What should the NDP do with Site C?

 
 
 
 
 
 
11,825 Total Votes
35 Comments

  • Thomas Hemeon - 3 years ago

    You can vote as many times as you like. Try it. This pol is a joke.

  • Con - 3 years ago

    Weird. My vote didn't get counted in the no column.

  • Roy - 3 years ago

    People love to repeat and reason with propaganda. Fact: There is no valuable farmland in the valley being flooded for Site C. No valuable farmland to grow anything but hay. Get that reality thru your dreamy heads. With that said twice. Site C should go thru because we will need the clean energy by the time it is built. Most of heating in BC is electric. LNG is not going thru as another energy source we can rely on, with pipelines being cancelled etc...
    Wake up all you environmental tree huggers. Electrical demands are going up in 11 yrs. Too many people pre buying electric cars. Where is that power coming from? Feeding families and boosting economy for the people of FSJ is a necessity. If you have not lived there than you should not comment. Site C is a very much needed Hydro Dam

  • samantha - 3 years ago

    problems with the three gorges dam. we do not need this monstrosity known as site c.

    Sediment Problem
    Sediment problem is always a heavy emphasis on the discussion of the Three Gorges Project. It is measured that the river sediment concentration of the upper stream is about 1.2kg per cubic meter. The total sediment passing the dam site is above five hundred million a year. Before the dam project, the mud and sand deposited largely in Jingjiang River, which has lifted the water level and menaced the safety of Jianghan (Yangtze River and Hanjiang River) Plain and Dongting Lake Plain. After the finish of the project, the silt must deposit in the dam and the end of the reservoir due to the backwater. Especially the large-sized pebbles, hard to be discharged, they will extend to the upper stream and influence further to Chongqing City. This fact arouses people's worry about the sediment problem in the Three Gorges.

    Environmental Problem
    The Three Gorges Project has a great influence on the environment and ecology of the reservoir area and the Yangtze River. The biggest concern is the pollution of the reservoir. After the water storage, due to the steady state of the fluent, the contaminant cannot down rush in time and store up in the reservoir, which would deteriorate water quality and cause refuse floating, and probably trigger the epidemic. At present, some towns have started collecting potable water in other area, and while a great number of migrants are opening up the wasteland, the soil erosion and water pollution are growing in intensity.

    According to the operational experience of Gezhouba hydropower station, the dam would furiously challenge the surrounding ecology. Because of the dam, fishes cannot normally pass the Three Gorges, and thus their living habits and heredity will change. After the finish of the water storage, over 560 kinds of land rare plants will be flooded. Experts have to transplant certain varieties which do not distribute over other places.

    Migration Problem

    Precious Stone Fortress is partly submerged in the water
    Precious Stone Fortress
    is partly submerged in the water.
    Migration problem is the biggest difficult point of the Three Gorges Dam Project. The fund for migration covers 45% of the total investment. After the water storage, about 129 cities and towns including Wanxian and Fuling are flooded. The migrants surpass 1200,000, relating to 20 cities and counties in Hubei and Chongqing. They were allocated to Hubei (outside the reservoir area), Chongqing (outside the reservoir area), Anhui, Hunan, Sichuan, Jiangxi, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, Shanghai, Fujian and Guangdong provinces to make a living.

    Besides, many migrants are building their new homes around the dam area. But the current situation is that though the infrastructure construction is rapid, the industry develops slowly, a great number of enterprises went bankrupt, the unemployment rate is high and the income of peasants falls, which has brought a lot of social impacts.

    Landscape Loss

    The ancient plank road is submerged in the water
    The ancient plank road
    is submerged in the water.
    As the water storage of the Three Gorges Dam, the rising Yangtze River has flooded a part of the landscape. Scenery changes a lot compared before the dam construction. According to a survey, the flooded natural scenery includes Military Books and Precious Sword Gorge, Dragon Gate Gorge, Ox Liver and Horse Lung Gorge, Hanging Monk Rock, Bayan Gorge, Guandao Gorge, Water Curtain Cave and Phoenix Spring. The flooded cultural sights include Quyuan Temple, White Crane Ridge, Daxi Culture, Zhangfei Temple, Dachang ancient city, Fengjie ancient city, Kongming Tablet, Chalk Wall, Mengliang Stairway, Dragon Backbone Stone and Qutang Gorge ancient plank road. The partly submerged natural landscape includes Bawu Gorge, Dicui Gorge, Wu Gorge, Qutang Gorge, Kongdong Gorge and Luyou Cave. The partly submerged cultural sights inclu

  • Davis Swan - 3 years ago

    No SheilaMM you are incorrect. I just voted to cancel the project even though I believe it should go ahead and my vote was correctly counted in the cancel column. The count went from 3559 to 3560 and the other numbers did not change, Conspiracy theories are always intriguing but usually factually incorrect.

  • SheilaMM - 3 years ago

    I read the comment that said the poll was not set up properly so I wrote down the numbers before I voted and yes, when I voted to cancel the project my vote actually went to continue with the project. Beware when you vote, as they are purposely misleading the public.

  • Davis Swan - 3 years ago

    Response to Craig Taylor. Let's please try to compare apples to apples. Comparing installed cost of 8 cents/watt of capacity for Site C to 4 cents/watt of capacity for solar is extremely deceptive. Capacity factor (percentage of power that would actually be produced compared to maximum possible) is estimated to be 55% for Site C vs. 11% for solar. Therefore you have to multiple solar costs by at least 5x to obtain the same amount electricity. Worse than that, in December and January you can expect capacity factors in BC to be in the range of 2-3% for solar and that is the highest demand time of year in BC. And of course there is the fact that solar supplies nothing at night without unreasonable amounts of storage which is not economical at any price. Solar cannot replace Site C in the winter - period.

  • Don McGregor - 3 years ago

    Why do I have the feeling that all these polls are rigged to continue or review (once again) the site C construction. I have a real problem believing that the majority of British Columbians would like to have their hydro bills double over the next few years due to a project which is not economically feasible. Does no one read the previous review by BC hydro or the electricity needs projections. Everyone seems to have their heads in the sand while some questionable companies and politicians continue to profit from this fiasco.

  • Ahmed - 3 years ago

    The greenies live in dreamland, they don't understand practicality and never will. Horgan will pretend to cater to their concerns. But ultimately the experts and the people who know how things run will tell him the project is necessary. To think this project can be replaced with windmills is ridiculous, teenage fantasy.

  • Werner Nolte - 3 years ago

    Most of the comments are not based on facts. We have been fortunate in this part of the world to be able to utilize Hydro electricity. For those of you who think alternative sources would be better, we just are not there yet. In the meantime we are relying more and more on electricity as our main source of energy. The illustrious Mayor of Vancouver is iliminating all fossil fuels for heating and cooking. This is a good thing for air quality, but where is all that extra power going to come from. It takes a lot of electricity to heat a home. I have a heat pump (which runs on electricity) and electric resistance as backup. When that backup kicks in it makes all my conservation efforts in the rest of the house look like peanuts. Solar panels on the roof? Fine if all you do is run a few LED lights. Yes I know that you can build houses that are extremely efficient, but it comes at a high cost. I don't know all the facts regarding the economics of various generation systems either and when you get a situation at BC Hydro where the government is syphoning off millions of dollars to keep taxes down and create a so called surplus, it becomes difficult to believe any of the numbers that they publish. Hell, with all that cooking of books that goes on between Hydro, ICBC and the BC Government, they'll probably need the extra energy from Site C just for that. My gut feeling says build the dam. It's probably going to take it's usefull lifetime to develope viable alternates.

  • Craig Taylor - 3 years ago

    Site C construction cost 8 cents per watt. Solar installed cost in BC 4 cents per watt. Perhaps susidize small scale solar, wind, at 1 cent per watt. Government could thus spend less money and help stimulate more jobs all over BC to generate 11 gigawatt more power.

  • Julian Gosper - 3 years ago

    These polls are easily "gamed" as you can vote as many times as you need to sway the balance -try it yourself - it's kind of fun and also statistically flawed.
    Remember folks, lots of money and vested interests at play - don't trust these results.

  • ron wilton - 3 years ago

    Hard to believe there are 2750 chronically ill-informed voters on this site.

  • valerie Janzen - 3 years ago

    This wanton destruction is criminal, the energy that it creates is not for the people, it's for the corporations and for export.

    My father grew up on the shores of a beautiful interior lake in northern British Columbia. The people made their living farming and guiding along the shores of the lakes and rivers in the stunning Ootsa Lake valley. Alcan flooded the entire district to create electricity for an aluminum smelter in Kitimat, the flooding displaced thousands of people and destroyed millions upon millions of acres of fertile lands and productive forests. Thousands of herds of migrating animals could no longer continue their centuries-old migrations; they drowned...caribou, moose, elk. Drinking water was polluted for many years and heritage sites were destroyed forever. This event destroyed my father's family; his father left 12 children and a wife, and moved away because he couldn't face the loss of his beloved homestead and ranch. My dad has never recovered from this tragedy and I hope that the people of the Peace never have to live through the loss and helplessness that he lives with.

  • Anthony Vojvodic - 3 years ago

    So many reasons site C should continue. It's set out to meet FUTURE demand (which is why I think Horgan has no intention of keeping it), It's clean energy - just ask Andrew Weaver who endorsed it when it was originally announced - that generates far more energy than wind or solar can, and it will devastate the City of Fort St John if cancelled. For those that think they're all foreign workers (Susanna Dokkie-Macdonald) check the stats available on Site C's website (it takes 30 seconds), or better yet, go up there!!! 2027 of the current 2522 current Site C workers are FROM BC (though firing foreign workers isn't any more humane) but even more important nobody talks about the FAMILIES of those workers, or the hundreds (at least) of secondary and tertiary workers in that city that will be out of a job if the Site C workers are jobless or leave town. This will cause huge unemployment, massive rental vacancy, tons of desperate home sellers, leading to depressed prices (maybe part of Horgan's 'affordability' plan ;-) ). Including people who will be ruined and foreclosed on because they have no job to pay their mortgage but can't sell their house!

    It's easy to make a decision like that from 1300 kilometers away! If you live in the Lower Mainland you shouldn't dare speak against this dam unless you've done true research instead of just repeating propaganda.

    Finally, whether its cancelled or 'paused' when the project is inevitably restarted years down the road to then meet current demand, how much more will it cost? What are the current sunk costs? How much will it cost to remediate the site and restore it if cancelled?
    It's sad that 2500+ FAMILIES' livelihoods don't mean as much to us as having to pay $3 every time we cross a bridge...

  • Brian Martinsen - 3 years ago

    We need Site C. We have become an electrical dependent society. Everything we touch requires electricity. And now our province wants to push electric car sales. We have approximately 2 million people in BC and each of them have phones, computers, appliances, toys, homes, offices and businesses that require more and more electricity to keep up with future. If you cancel Site C, where will the extra energy come from? Solar energy and wind turbine energy don't produce enough electricity to service all of our electrical needs. So until a better solution is apparent, we must use hydro power as our main source of energy. Hopefully a century from now our future generation will have a totally "green" and efficient system in place. That is called progress. It happens in baby steps, but as long as we go forward as best we can, our future generation will attain a better system. Hopefully our new government will not cancel the dam, but will let it continue alongside with the encouragement of more research in a better energy system. That, alone, would create more sustainable jobs. It would be win-win for everyone.
    The jobs created by Site C are high paying jobs that produce good tax dollars for the government, as well as a boost to the economy of of the north. Take that away and the you will have high unemployment as the employees will have no other means of work. They will leave this province like they did in the 90's to find good paying jobs once again. We don't want to repeat the 90's. Hopefully the government will be smarter than the previous NDP government. Four years will fly by, but the problems created by NDP government last forever. LEAVE SITE C ALONE.

  • Susanna Dokkie-McDonald - 3 years ago

    Site C should forever be stopped. Old technologies that poison water and destroy top quality farmland needed to feed people are never wanted and never needed. Never ever!
    There is not one positive reason for Site C. Save billions of public monies and create perpetual farming, cultuvating, harvesting and distribution jobs. Site C might have 50 full time jobs when all is said a done. These will go to foreign workers only.
    $15 billion = 50 foreign worker jobs.
    50 foreign worker jobs = 0 dollars for BC Hydro. That will probably be a money losing project for years and then it'll be a huge stranded asset with no positive outcome at all FOR GENERATIONS. Nice gift to give your grandkids hey? NOT! Because they will be paying for it.

  • Davis Swan - 3 years ago

    Some facts to consider:
    1) There is very little solar energy available in BC in December and January which are the highest electricity demand months in BC
    2) Widespread adoption of electric vehicles (which has to happen in the next 20-30 years) will require much more electricity than Site C can generate
    3) Converting our homes and businesses to use electricity instead of burning natural gas for heating will require much more electricity than Site C can generate

    Solar and wind cannot possibly meet future electricity demand in BC - this is not Arizona or Texas. Site C is our best option.

  • Nadine - 3 years ago

    The thing is, Site C is not for us. It's not for BC residents. Our energy use has remained flat, and even decreased in the past decades - the existing hydro dams are more than enough capacity to serve our needs for the upcoming future. BCHydro has said that energy use will increase with population increase - this has not been the case historically, and is not realistic going forward (due to factors like increases in efficiency, individual power generation, etc.).

    Site C is solely there to providing cheap energy for the LNG business sector (which is much cheaper per kWh for the LNG sector than residents, though the tax burden of building the dam falls on us - how is that fair?); we the taxpayers should not have to subsidize and pay for an industry that will cost us billions and endanger the natural environment we are blessed to live in. We should not be evicting people from their homes, flooding valuable ALR farmland, and putting a huge financial burden on our energy bill for the sake of the fossil fuel industry.

    Good information source: https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/05/08/Final-Questions-Site-C/

  • Jmv - 3 years ago

    Skateboard park!

  • Gret - 3 years ago

    Building huge hydro electric dams is 1950s and 190 technology. If the dam proceeds we are missing the opportunity to invest in 21 century technology.

  • Ken Marbach - 3 years ago

    Site C is just a speckle upon the problem plagued beauty of BC! A generation of political pirates have looted us and now sit aboard the broken ship that lists in the sea of B S! What we elect are the shills for their big donors-corrupt back-room hacks and the deal makers that deal for self-interest entitlements that have broken our trust but not our backs YET!!!
    The answer: I don't have a clue but one had better be found before we become debt drowned!!

  • Steve Schmidt - 3 years ago

    Turn off your hydro and your pc and and and and and and then your car or truck and airplanes aND and and and then for heaven sakes then what!!! Or is that for everybody else???

  • k Forest - 3 years ago

    There is no economic, environmental, agricultural or social reason to build Site C. It would create a couple of thousand jobs for 7 years, then 25 jobs thereafter, leaving a dead valley at the end of 75 years when the power is not even needed now. Dams are old school. "Jobs" is not an argument to keep going. Those laid off can use the same skills to work on renewable energy such as geothermal. The jobs created at Muskrat falls cost tax payers there, five hundred thousand dollars each. No bargain at all. Keeping the Peace valley allows several million dollars and hundreds of jobs to continue for centuries in market garden industries; enough to feed over one million people per year (the northern half of BC).

  • Dale Elford - 3 years ago

    Please people. You've heard it from many scientists. Do not be ignorant. We have enough solar, wind, geothermal, tidal power generation in this province, that hydro dams should no longer be considered. Spend the remaining $ on these types of power and we don't need dams.

  • Richard Leeming - 3 years ago

    if everyone is starting to buy elec cars ,where in the future will all the power come to recharge them.

  • Lois - 3 years ago

    I wish all the people that want it, understand that the salaries of the workers being paid to build it are going to be paid several times over by the tax payers of British Columbia in order to justify the dam. It's costing $.14 per kilowatt to build it and they won't be able to sell the power for more than four cents a kilowatt. And we don't need the energy,- BC's energy needs have been flat for years because we have gone to alternative sources already. How does it make sense to build a useless damn that is going to cost us 9,000,000,000+ dollars that we don't have an BC Hydro is already 67 billion in debt. You will be paying for 70 years plus have exorbitant Hydro rates. The real reason it was being built was to support the LNG frocking industry. Which also looks like a no go because the demand has collapsed. Please think again. There are better ways to spend that money on our highways, our education, smart job initiatives, healthcare. It's going to bring nobody a benefit except the people that are building it and they don't deserve to have us pay for their jobs for the next 70 years. Plain and simple. Read the UBC research paper on the dam.

  • J Bikadi - 3 years ago

    Its a big step towards getting rid of fossil feuls .so of course its going to offend people. It has to happen .

  • bet - 3 years ago

    joe is incorrect...sierra club not funded by oil and nuclear
    and
    hydro is NOT clean energy
    the cheapest clean energy is conservation
    and
    long term, geothermal (tho it has upfront cost)

  • Stuart Westie - 3 years ago

    as our province burns we learn nothing ... stop the environmental carnage ... mother nature won't tolerate it ... we need to pull back ... jobs designed to destroy the land are not worth having ... not one more day of carnage in the Peace ... put the workers to work restoring the damage already done ... or have them fight the fires ...

  • Sandy McCrone - 3 years ago

    Horgan's just going through the motions so he appears to be keeping his campaign promise. It's too late to turn back now and he knows it. Like Moonbeam, he'll cry crocodile tears and then it will be business as usual.

  • Randal Hadland - 3 years ago

    When the hearings are done and the mess that would be a site C dam is out there, the poor planning, the sidestepping of regulatory examination, the too high cost, the government should put this turkey to rest once and for all. The other aspects, the breaking of treaty rights, the agricultural potential loss, the environmental degradation that would have been caused if the dam went forward, are enough in themselves to stop Site C.

  • Thomas Beaupre - 3 years ago

    Please leave all the projects in place.
    The amount of money , time to make decisions these days are over the top.
    I thought the focus was on infrastructure projects .2200 workers plus full time jobs after

  • Davis Swan - 3 years ago

    Fighting climate change is an urgent priority. In order to do that we have to stop burning gasoline and diesel as transportation fuels and we have to stop burning natural gas to heat our homes and businesses. The transition will take decades but will inevitably result in much higher demand for electricity - an increase of more than 10x what Site C can deliver. There is no credible alternative. Detailed numbers with full backup are provided at http://www.theblackswanblog.com/blog1/2017/06/15/the-true-facts-about-site-c/

  • Joe Adam - 3 years ago

    Site C will generate electricity and no carbon dioxide. Hydro power is the ultimate form of clean energy.
    The Sierra Club that opposes this project is funded by the oil and nuclear industries.

Leave a Comment

0/4000 chars


Submit Comment

Create your own.

Opinions! We all have them. Find out what people really think with polls and surveys from Crowdsignal.