David Conway of BC Hydro has replied to our Op/ed in the Vancouver Sun…

It is important that we don’t leave their articles unanswered. We need to flood them (yes, pun intended) with our letters in response. This is a great opportunity for us to gain more exposure in the South.  Please consider writing a quick letter, remembering to keep it less than 200 words, and send it to sunletters@vancouversun.com (without attachments).  You must include your name, address and phone number in the email.

It’s best to focus on just one of the areas he has opened up for us such as:

  1. the need for energy (both BC Hydro and the provincial government would like to convince BC citizens that there is a huge need for power even though the trade data does not support this as it would make it so much easier for them to sell off BC’s assets regardless of the huge environmental cost; he fails to mention that BC has been a net exporter of power for 7 out of the last 10 years according to BC Stats and that if built it would be mostly for export to the states, destroying our river valleys for the benefit of the US; he fails to even mention conservation at all which is reprehensible),
  2. that Site C is clean and renewable (he fails to mention that it is not considered to be “green” and not low-impact; he fails to mention that there are low-impact renewables available such as geothermal, wind and solar; he fails to mention that dams are past technologies and that the world is moving away from building them for good reason – that the US is currently decommissioning more dams than they are building),
  3. it’s the third hydro project on the Peace (he fails to recognize that large hydro’s impacts tend to be cumulative in nature… making the environmental impacts even more significant; this also suggests that the river is already destroyed by the two so why not a third – which couldn’t be further from the truth; he fails to mention any impacts at all such as loss of prime agricultural land, over 7000 acres of class 1 and 2 soils, with growing concerns for food security in the future, etc…),
  4. and the consultation process (he fails to mention what a farce it seemed to be… that it seemed like a process designed to manufacture content, it seemed to have a very pro-construction bias that focused more on how it should be built rather than whether or not it should be built, that feedback was requested based on very little information being provided as most studies wouldn’t be completed until stage 3, that consultation in future stages is much more difficult as intervener status would likely be required.)

It is important that these letters are submitted without haste.  If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to email the pvea.  In addition, if you would like your letter to be reviewed/edited first then please feel free to email it to the pvea if so desired.  The email is pveaATshaw.ca (and just replace the AT with @).

Thank you for your support as always.