starters about their rise in energy costs and its effects on the health and well being of the general population
. What about the thousands upon thousands of birds and bats they destroy? I don’t think you realize over a period of time a wind farm only averages about 30% of its installed capacity. Sometimes more and sometimes zero. That is why conventional powered backup is required at almost a one to one ratio. Denmark like to boast about their wind power but are building coal fired power plants to back it up.
One wind generator requires over 500 tons of concrete and hundreds of tons of steel both produced by evil C02 producing industry (sarc warning) Not to mention rare earth metals. Look into that very dirty industry.
The life expectancy of a wind generator is about only 15 years and are very expensive to maintain.
There are now unexpected results downwind of these things. In Scotland the wind farms are drying out the peat bogs releasing that evil life giving C02.
3. Solar … virtually none other than private …. it is clean
That is a joke right. I see you have no idea what goes into the manufacture of solar cells. Very dirty and since the majority are produced in China I am sure their environmental standards are number one.
In Germany there was a big push on for installing solar on houses, gee what happens at night and this winter Germany had virtually no sun. Germany also is shutting down their nuclear power had thought they could pick up the slack with wind and solar. Well that is not working out so well and are building coal fired as fast as they can. That idiot Obama is trying to shut down the coal fired power industry in the states, but guess what coal production has increased because Germany is buying it. What a joke.
People talk about covering the deserts with solar because it is barren land, wrong. I have hiked a couple of deserts and I will tell you there is a lot of life out there. Oh solar farms take a lot of water, why, to keep the panels clean. Oh the no sun at night, problem.
4. tide waters … none I am aware of … it is clean
How is it clean? The manufacture of the equipment is not clean. I guess the disruption of the currents is okay. What are those big blades doing to the local fauna. Ever maintain equipment in a salt water environment? What about slack tide?
5. natural gas … like everyone in the world, we are increasing reserves due to easier access with new technology – fracking … not an issue here at the moment but may be north of us – it is not “clean”
So I guess its dirtier than the above. Fracking is not new. Gas generation is being built in huge numbers around the world to backup what wind and solar there is. It is also being used to replace coal and nuclear power under the mistaken belief those are bad.
6. oil … we have very little at the moment, but more may become available through improved technology and higher prices to cover more costly extraction … not “clean”.
Oil not clean in relation to what? Without oil you would not be on this web site.
7. coal … dirtiest there is …. we use little if any .. Alberta used it … the question is whether we should export dirty energy …. that is on the votersâ minds in Washington State, for instance and a significant number say they do not want to export it to Asia where it will keep on polluting
Modern coal fired plants are very clean. Being built all over the world. Most of Alberta’s power is coal, the US gets over 40% of its power from coal despite Obama. China brings on line at least one coal plant a week which is worrisome as their environmental standards are not up to snuff.
Nuclear, France generates 80% of its power from nuclear and sell its surpluses to its neighbours
like Germany and England that are shutting down their nuclear, how ironic.
Modern generation 3 and 4 nuclear plants are very safe clean and generate relatively cheap power especially compared to unconventional. These plants can also use spent fuel from older plants. There are over 400 nuclear plants being built or on the drawing board today mostly in India and China.
So calling wind, solar and tidal power clean is very mistaken.
Oh by the way Hydro has said they have to build site C to back up the run of the river and wind IPP’s for when the water don’t flow and the wind don’t blow.
There are a lot of people getting very rich in this clean green scam.
I wait in great anticipation for the innocent brainwashed to knock on my door.
Here is one of those earth friendly wind generators at work.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NAAzBArYdw
Small scale geo-thermal heat pump systems are available, at a significant cost. Large scale geo-thermal plants exist around the globe, even in the US, but Canada has none. Although, we have lots of potential. Look at all the hot springs throughout BC.
Canadians work in this industry as experts around the globe. Much of their expertise came from fracking technology. Iceland is a large geothermal power producer.
So, we have the expertise and the technology and we have the resources. What’s holding Canada back? Capital costs? Political will? Cheap and plentiful fossil fuels? We are a Petro State, and we better be aware of that, and we should try to change it. Diversification is the key. Canada can be a large energy exporter but we should not put all our eggs into one or two baskets.
As a side note. If we have enough jobs, and we are working and paying taxes that should support our economy, why are we bringing in foreigners to extract our resources at rock bottom prices? Can’t we be gainfully employed, extract enough to keep everyone working and save some of these (unrenewable) resources for future generations? What’s the rush if we are all being productive?
I have a feeling the answer is because we are broke and government and most people live well beyond their means. Just a hunch.
I think if we had firm, true numbers on EROEI that may help. Maybe I’ll ask the students if they show up at my door.
Is it possible that populating this finite Earth with over 7 Billion people wasn’t such a great and sustainable idea after all? They all need to eat and drink and live with at least a very minimum of comfort.
(I know, it isn’t cool to bring this up, but I dare say it anyways).
Prince George, it is not PC to bring that up. We should be allowed to inundate the globe since we know that our genius can support a population 4 times as large with an increase in living standard 10 times as high for everyone ….. well, except the Somalians …
Gus, do I possibly detect a hint of exasperated sarcasm in your post? Yes, I do!
But, some people would argue that all our problems are just a figment of our imagination, everything is well and our genius (the one that can’t figure out what to do about potholes, crumbling infrastructure etc) is going to solve all the nagging problems that made the 20th century the most violent and destructive in history and has already set up the beginning of the 21st with endless new wars, starvation and competition for dwindling resources on the same, possibly even more troublsome path.
Watch out for the Big Brother drones!
The places that are ‘inundating’ the world with more people are the poorest countries, not those where the standard of living causes some people to complain that we are “living beyond our means”, as if any such thing were even physically possible.
Which I fail to see how it could be, since there is no such thing as a ‘debt’ in nature, and no one can consume anything that does not first exist, or has been produced.
And that being so, how then can anyone “live beyond their means” unless there is a overall ongoing failure of ‘financial’ credit to accurately REFLECT ‘real’ credit ~ a correct estimate of our capacity to produce and deliver goods and services to the general public as, when and where required and desired.
And the way to correct that is to make the “figures” fit the “facts” ~ not the opposite, which we’re still persisting fruitlessly in trying to do.
60% of what we consume (a conservative figure) is just waste. We eat way more than we need, just because it gives us pleasure. So if push comes to shove we could reduce our input by 50% and still gain weight.
Some Countries, such as Japan are looking at negative growth in the future, and could by the year 3000 cease to exist as a Country,. At present they average approx. 1.5 children per family, however there is less and less sex taking place, and less and less children being born.
So lets keep in mind the old saying.
**The best laid plans of mice and men, oft times go awry**
We could indeed live on less. If push came to shove. But what would be truly laughable, if it weren’t so tragic in regards to human effort, is the notion that we HAVE TO produce ‘more’, and at the same time should all consume ‘less’. And by so doing we are somehow all going to become ‘wealthy’.
In reality, we are ‘wealthy’ by what we spend, not by what we save. A roast of beef in the freezer never led to the wealth, i.e. ‘well-being’, of anyone ~ while it’s in the freezer. It’s only after it’s been taken out, thawed, cooked and eaten, does anyone get any well-being from it.
Well, I am looking forward to finding out from the students what THEIR opinion is in respect to “clean and just energy.” It is their future and I would like to know if they have indeed identified what (if any) differences exist between the parties which we have in B.C. when it comes to this.
Comments for this article are closed.