I am confused. I would expect a true "Green" conservatist would see that sustainable clean energy like that produced by a hydroelectric dam is the only real solution the global warming problem. Other than more energy efficient technology and reducing all natural resource consumption, the only hope we can have of improving the environment is to reduce fossil fuel use. In order to do that, we have to have clean energy and the technology to use it. To oppose the Site C dam in British Columbia is to say you approve of burning fossil fuels like coal or natural gas and, in my view, is short sighted and, frankly, selfish. We are fortunate to have the opportunity and the natural resource to reduce our carbon footprint on the planet. My question is, "what are we waiting for?".

The only way we will see alternative sources of energy being used is when our fossil fuel reserves run out and the rich oil barons need another source of income.

You don't really think they would allow anyone to mess with their profits from oil, do you?

I lived in Hudson's Hope while the second dam was being built and Site "C" was being discussed. The silent majority wanted it to start after the second was finished but due to protests and politics it was shelved. "We", in British Columbia need the power from Site "C". If not now, very soon. Look at how BC Hydro is begging us publicly to cut back with our use of power. It just is not going to happen. We need it. People do want nuclear power or coal and whether people want to believe it or not the "wind power" is very expensive and in the long haul a dam is cheaper. It would also create a vast number of jobs to help get us through the current recession that is occurring. The most of the people that are in the loud minority who do not want this dam just like to complain and are unhappy people to start with. Some so-called "green" members of our society are not reasonable and it would be interesting if we went back a 100 years and see who would be complaining first because they miss modern technology!
BUILD IT!!

There should be "not" after "do" in the sentence "People do ......"

Building yet another dam and flooding millions of aces of fertile farm land to sell power to the USA is criminal. When we stop squandering our resources then and only then should we look at another dam. But by then we will most likely have other technology that will negate the need for another dam. Crap, we even sold the power company so why should we now believe the power company when they say we need another dam. We don't need it. They do so they can make huge profits selling power to the Americans.

I say we dam the Fraser River in Richmond.

we are buying power from Alberta produced with Coal.

the peace river is one of the most beautiful places in bc...we cant destroy it to sell the americans power they will not pay for.
We have been supplying them for years.

what is BC if we kill all of nature?
you know people are part of the enviroment too and when we distroy it we will all die too

What an environmental farce! Build site "C", and demolish the confused greens!

I gew up in the kootenays and had to leave from lack of jobs and places to live

Site C is not needed and will cost us dearly.

this is what PVEA think


1. We are looking forward to relief from the phoney baloney Consultation process. This has been frustrating as it was staged and they didn’t really listen, as evidenced by our request to do studies on Grizzly Bears that has been ignored. (we are complaining to the Ombudsman about this phoney “staged” consultation).

2. We are looking forward to having a legal status and right to be heard in the Upcoming Canadian Environmental Assessment Act (CEAA) Review or National Energy Board process. The Site C proposal is a very large project so we are looking forward to a full panel review and public hearings like the Mackenzie Valley Pipeline which it is a similar large project. An announcement about Site C moving to BCHydro’s stage three is only an announcement to move into the assessment processes. While we, like most British Columbians don’t have much respect for the provincial environmental assessment process, a full panel review during the Federal process will be welcome.


3. While it is true that there are already dams on the Peace River, they are on the edge of the Rocky Mountains and anchored in solid material. The proposed Site C is 80 kilometres out on the prairies in lacustrine (lake sediment) material highly susceptible to sloughing and sliding. The actual footprint of the proposed reservoir could be 2 to 3 times the reservoir area do to the massive amount of erosion in these unstable soils.

4. While the government has maintained that BCHydro has been a net importer of electricity the past few years this is subject to scepticism as while they have purchased cheap coal fired electricity at night from Alberta they have held over water in the reservoirs that could have generated electricity. The 1980’s proposal for Site C said that there would be brown outs in BC’s lower mainland with in 10 years, we were able to show that this simply wasn’t true and in the last 30 years without Site C or any other significant generation being built there have been no shortages. We look forward to once again examining the true about electricity use.


5. Site C is not about meeting the electricity demands of British Columbian’s it is about exporting electricity. Former energy minister, now Senator, Richard Neufeld recently addressed Fort St. John City Council telling them to get on the Site C train. He also pointed out that the provincial government’s throne speech commits to connecting Fort Nelson and the Horn River Natural Gas Development to the provincial grid. Neufeld stated that Horn River would use up to 500 megawatts of the potential 900 Site C is designed for.

6. January 2010 Oil and Gas Enquirer has an article about Horn River gas fuelling the Oil Sands projects near Fort McMurray Alberta. So connect the dots. Build Site C, build grid connection to Fort Nelson, develop natural gas in the Horn River Basin, Use that gas to produce Dirty Oil, the proposed Northern Gateway Pipeline project would ship that oil to Kitimat BC where it would be loaded on Tankers to be shipped offshore to China or wherever. Site C is not Green or Even Clean but would be used to increase our carbon footprint.


7. The proposed Site C project would actually produce greenhouse gases. By BCHydro’s own account as documented in our report BC’s Peace River Valley and Climate Change (found at www.itsourvalley.ca ) Site C would emit green house gases (74000 tons CO2 per year, equivalent of 18,500 cars) and continue to emit over the life of the reservoir. The reservoir would also result in the loss of the existing forest to absorb CO2 leaving an total CO2/year equivalent of 147000 tons equal to adding 36,000 vehicles a year in the lower mainland.

8. Why are we are so passionate about Site C. It is simply was wrong to flood some of the most productive land available for future generations to export power. The Peace River region is known as a special climate area in Canada, the most northern agricultural area. There is enough agricultural capability in the Peace River Valley to provide vegetables to all of northern Canada. In my family history we left southern Saskatchewan in the Dirty Thirties, moving to northern Saskatchewan where we could actually grow enough food to eat. The Peace River Valley can support our food needs and as climate change causes warmer temperatures and water shortages in places like California our ability to grow food here will be priceless. We cannot destroy this ability. Similarly, ecologically the Peace River Valley has a priceless role to play in ecologic resiliency to climate change. This is detailed in our report.

9. We are confident that in a full panel review under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act or National Energy Board we will be able to show that the Site C proposal is not in the long term public interest of Canadians and British Columbians.

10. When asked if Site C was the only option to meet BC’s electricity needs only 55% of British Columbians said that they would support it under those circumstances. The government and the consultation process we afraid ask directly if people supported Site C, and no one dares ask the question would you support flooding our valley just to export power.

Ben when you were on the show today you said that those people down south would do what they wanted and northeners opinions don't count. That's what people said about UNBC, they wouldn't let it happen but guess what, we in the north succeeded and it's been a boon for Prince George and northern BC, especially during this recession.

http://www.bagsboard.com/