Energy and Mines

Today in the legislature I was up during Question Period. I took the opportunity to probe the government’s thinking about taking on substantive public debt to construct Site C when there are more cost effective, and less financially risky options available. My concern is the effect burgeoning debt will have on our overall credit rating. If our credit rating drops, the cost of debt servicing will go up thereby affecting government finances. At the end of the day, the ratepayer will also be on the hook for any cost overruns.

MY QUESTION

On April 19 of 2010, I, along with numerous others, travelled to Hudson’s Hope to hear the then Premier, Gordon Campbell, announce that the proposed Site C dam project was moving to the environmental assessment stage. In 2010 the projected construction cost for the dam was $6.6 billion, but by May 2011, that cost had increased to $7.9 billion, a 20 percent increase.

There’s considerable upside uncertainty regarding these costs that could easily reach $10 billion to $12 billion. The final investment decision with respect to Site C now rests with cabinet.

In the past our government has appropriately celebrated the fact that B.C. has maintained a triple-A credit rating. However, in May of this year Moody’s downgraded our outlook from stable to negative, citing concerns about the increasing provincial debt.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Is the minister as troubled as I am that the approval of the Site C dam could lead to the downgrading of our credit rating that, in turn, would raise the costs of servicing of all of our provincial debt?

MINISTER DE JONG’s RESPONSE

The member correctly identifies the pride we do have for our triple-A credit rating. It’s a form of report card issued by international agencies, a comparative assessment of how we’re doing, and the marks they have given us the past number of years places us in very, very exclusive company.

Commercial Crowns, like B.C. Hydro, are assessed as self-supported debt rather than taxpayer-supported debt. The other thing I can say to the member is that B.C. Hydro has over the past number of years been assessed a flow-through rating, which means they have the same triple-A rating as the B.C. government. Now, some rating agencies are now extending their analysis to extend to total provincial debt, including self-supporting Crown corporations.

The Minister of Energy has — and will, if given the opportunity — continued to point out the basis upon which a final decision on this project will be made, but I can assure the member and all members that affordability of debt will be one of those considerations.

MY SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTION

We know there are affordable alternatives to Site C, and these alternatives would allow us to meet present and future energy needs without running the risk of incurring increased public debt and potentially damaging our triple-A credit rating.

The fact is that circumstances have changed since 2010. That’s why I no longer believe it’s fiscally prudent to move forward with this project.

In the last few years the costs of wind energy and solar PV have dropped dramatically. In addition, just last month the Canadian Geothermal Energy Association released a report outlining the unheralded potential of B.C.’s yet untapped geothermal resource.

My question to the Minister of Finance is this. Will the government consider expanding the mandate of B.C. Hydro to allow them to develop our geothermal resources? And will the government task B.C. Hydro with issuing new calls for power at a fixed price below the projected cost of power produced from Site C so that the market can prove up these cheaper alternatives — and, subsequently, protect the ratepayer from unnecessary rate hikes?

MINISTER BENNETT’s RESPONSE

Thank you to the member for the question. It’s actually, I think, a positive to be given the opportunity to talk about our electricity policy in the province and how we’re going to obtain the electricity that we’re going to need over the next 20 years. The estimate is that we’re going to need about 40 percent more electricity than we generate today over the next 20 years.

The province obviously has some choices. If you look at the ten-year rates plan that we announced a year ago, you’ll see that we’ve already made some choices in terms of priorities.

Our number one choice in terms of meeting that new demand is conservation. B.C. Hydro is going to attempt to meet the growth in demand through conservation, to the extent of 78 percent of the growth in demand by conservation.

In reference to that same plan that we announced a year ago, we are also going to meet that demand by reinvesting in assets that were built a long time ago on the Peace River system and the Columbia River system and try to generate as much electricity as we can with the current generation assets that we have.

The third thing that we’re going to do is to allow a number of IPP projects that are already in the pipeline to be finished, to be constructed, and we will acquire that electricity as well.

Even after those three responses to this growth and demand, we are going to need at least 1,100 megawatts of electricity over on top of that, and the government has not decided how we’re going to acquire that 1,100 megawatts. I can tell the hon. member that we are, in fact, carefully looking at all of the alternatives.

As a backdrop to this question, I sent the Minister a letter concerning the forthcoming cabinet investment decision on the Site C Hydroelectric project on October 16th 2014. In it, I expressed my profound concern regarding the economic ramifications of making an investment decision in Site C. The letter is reproduced below.

Honourable Mike de Jong
Minister of Finance
Parliament Buildings
Victoria BC V8V 1X4

Dear Minister de Jong,

I am writing to you concerning the forthcoming cabinet investment decision on the Site C Hydroelectric project.

I have serious reservations that this project is not economically competitive with other options and is ultimately not in the best interests of British Columbians.

As I’m sure you are aware, Clean Energy BC just released a new study entitled “Cost Effective evaluation of Clean Energy Projects in the Context of Site C.” In their commissioned report, serious questions were raised about BC Hydro’s project valuations. In particular, concerns were raised regarding the elevated capital cost assumptions that were applied to independent power projects, and the “artificially reduced” calculation for BC Hydro’s WACC. The National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel (JRP) raised similar concerns including a note that BC Hydro’s cost of capital calculations “should not be allowed to drive choices that would affect the BC economy… for many decades.” The Clean Energy BC report written by London Economics International (LEI) provides clear evidence that alternatives are at par if not more competitive then this project.

Ultimately, the study was critical of the current evaluation that was done for Site C. They wrote: “To assure British Columbia ratepayers receive value for money, LEI recommends that costs for Site C be independently reviewed and market tested against the results of one or more clean energy procurements. Such an approach would be consistent with global best practice in procurement.”

The LEI study reiterates, and in many places substantiates, the concerns that the JRP tasked with reviewing the Site C hydroelectric project raised in their ruling. While the JRP ultimately gave a qualified recommendation to proceed with the project, they were highly critical of the economic forecasting that was used to justify its construction. On page 280 of the Site C Review Panel Report it is noted that “The Panel cannot conclude on the likely accuracy of the Project cost estimates because it does not have the information, time or resources.”

The suggestion that the JRP tasked with reviewing the project lacked the time, information and resources is a very worrying indictment of this project, and makes it all the more important that we take other analyses seriously – and all of them point to viable and economically competitive alternatives.

For example, it is my belief that wind power has been vastly underestimated as an economically competitive alternative to generating the same quantity of power. Globally, we have seen wind become increasing competitive as technological breakthroughs allow for energy to be generated at lower and lower wind speeds at increasingly lower costs. Not accounting for these changes in pricing and technology raise the potential for cost estimates for wind to be overstated. In fact, the economic analysis undertaken by BC Hydro specifically assumes that future costs for wind (and other renewables) would not change. Clearly, all evidence points to the contrary as costs of wind, solar and other forms of renewable energy have dropped dramatically in recent years.

I also want to point out that BC is the only jurisdiction along the Ring of Fire that is not generating power from its geothermal resources. A recent report from CanGEA highlighted the massive potential that this resource has for BC. Geothermal energy would support the creation of a more diversified, resilient power grid, while providing a stable base power source. Perhaps it is time to consider expanding BC Hydro’s mandate to allow it to produce power from geothermal sources.

The potential construction of Site C is rightfully considered a turning point for BC – although in my opinion it sends us down an undesirable path. Site C will crowd out the development of other renewable projects, putting at risk the further development of an industry that is among the fastest growing globally.

Ultimately, I share the your desire to see British Columbia’s economy managed in a way that ensures a sustainable approach that is not burdening future generations with the cost of decisions we make today. The government has in the past appropriately celebrated the fact that British Columbia has maintained a AAA credit rating. I am concerned that this rating would be in jeopardy if BC Hydro, a crown corporation, were to incur another 7.9 billion debt (with substantive uncertainty regarding cost over runs).

Finally, bringing other forms of renewable energy on stream incrementally will allow supply to keep pace with demand. We have our legacy dams that can be used as load levellers if they are viewed as rechargeable batteries with other intermittent energy source providing the recharging capacity. And the Clean Energy Act allows 7% of our electricity supply comes from non renewables, such as natural gas which can help firm up power.

Thank you for seriously considering the economic ramifications of making an investment decision in Site C. There may come a day in the future where Site C is needed, but I would argue that right now, it does not make economic sense to proceed with its construction.

Yours sincerely
Andrew Weaver
MLA Oak Bay Gordon Head

This post is part of an ongoing series in which MLA Andrew Weaver will be sharing key information from inside the National Energy Board hearings on Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline proposal. To see previous posts, please click here.

Diluted Bitumen in BC Coast Waters

 The ongoing dispute between the City of Burnaby and Trans Mountain has been in the news a fair amount lately. It’s evident to me that the residents of Burnaby are being well-represented by their elected leaders and civic employees. As part of the Trans Mountain National Energy Board hearings, the City of Burnaby has been asking pointed and difficult questions, raising critical issues of concern, and communicating effectively with their residents.  The City of Burnaby is rightly concerned about the potential risk of a diluted bitumen spill at the proposed expanded terminal facility in Burrard Inlet, as well as the potential ramification of having an enhanced pipeline capacity through it’s neighbourhoods or underneath Burnaby Mountain. But what hasn’t received enough attention is the potential risks that our coastal communities face once diluted bitumen is loaded onto tankers.

Bitumen is the raw product extracted from the Alberta oil sands. It is heavier and more viscous than conventional crude oil and so must be either upgraded or diluted with other petroleum products in order for it to flow through pipelines. This combination of bitumen and diluent is referred to as diluted bitumen, or dilbit. There is very little research on how dilbit and the chemicals used to dilute it behave if a spill occurs in fresh water or marine environments.

A recent federal government study concludes that, unlike other crude oils, dilbit will sink in the presence of suspended particulate matter (e.g. sediment particles in the ocean). Suspended particulate matter is very common in B.C.’s coastal waters, meaning that any dilbit spill will likely lead to submerged oil. Currently we have no ability to clean up oil that sinks below the surface, making dilbit a particularly risky substance to transport.

So for coastal British Columbia, a specific reason for concern regarding the transport of dilbit is that we know very little about how it would behave if it were to be spilled into a marine environment. Evidence from the July 2010 Kalamazoo River dilbit spill in Michigan also provides a pretty clear indication that dilbit would sink when combined with sediments. One thing we have no shortage of  in our coastal waters is suspended sediments. Next time you travel on a BC ferry from Swartz Bay to Tsawwassen, have a look at the water. Water originating from the Fraser River has a very distinct milky colour associated with its high sediment content.

Please provide your references

As you might imagine, the scientific uncertainty as to the fate and behaviour of a potential dilbit spill prompted me to pose a number of questions to Trans Mountain through the National Energy Board hearing process. Some of my questions were relatively straightforward:

On page 11, of the report A Comparison of the Properties of Diluted Bitumen Crudes with Other Oils, submitted to the National Energy Board as part of the Trans Mountain application, the study of Tsaprailis et al 2013 is referred to. It is the only study cited with respect to penetration of various types of oil into sand. As I could not find the reference, I simply asked the obvious questions?:

1. Is this study peer reviewed?
2. Is this study published in a scientific journal?
3. Are there any peer reviewed scientific journal studies that have examined dilbit penetration into sands? If so, please list them.

Here’s the answer I got:

1. Trans Mountain is unaware of the review process used for the Tsaprailis et al 2013 report but assumes that it was peer reviewed by the client (AIEES).
2. Trans Mountain does not have this information.
3. Trans Mountain is unaware of any scientific publication on dilbit penetration into sediment other than Brown et al. (1992).

You can imagine my frustration. I am trying to examine the scientific evidence underpinning Trans Mountain’s submission and I can’t get access to, or information about, key references they are using in their application.

It gets worse.

On page 5 of the report  A Study of Fate and Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen Oils on Marine Waters, that Trans Mountain submitted in support of their application, it states: “the literature review resulted in only six reported studies focused specifically on dilbits in available on-line searches.” All I asked for was information on how I could find them:

1. Please list these six studies with URLs so that I can access them.
2. Do any of these studies appear in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

You would think it would be trivial to respond to these. But instead of an answer, I was directed to a bibliography that included 75 references which may or may not include the six that were being referred to. Fortunately the National Energy Board compelled Trans Mountain to provide a full and adequate response to my original question and I await receipt of the six references.

Does Diluted Bitumen Sink or Float on Marine Waters?

Transmountain relied heavily on work they commissioned in the report entitled: A Study of Fate and Behaviour of Diluted Bitumen Oils on Marine Waters. This is referred to as the so-called Gainford study. This study undertook tank experiments using saline water (typical of Burrard inlet) that did not include suspended sediments. Yet according to the aforementioned federal study:

“high-energy wave action mixed the sediments with diluted bitumen, causing the mixture to sink or be dispersed as floating tarballs”

and

“Under conditions simulating breaking waves, where chemical dispersants have proven effective with conventional crude oils, a commercial chemical dispersant (Corexit 9500) had quite limited effectiveness in dispersing dilbit.“

So I asked the obvious questions, noting that the tank experiments were all conducted with conditions claimed to be typical of Burrard Inlet. Have any tank experiments been conducted:

1. with more saline conditions typical of the Strait of Juan de Fuca? If not, why not?
2. with colder conditions typical of winter? If not, why not?
3. in the presence of strong horizontal and/or vertical sheer? If not, why not?
4.  in the presence of whirlpools? If not, why not?
5. in the presence of downwelling conditions with downwelling velocities reaching greater than 40-50 cm/s as observed in [observed tidal fronts in the region]? If not, why not?

I received, what can only be described as a very odd response: “Additional studies were conducted by the Government of Canada (2013), under more saline conditions and different temperatures.” In other words, I was referred right back to the report that I cite above claiming that dilbit has the potential to sink. In response to this reply I responded:

“This response is unacceptable. I am aware of the government on Canada studies. As noted in [the Government of Canada (2013) ] report does not provide any details of any research that may or may not get done. I submit that Trans Mountain has not adequately answered the question(s), and request that an appropriate answer be provided.”

To which all I received from Trans Mountain was:

“The requested information has been provided and Trans Mountain‘s response is full and adequate. The response provides the Board with all necessary information pertaining to this matter. There is no further response required and supplementing the original response will not serve any purpose. Trans Mountain notes that if the Intervenor disagrees with the information contained in the response, it may contest the information through evidence or final argument.“

This interaction is very troubling to me since in its report entitled Review of Trans Mountain Expansion Project: Future Oil Spill Response Approach Plan, Recommendations on Bases and Equipment, Full Report, submitted by Trans Mountain as evidence in support of its application, it states that:

“During the course of the ten days test the diluted bitumen floated on the water and could be retrieved effectively using conventional skimming equipment.“

It is clear to me that unless compelled to do so, Trans Mountain does not plan to conduct additional tank studies. The question I ask is this. Is it the responsibility of the taxpayer to fund federal government science in direct support of industry? Or should the industrial proponent of a project be required to pay for the necessary scientific studies? The answer is obvious to me.

Summary

In summary, it is clear that there is a profound gap in scientific knowledge as to what would happen if diluted bitumen were to be released into the Salish Sea.

Yet we must not forget that in British Columbia dilbit is already being piped through the existing Kinder Morgan line to Burnaby where it is loaded onto tankers. About one tanker a week laden with dilbit is passing along the coast of the Oak Bay-Gordon Head riding on its way to refineries in Asia or California.

Was there an environmental review process when dilbit replaced traditional crude in the existing line? If not, why not?

The British Columbia government has outlined five conditions that must be met for their acceptance of heavy oil pipelines projects. These are

• Successful completion of the environmental review process. In the case of Enbridge, that would mean a recommendation by the National Energy Board Joint Review Panel that the project proceed;
• World-leading marine oil spill response, prevention and recovery systems for B.C.’s coastline and ocean to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines and shipments;
• World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response and recovery systems to manage and mitigate the risks and costs of heavy oil pipelines;
• Legal requirements regarding Aboriginal and treaty rights are addressed, and First Nations are provided with the opportunities, information and resources necessary to participate in and benefit from a heavy-oil project; and
• British Columbia receives a fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits of a proposed heavy oil project that reflects the level, degree and nature of the risk borne by the province, the environment and taxpayers.

I support these five conditions. But in addition and for the reasons outline above, the BC Green Party and I have added a sixth condition:

• A moratorium for dilbit transport along the British Columbia Coast.

The justification is clear. The BC government’s five conditions must be applied to existing as well as future projects.

This week was a clear reminder of why I decided to run for office.

Back in 2008, I had the honour of working with then Premier Gordon Campbell, his Minister of Environment, the Honourable Barry Penner and the Climate Action Team to outline clear, bold and practical steps that we as a province could take to address global warming.

Together with government, academics, industry leaders, and First Nations, we developed a suite of policies that would allow us to reduce our carbon emissions while supporting strong economic growth. Six years later, British Columbia’s climate policies were still seen as leading the way in North America.

On Monday the Liberal government tabled a bill that threatens to undermine that success.

Bill 2: The Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act would see British Columbia repeal legislation that would have enabled us to enter a cap and trade framework with our Pacific Coast climate action partners. In its place, we would adopt new legislation that would see us embrace what’s called an “emissions intensity” scheme along the lines of what Alberta and the Harper Tories have done.

Whereas a cap and trade framework would force us to reduce the total amount of carbon we emit into the atmosphere, an emissions intensity scheme would only require businesses to reduce the amount of carbon produced in liquefying a specified quantity of natural gas.

Here’s the problem: Our climate doesn’t care about emissions intensity. Our climate cares about the overall magnitude of emissions. If we increase the production of LNG, even if it is produced more and more efficiently, emissions are still going up. Ultimately, the climate only cares about the total amount of carbon pollution a facility would release and how much carbon pollution is in our atmosphere.

An emissions intensity scheme wouldn’t limit the overall carbon emissions. That’s why if you compare Alberta’s emissions to British Columbia’s, you will see that while British Columbia’s emissions decreased in the last few years, Alberta’s increased.

So why are we going down this path? Because the government knows that emissions are going to skyrocket if we develop our LNG industry. And an Alberta or Harper Government style emissions intensity model will provide the illusion of action on global warming at the same time as our overall magnitude of carbon emissions continue to increase. That’s all this is: The illusion of action.

The simple fact is, if we pass this bill, we may as well say goodbye to all of the progress we have made, for we will be stepping into a new era as one of the most polluting provinces in Canada.

As part of the debate on this Bill, I introduced an amendment that proposed that the Legislature delay debate on this Bill for 6 months. This would allow us as MLAs to put more time and thought  into this Bill, and to ensure that we have carefully thought through the consequences of losing our leadership in addressing global warming. My amendment was voted down 40 to 28, with the BC NDP voting in support of the amendment.

Here is a quick guide to my four main areas of critique for this piece of legislation.

1. The bill will see B.C. undermine its highly effective climate policies with an Alberta-style emissions intensity framework that has been shown to be ineffective at reducing net emissions. This is the same type of framework that was adopted federally by PM Stephen Harper’s Conservative Government, amidst significant criticism.
2. Under an emissions intensity framework, the magnitude of net carbon emissions can increase significantly despite the emissions intensity decreasing. Ultimately, the magnitude of net carbon emissions is the only thing that matters as far as global warming is concerned. This change is being made to allow for a dramatic increase in carbon emissions from the proposed LNG industry.
3. The bill would repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act that was passed as enabling legislation to allow B.C. to enter into a regional cap and trade framework with other jurisdictions including California, Washington and Oregon. A cap and trade framework would allow B.C. to reduce the magnitude of net carbon emissions.
4. The bill would give cabinet the power to change the 0.16 emissions intensity limit through regulation without having to bring it back to the legislature for debate. This is the key point of the legislation that the government points to as evidence of their pledge to have the “cleanest LNG” in the world. The fact that “cleanest LNG” is not fixed in legislation, should raise significant concerns about the government’s commitment to this limit.

Please consider reading through the entire text of my speech  for a more detailed explanation of my opposition to Bill 2.

Media Statement: October 22, 2014

MLA Weaver Tables Amendment to LNG Emissions Act

For immediate release

Victoria, B.C. – The B.C. Government’s proposed Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act (Bill 2) is a rushed piece of legislation that undermines our climate leadership and puts our ability to reduce future emissions at risk, says Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

Today in the legislature, Andrew Weaver spoke to his concerns and submitted a hoist amendment that called for the bill to be delayed by 6 months to give MLAs and the public more time to scrutinize it.

The bill, which went into second reading today, would see British Columbia adopt an Alberta-style emissions intensity framework. This framework would allow overall emissions to increase in the Province, even as the Government would be taking credit for a reduction in the emissions intensity.

“Our climate cares very little for accounting tricks,” said Andrew weaver. “If we are going to take our responsibility to tackle climate change seriously, the only thing that truly matters is whether we are reducing the quantity of carbon emissions we are releasing. This bill won’t do that.”

Another major concern with the Bill is the apparent “blank-cheque” that it awards government. The legislation would effectively allow cabinet to re-write major sections of the legislation through regulations without the scrutiny of the House. British Columbians will not know many crucial details until well after Bill 2 is passed, and the Government will have avoided essential scrutiny that only the House can provide.

Finally, the bill would repeal the Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act (2007) that was passed to enable a regional cap and trade framework with other jurisdictions including California, Oregon and Washington.

“It has become a political necessity for this government to land LNG, no matter what the cost is to British Columbians. With Bill 2, the cost may be our leadership in the fight on global warming,” said Andrew Weaver. “This Bill is asking us to choose between continuing forward with a singular focus on LNG, or taking seriously our responsibility to reduce this province’s Greenhouse gas emissions. Under this proposed legislation it will be impossible for us to have it both ways.”

Weaver’s amendment was voted down 28 to 40 with the BC NDP voting in support of the amendment.

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382

Media Statement: October 21, 2014
LNG Tax Regime a Generational Sellout

For immediate release

Victoria, B.C. – The B.C. Government’s proposed Liquefied Natural Gas Income Tax Act amounts to a generational sellout says Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

The legislation, which was tabled today, outlines the structure of a new income tax that would apply to LNG producers. Under the current bill, the LNG income tax that was originally proposed back in February of this year was slashed from 7% to 3.5%.

“The LNG Income Tax amounts to a generational sell-out of our natural gas resources,” says Andrew Weaver. “The government is cutting taxes to the bare bone in a last ditch effort to land their hypothetical LNG industry. It is a high-risk gamble with low-returns.”

Under the proposed legislation, the LNG Income Tax would be effective as of January 1, 2017. Companies will initially pay 1.5% on their net operating income. Once net operating losses and capital investments are paid off, the LNG income tax rate will initially increase to 3.5% and then further increase to 5% as of 2037. The government is also offering LNG proponents a B.C. Corporate Income Tax Credit that will reduce that corporate income tax rate from 11% to 8%.

The Minister of Finance rolled back revenue expectations today claiming that under the new tax regime, it would likely take an additional ten to fifteen years beyond initial projections to eliminate the provincial debt.

In his response to the recent throne speech Andrew Weaver outlined a viable alternative vision for a diversified, 21st century economy based on strong existing industries and major up-and-coming sectors like the clean tech sector.

“Rather than gambling revenue expectations and election promises on a hypothetical LNG industry that won’t exist for years, we should instead invest in existing, up-and-coming industries like the cleantech sector that are proven to produce clear returns. Doing so would yield greater economic growth, far faster, while also helping to address the challenges of global warming.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA

Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca

Cell: 1 250 216 3382

Media Statement: October 20, 2014
LNG Emissions Legislation Shows Lack of Leadership
For immediate release

Victoria, B.C. – The introduction of the proposed Greenhouse Gas Industrial Reporting and Control Act is a clear signal that B.C. is losing its leadership in addressing global warming as it burdens the entire economy with the cost of its political promises around LNG, says Andrew Weaver, MLA for Oak Bay – Gordon Head and Deputy Leader of the B.C. Green Party.

“This bill is a complicated accounting game that attempts to pull wool over everyone’s eyes to make us think we are actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” says Andrew Weaver. “It is ill-considered, misleading and a clear signal that we are losing our leadership in addressing global warming.”

Of particular note, there are numerous pages in the legislation that essentially grant cabinet the power to decide what could be considered a carbon offset, irrespective of international standards.

“There are very clear international rules here and I cannot fathom why all these powers have been granted to cabinet unless the government wishes to make up new rules — like taking credit for China burning gas instead of coal,” notes Weaver.

Equally troubling is the repealing of the 2008 Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction (Cap and Trade) Act was specifically designed to allow British Columbia to join western states and provinces to create a larger jurisdiction in which to find the most economically efficient means of reducing greenhouse gases. California initiated its cap and trade program in 2012 and Québec recently joined. Washington and Oregon as well as several New England states have also expressed interest in participating.

“True leadership from government is not making our entire economy subservient to the demands of a single industry – especially one that doesn’t even exist yet,” says Andrew Weaver. “Instead of enslaving ourselves through reliance on hypothetical exports of a commodity that may or may not find a market elsewhere, we could, and should, show leadership in the development of a diversified, sustainable, 21^st century economy.

“We should be building upon the areas of our economy where we have already demonstrated the capacity for leadership, both in creating new opportunities for British Columbians and in taking real, honest steps to address the impacts of global warming.”

-30-

Media Contact

Mat Wright – Press Secretary, Andrew Weaver MLA
Mat.Wright@leg.bc.ca
Cell: 1 250 216 3382