|
September 25, 2013
I hope against hope that Premier Clark's plan to export liquefied natural gas
succeeds because she's gambling so heavily on a dubious scheme.
It will require massive infrastructure just to power the LNG plants including
the controversial site C dam. The proposed dam would produce enough electricity
to supply 270,000 homes. It's worth it, she says, because the plan will create
jobs, government revenue and "clean energy."
I wish it were true for many reasons, not the least being that we could use an
industrial strategy. Labour leaders are counting on it too. Jim Sinclair and Tom
Sigurdson recently met with Clark to discuss the proposal and agreed to set
aside political differences with their former political adversary in return for
the well-paid 100,000 union jobs the plan would create.
Wishful thinking aside, the plan presents many problems.
First, other countries such as Australia have a head start into lucrative Asian
LNG markets. And now the U.S. has so much natural gas that it is exporting it
into Canada. North Dakota doesn't even bother selling it. The gas from fracking
the Bakken Shale deposits is simply burned. The flares are so bright that they
can be seen from space at night. The carbon dioxide produced from burning that
gas in 2012 was equivalent to one million cars on the road according to the
Sierra Club.
|
Also, the plan would reverse B.C.'s goal to reduce
greenhouse gases. Even if you don't include emissions from the gas exported
and burned elsewhere, emissions would increase from mining, compressing and
shipping LNG. If all three proposed LNG plants go ahead, B.C.'s greenhouse
gases will increase by 9 per cent says the Canadian Centre for Policy
Alternatives. Remember, our province is required by law to reduce carbon
emissions by 33 per cent by 2020.
Yes, dams are a source of clean, green energy but they flood productive
land. If B.C. homes needed that electricity, it might be worth the cost. But
the site C dam will simply power the dream of LNG exports. That's not always
been the case. The WAC Bennett Dam faced objections but its legacy has made
B.C. the envy of North America. The argument for Site C is much weaker.
The only good thing about a Site C dam would be that it would be publicly
owned and operated through BC Hydro; an example of good consequences
resulting from doubtful intentions.
The development of renewable sources in B.C. in the last decade has been the
opposite: good intentions with doubtful outcomes. Premier Campbell had a
dream to power the province from renewable sources: sun, wind and
run-of-river. His mistake was to shut BC Hydro out of the market and allow
only private entrepreneurs to build. To add insult to injury, he forced BC
Hydro to buy power from them at many times the current rate. Now our public
corporation is stuck for decades with contracts worth $40 billion.
I hope I am wrong and that, unlike land-locked Alberta's dream to export oil
by controversial pipelines, this LNG plan is more than a pipedream. There is
no plan B.
David Charbonneau is the owner of Thompson Studio
He can be reached at
dcharbonneau13@shaw.ca
|
