I am writing about “Wildlife expert to discuss oil spill prevention and risks to the Salish Sea.” I care about getting jobs to Washington. Whether you believe in climate change or not, we can agree on one thing; fossil fuels take millions of years to develop, it is a finite resource, and we need to figure out what to do when we run out. Oil pipelines are a lost cause. So, let’s tie our need for manufacturing jobs to clean energy.
Investing in solar, wind and water energy is absolutely necessary. Renewable infrastructure is an absolute key to getting our state to economic prosperity, not by repairing or making new failing pipelines. We need federal government subsidies on any company building solar panels/wind turbines in the U.S., and state tax incentives to get these companies to invest, but we must absolutely ensure good union jobs come along (the rise and fall of our middle class is directly tied to the rise and fall of unions and collective bargaining).
One day, digging for fossil fuels will be too deep and expensive, and gassing up an SUV will be beyond the average Washington family’s ability to afford it. We have to protect our waters and deal with this eventually now, not tomorrow.
In yet another appalling B.C. Court of Appeals decision, the forces of “NO’s” appointed judges have resorted to “process” instead of substance and science. Since when is “seeking an alternative” to a project that is not needed unreasonable? Christy Clark and her gang of provincial and federal desecrators have approved projects enabling long-term irreparable damage to the earth and its people. Ongoing objections to B.C. Hydro’s Site C dam and power plant are again ignored by the courts.
Are these judges totally asleep? Do they not read papers or watch the news or have internet? How can they, in any moral or ethical manner continue to believe that Site C is needed, or that the damage is justified? There are at least 10 alternatives, if and when the electricity is needed!
Columbia River Treaty power, Burrard Thermal, electricity conservation – all scalable so that we get it when it is needed, not one massive 1100 MW project in eight years. Solar and wind are excellent sources of electricity, as would be geothermal projects of up to 600MW, Site C’s average output.
In the appeal courts’ decision, justice Peter Lowry wrote, with the support of colleagues Peter Willcock and John Savage: “Here, the appellants have not been open to any accommodation short of selecting an alternative to the project; such a position amounts to seeking a ‘veto.’… But that becomes unworkable when, as here, the only compromise acceptable to them is to abandon the entire project.”
“The appellants have not been open to any accommodation short of selecting an alternative” and “the only compromise acceptable?” What is wrong with selecting an alternative (when there are at least 10) that does not incur flooding the last and best arable farmland in B.C.; or respecting the rights of Treaty 8 nations and honoring their way of life and needs; or keeping the cultural integrity and gravesites of ancestors; or retaining the Rocky Mountain Fort Heritage Site; or not destroying a fishery; or not destroying natural migratory paths for wildlife; or not potentially destroying the Peace Athabasca Delta, and Wood Buffalo National Park and UNESCO Heritage site? Doesn’t an alternative make a lot of sense?
Are these judges fit to judge? I would urge every reader to express their opinion, or outrage, on this decision and to write to the B.C. Court of Appeal and these individuals and let them know that their ignorance and cowardice to decide what is right is not a basis for law!