Project carries costs

This permanent loss of potential for anything other than water storage for another generating station is bad enough

The writer of the letter “Food for thought” (Jan. 8) appears to suffer from the same shortsighted vision of the future as does our premier and her  government’s decision makers. He may well be correct in his views about the agricultural potential of the Peace River valley as it exists today and has historically been the case.

However, it appears that no one has given much thought to the possibility of its year round viability in the future. California has been a major contributor to the world’s breadbasket for decades but its ability to continue in that capacity is being eroded by drought and the depletion of its groundwater. The changes to weather patterns around the world suggest the status quo is no longer relevant.

Unlike those paying lip service to the issue of climate change by proclaiming to the world how B.C. is in the vanguard of efforts to reduce its carbon footprint, anyone truly concerned about the phenomenon would be looking beyond next week or next year.

This permanent loss of potential for anything other than water storage for another generating station is bad enough on its own but only adds to the frivolity of this government’s bull-headed determination to proceed.

The sole justification for Site C that stands up to scrutiny is to generate the power required to super-cool natural gas to its liquid form so that our government can keep the promises that got them elected – to provide B.C. with thousands of jobs and billions of dollars in revenues. If natural gas is seen as the interim environmental saviour of the planet why not use it for the power required rather than put the expense on the shoulders of the taxpayer? But the construction is not the only cost associated with this mega project.

B.C. is lagging well behind other developers of LNG worldwide so what is the probability that the net benefit to our economy will be what has been suggested? What is the likelihood that the cost of Site C will be on or under budget? We have pie-in-the-sky proposals by a government that shares a bed with big business at the expense of the taxpayer and the environment. We need to wake up and do something about it.

Dave Fowler

Saanich