Since becoming an MLA I have visited the proposed location of the Site C dam on the Peace River twice. Most recently, on Aug. 23, I travelled a section of the river with a group of concerned community members. It’s hard to fathom the scale of planned development unless you see it in person, just as it’s hard to grasp the human and cultural cost of this project until you listen to the people caught in the middle of it.

Dam construction would flood more than 5,000 hectares of land – drowning homes, traditional lands, scores of culturally important sites, and 15,985 acres of agricultural land.

Local and indigenous people in the area are being systematically stripped of their livelihood and culture by one arm of government, while receiving apologies for past injustices and promises of reconciliation from another.

Compounding the environmental, historical, cultural and agricultural damages is a reckless disregard of energy economics.

Since 2005, domestic demand for electricity in B.C. has been essentially flat, but over the next 20 years BC Hydro forecasts our energy needs will increase by about 40 per cent as a consequence of both population and economic growth. They are selling Site C as the solution to this growing electricity demand, but their argument doesn’t hold water.

Upon completion, the dam would produce 1,100 MW (megawatts, i.e. millions of Watts) of power capacity and up to 5,100 GWh (gigawatt hours, i.e. billions of watt hours) of electricity each year.

Currently only about 1.5 per cent of B.C.’s electricity production is supplied by wind energy (compared to roughly 20 per cent in P.E.I.). With our mountainous terrain and coastal boundary, the potential for both onshore and offshore wind power production is enormous. The Canadian Wind Energy Association and the BC Hydro Integrated Resource Plan 2013 indicate that 5,100 GWh of wind-generated electricity could be produced in B.C. for about the same price as the electricity to be produced by the Site C dam.

A report by the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association noted B.C. also has substantial untapped potential for firm, on demand, geothermal power which could be developed where power is needed.

While costs associated with Site C will be borne by provincial taxpayers (a price tag that will eventually be much more than BC Hydro’s estimate of roughly $9 billion), solar, wind and geothermal project risks are covered by industry.  Alternative sources coupled with existing dams could provide enough energy to meet the needs of British Columbians, with the potential to scale up as needed. They would also provide better economic opportunities to local communities and First Nations across the province, with lower impacts on traditional territories.

Instead of a diversified approach to renewable energy, the B.C. government is pushing Site C because they want to offer LNG proponents access to firm power. As I have been explaining for years, however, there will be no B.C. LNG industry in the foreseeable future because of a global glut in natural gas and plummeting prices for imported LNG in Asia. As the government desperately doubles down on LNG, renewable projects are moving elsewhere. Just this year they let a $750 million US investment to build wind capacity on Vancouver Island slip away, despite buy-in from five First Nations, TimberWest, EDP Renewables and the Canadian Wind Energy Association.

I wanted to see how much has been done when I visited Site C this summer. Nothing has passed a point of no return. Proceeding with Site C is actively driving clean energy investment out of the province, but it is not too late to correct our province’s power trajectory.

Media Statement – August 19, 2016
Climate Action Announcement Definitely Not Leadership
For immediate release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and leader of the B.C. Green Party calls the B.C. Government Climate Action announcement disappointing and lacking leadership.

“Not only has the Clark government dismantled many of the existing climate policies, but they are also ignoring key recommendations from their own expert panel on what needs to happen for B.C. to once again become a climate leader.

“For the past few years it has become painfully clear that the B.C. Liberals have chosen to forgo any leadership on this file, instead choosing to chase the LNG pipedream.

“As we go into another year with temperature records again being smashed across the world and in B.C., this government is content to fiddle and play games with carbon accounting. Without increasing the carbon levy there is no hope that British Columbia will meet its GHG reduction targets.

“For fifteenth consecutive month in a row, July 2016 emerged as the warmest month since measurements have been collected. Average global temperatures for the year-to-date period January-July 2016 shattered the previous record set in 2015. The government’s plan doesn’t demonstrate leadership. It demonstrates complacency and a wilful disregard of the urgency of dealing with climate change.

“British Columbia has an opportunity to become a leader in this world, establishing a 21st century economy built on innovation and clean technology. This goal cannot be realized with the current administration’s directionless approach to governance.

– 30 –

Backgrounder – Changes since Christy Clark became Premier

Under Premier Gordon Campbell, British Columbia emerged as an international leader in climate policy. But since Christy Clark has taken over at the helm, we’ve move from being a leader to becoming a laggard. The legacy of Premier Clark’s so-called climate leadership to date is as follows:

1. The Clean Energy Act was amended to exclude emissions for liquefaction in LNG industry;
2. The Pacific Carbon Trust was shut down;
3. Carbon tax increase were halted;
4. Cap and Trade enabling legislation (designed to bring big point source emitters in with California) has been repealed;
5. We have a new Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act that introduces an “emissions intensity” framework that is more about supporting an LNG industry than limiting emissions;
6. The LiveSmart BC program has essentially shut down;
7. Emissions have gone up year after year;
8. We will not reach our legislated 2020 GHG reduction target.

Media contact
Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca

Imagine the joy in the BC Liberal back rooms when on May 19, Fortis announced that a small, yet important, 20-year agreement had been reached “to deliver 800,000 metric tons of LNG annually to Hawaiian Electric from Fortis BC’s Tilbury LNG facility in Delta, British Columbia, starting in 2021“.

Richard Coleman, BC’s minister of natural gas was obviously thrilled with the news. But were the BC Liberals celebrating too early? As has been so common with this government, the answer is yes.

On July 19 Fortis quietly announced that the deal had collapsed when a merger between Hawaii Electric and Florida-based NextEra Energy Resouces fell through. The significance of this announcement was not lost on Gordon Hoekstra of the Vancouver Sun who penned a story shortly after thereafter.

But what’s the real reason for the collapse of the deal? It’s quite simple. Hawaii presently supplies 23% of its electricity from renewables. They are committed to obtain 100% of their electricity from renewables by 2045 and it made no sense in 2016 to invest in new fossil fuel infrastructure.

This is but the latest example demonstrating how BC is being left behind. As I have detailed numerous times before on this site, the BC Liberal quest for an LNG windfall is reckless. It is inconsistent with its claim to be leader on climate policy and it is out of step with the rest of the world in the journey to decarbonize our energy systems.

Unfortunately it gets even worse. As BC goes all in on LNG, doubling down on the way, we have killed our once vibrant clean energy sector. BC taxpayers are building Site C for a non existent LNG industry. BC taxpayers will construct what will inevitably be an outrageously expensive Massey Bridge (instead of widening the existing tunnel) so that LNG supertankers can head down the river to Fortis’ Tilbury facility.

British Columbians deserve better.

On Saturday June 25, Squamish became Canada’s 5^th solar city. Initiated by the Canadian Solar Cities Project, Squamish joins four other British Columbia communities in meeting the ten criteria required for this designation. These ten criteria are:

1. The municipality has a climate change plan with short-term and long-term targets and time-frames in place
2. The municipality has a community energy plan in place
3. The municipality has an energy plan in place for its own facilities
4. The municipality has adopted targets for a proportion of total community energy demand to be met by renewable energy
5. The municipality has established policies and incentives for solar electricity and solar thermal utilization for residential homeowners
6. The municipality has established policies and incentives for solar electricity and solar thermal utilization for commercial ratepayers
7. The municipality has a communication plan in place to build awareness of its renewable energy projects and policies
8. The municipality has established policies for land use planning to promote and encourage energy efficiency
9. Community renewable energy, energy efficiency technologies and green living demonstration projects are developed, supported and encouraged by the city to demonstrate these concepts to the public
10. The municipality has policies in place to encourage district energy projects within its jurisdiction

Canada’s first solar city was Dawson Creek which received its designation in June 2012. It was followed by Colwood (in March 2013), the T’Sou-ke Nation (in September 2013) and North Vancouver (in March 2014).

Squamish resident Matt Blackmon spearheaded the initial drive to Solar City status which was supported by numerous local residents, environmental groups and Squamish Council. The award was also made possible by the generous support of local realtor Andrew Laurie, seen to the right shaking hands with Bob Haugen, Executive Director of the Canadian Solar Cities project, and Matt Blackmon at the microphone on his left.

Accepting the award — a stunningly crafted bronze sundial — on behalf of the District of Squamish was Mayor Patricia Heintzman. Councillor Karen Elliott was also in attendance as were numerous other local area residents and civic leaders.

I had the distinct honour of speaking at the event and took the opportunity to congratulate District of Squamish for their leadership.

A lot of lot exciting things are going on in Squamish these days. Carbon Engineering, a Canadian company that has developed innovative technology to create liquid fuels from atmospheric carbon dioxide, recently set up shop in Squamish. This potentially revolutionary technology also has the ability to capture and sequester human produced carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. I had the pleasure of touring the Squamish facility back in April of this year.

In addition, UBC’s Clean Energy Research Centre, the District of Squamish, the Squamish Nation, Newport Beach Developments Limited Partnership, and Carbon Engineering recently signed an agreement to explore ways in which a centre for clean energy research and education could be established on the waterfront brownfield industrial site located at the head of Howe Sound. This exciting opportunity would mean the creation of a satellite campus of UBC in Squamish focused exclusively on Cleantech education, research, and development. It’s precisely this type of investment in innovation that I have been advocating for since the time I got elected as it is critical in terms of positioning British Columbia at the forefront of tomorrow’s economy.

Ironically, as Squamish takes bold steps to lead British Columbia through innovation towards a 21st century economy, it is having to deal with the unwanted Woodfibre LNG proposal that would be located a stone throw away from the town. The fact that the Squamish Council voted against this project; the fact that West Vancouver and Lion’s Bay Councils voted against it;  the fact that it goes against their district’s branding as Hardwired for Adventure; the fact that it undermines Squamish’s efforts to become a leader in cleantech seems utterly lost on the BC Liberals. For in their desperate and reckless quest to land an LNG plant to fulfill their irresponsible election promises all that matters is “getting to yes”. But at some point, you need to ask what the question is.

Let’s get to yes on Squamish becoming a centre for Cleantech education, research and development while saying no to doubling down on chasing the losing proposition of LNG.

Today in the legislature I rose to question the premier concerning the fundamental inconsistency in her attempting to claim leadership in climate change mitigation while at the same time touting the development of a hypothetical LNG industry. As you will see from the exchange below, the premier doubles down on the LNG rhetoric. The response was quite disappointing.

Question

A. Weaver: Last week the Premier commented on the wildfire situation in Fort McMurray. Remarkably, she used the disaster as an opportunity to point out the importance of investment in the oil and gas sector. A couple of weeks prior, the Premier told a group in Fort St. John:

“If there’s any argument for exporting LNG in helping fight climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fires burning out of control.“

While the scientific community has understood the link between global warming and the increasing occurrence of large wildfires for quite some time, the Premier’s statement is utterly bizarre. It’s about time that this government level with British Columbians and point out that developing an LNG industry in B.C. is simply not compatible with climate leadership.

My question to the Premier is this. How can the Premier continue to talk about showing climate leadership while at the same time completely undermining the climate policies put in place by the previous administration and using every opportunity to promote fossil fuel development in this province?

Answer

Hon. C. Clark: Well, I’m delighted to have a chance to answer the member’s questions, given that I didn’t get that opportunity yesterday. And thanks to the member for the question. He and I, there is no doubt….

Interjections.

Madame Speaker: Members.

Hon. C. Clark: There is no doubt that the member and I have a fundamental disagreement about this. He’s stated his case, and now I’ll state mine, and that is to say that around the world today there are 1,000 coal plants on the books, ready to be built, 150 of them in and around Beijing, in China. The only way that those coal plants will be prevented from being built is if they have an alternative source of energy. And that energy needs to be a transitional fuel that is already in production around the world, which we can get there.

But here’s the problem. We all want to move to renewable energies, and we would all, ultimately…. I know Canada has committed to the international commitment of trying to get off fossil fuels altogether. We are not there yet. And the challenge for humanity today is: how do we make sure that we prevent those coal plants from being built? How do we minimize the GHG emissions that would otherwise be produced in the processing and production of that energy?

British Columbia can play a vital part in that by producing the cleanest fossil fuel on the planet, by producing it in the cleanest method that anyone does around the globe, by shipping it to places like China, displacing much dirtier fuels with this very clean and important transitional fuel and, at the same time, create over 100,000 jobs over 30 years for British Columbians — which I know the members of the opposition, every single day, will stand up and oppose.

Supplementary Question

A. Weaver: This government has got its own Climate Action Team, and they noted: “New policies have not been added to the original policies, which plateaued in 2012.” In fact, we’ve weakened or repealed a number of these existing policies.

The government really can no longer claim leadership and, frankly, have lost credibility on the climate leadership file. The province has a legislated goal to reduce carbon emissions from the current 62 megatonnes to 43 megatonnes by 2020, and 13 megatonnes by 2050. One single LNG plant would add 15 megatonnes, and every British Columbian would have to provide negative emissions by 2050.

My question to the Premier is this. Will she commit today to abandon this government’s reckless and desperate attempts to land a hypothetical LNG project via a generational sellout and, instead, commit to aggressively increase the price on carbon and begin the transformation of our economy towards a low-carbon future? Or instead, will she continue to do her part to commit the youth of today to a desperate future of species extinction and geopolitical instability?

Answer

Hon. C. Clark: I have to say that was such a long question that it might have been more suited to the estimates process than question period. Unfortunately, we didn’t get a chance to do that today.

I will say this. The investment in British Columbia for LNG so far is not hypothetical. The $20 billion invested in boots on the ground in our province is not hypothetical.

We remain the only jurisdiction in Canada and in North America that has the highest and broadest carbon tax. We are well out in front of any province in this country, any state in the United States, by a long shot.

We continue to maintain the only carbon-neutral government in Canada. We are working to build Site C, which will be a source of clean, low-cost energy for generations to come, despite the opposition of the members across the way. We are poised to make the biggest contribution to fighting climate change that Canada has ever made, with the export of liquefied natural gas.

I know that the forces of no across the way, in the NDP, oppose every step of the way the creation of an LNG industry and the jobs that would come from it for all of those working people around the world. But at least they can admit that while we’re putting…. If they don’t want to put people to work, they should at least join us in wanting to fight climate change by exporting this cleanest fossil fuel on the planet and displacing those dirtier sources of fuel that will otherwise inevitably be built.

Video of the Exchange

Media Release

Media Release: May 12, 2016
Andrew Weaver – Premier using smoke and mirrors on climate file
For Immediate Release

Victoria B.C. – Andrew Weaver, Leader of the B.C. Green Party and MLA for Oak Bay-Gordon Head suggested the Premier has not been forthright when it comes to taking action on Climate Change.

“I was shocked to hear her logic on how burning more fossil fuels is equivalent to taking strong action on climate change,” says Weaver. “The fact is that our Premier has done nothing substantial on the biggest issue facing our global civilization since she was elected.”

As fires raged in the north of the province, the Premier stated in late April that “If there’s any argument for exporting LNG and helping fight climate change, surely it is all around us when we see these fires burning out of control,” she told reporters in Fort St. John.

“Our Premier has her own Climate Leadership Team yet she fails to understand that creating an LNG industry and reducing our emissions are fundamentally incompatible,” argues Weaver. “At every opportunity her government promotes the idea that LNG will combat the climate crisis by displacing coal in Asia, while ignoring the fact that it will drastically increase our own emissions.”

“Notwithstanding the substantial evidence that, when its full life-cycle is accounted for LNG is just as bad coal, she fails to grasp that we can’t claim credit for shipping a “cleaner fuel” when we also ship millions of tonnes of coal out of B.C.,” says Weaver. “It’s just ridiculous to claim that shipping out a fossil fuel is equivalent to climate leadership or that it will do anything to address climate change.”

Today MLA Weaver asked the Premier how her argument makes sense, and if she would support the recommendations of her Climate Leadership Team and take stronger action on climate change. The Climate Leadership Team released its recommendations to government in October 2015.

“I ran for office on this issue because frankly it is the biggest issue facing our global civilization. Our province is already being ravaged by wildfires, floods, and droughts and it’s going to get worse. Yet the government is doing everything it can to exacerbate to the problem for its short-term political gain.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary Andrew Weaver MLA
1 250 216 3382
mat.wright@leg.bc.ca