Site C

Unclean clean energy

Sometimes, scientific knowledge is so new that professionals in affected fields are unaware and cannot use the new information when they consider best practices. Other times, facts are known but inconvenient and therefore ignored.

The latter seems to be the case when decision makers at government and BC Hydro chose to proceed with Site C. It was a project conceived decades before and some BC Hydro staff had spent much of their careers working on the dam. For managers, a megaproject was attractive for the rewards provided.

Empire building is a pursuit to enlarge the size, scope, and influence of an individual or an organizational unit. Megaprojects spread billions of dollars across the world and that often involves extensive travel, stays at fancy hotels and participation in extravagant dinners.

A 1993 paper published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences determined from Canadian data that hydroelectric reservoirs are not benign. The scientists who authored the paper concluded:

In addition to the known mercury contamination of fisheries caused by hydroelectric developments, we hypothesize that development of hydroelectric reservoirs may increase the flux of methane and carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. In some cases this increase, per unit of energy produced, may be significant compared to greenhouse gas emitted by fossil- fuelled electricity generation.

Greenhouse gas releases result from biomass decomposition and are positively related to the area flooded. BC Hydro says the Site C reservoir will extend 83 kilometres.

However, science did not matter. Premiers Campbell, Clark, and Horgan were determined to show their pro-development credentials. Sure, there were alternatives that were far less destructive and less expensive, but small projects don’t offer the same photo opportunities and naming privileges.

As always, political considerations were more important than common sense decision making. So the Peace River project proceeded and was renamed The Site C Clean Energy Project.

Categories: Site C

3 replies »

  1. You are right Norman, science didn’t matter, indigenous relations didn’t matter, economics didn’t matter, food security didn’t matter, geological safety and species diversity didn’t matter, and naming rights is a pretty petty bonus to be hanging Site C and the people of BC on.

    And none of it matters at this point in time. It is still better to stop the dam. Environmentally, socially, financially, and energy production attributes of the Province will be better off if we do.


    • Good points Randy….Site C was purely a political decision to go ahead with a so-called legacy project, without any well developed business plan. it’s possible that the Liberals understood they were on shaky ground and passed legislation in order to bypass the BCUC that had already turned the project down some years before. Then in addition they had the absolute nerve in calling this the Site C Clean Energy Project. Couldn’t be further from the truth. Energy from Site C neither clean nor green and certainly no climate solution. No doubt BC would still be better off without this boondoggle!


  2. I do feel the primary issue for me is that Site C represented a violation of Indigenous Sovereignty and at the minimum gov’ts of the day, both provinicially and federally absolutely ignored the Treaty rights of Treaty 8 First Nations, rights that are enshrined in our Constitution.. The NDP continued in their practice of taking First Nations that were not in agreement, such as West Moberly First Nation, to Supreme Court and this without being able to clearly demonstrate the need for this project.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a reply but be on topic and civil.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s