BC Hydro is currently managing the “consultation” process. This gives the very ones who are pushing for the project the ability to stifle real debate and eliminate discussion of whether or not the project should proceed at all. BC Hydro currently has the power to decide what information will be made public, what questions they will (or will not) ask and answer, how people’s concerns will be presented, and when and how studies will be carried out.
This is wrong. A prime example of BC Hydro’s inability to design an unbiased consultation process is their sorrowfully incomplete list of Site C’s impacts. This list mentions nothing about mercury contamination, methane releases, impacts on the Yellowstone-to-Yukon corridor, downstream nutrient depletion, water loss and rise in temperature, or loss of recreational opportunities.
Altered meeting notes have been published, and many important questions go unanswered. Much of the input given during pre-consultation has been completely ignored. Instead of an open and unbiased process of evaluation involving all concerned, we see a campaign to gain public support for the destruction of a valley.
The only fair way to evaluate such a destructive and controversial project is to have an independent and unbiased panel research it and manage a sincere consultation process. The current “con job” is completely inadequate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Please save the dignity of this still great river, which has already been violated twice by our thirst for power at all cost. I view the earth as a living organism on which we live as parasites. Stopping a river's flow is the same as blocking the blood flow to a part of the body which causes illness and death to the surrounding area and damages the whole system. The river is already high in mercury and levels will increase to unacceptable levels. Communities on the Peace, and other systems that are joined to the Peace, pull water from those once clean sources. The fish in the system, and all that live off those fish, will be affected by the increased levels. When is it too much? Can our great province afford to lose another 5000 + acres when we only have around 4.5%land suited for agriculture in the whole of BC? I don't think so. I'm sure all the people in the province would agree if only they could see the future. We can't eat electricity! There are many other options- wind, solar, tidal. All would be much better choices and would employ many workers in construction, maintenance spinoff jobs. Just imagine the possibilities. I'm sure that workers BC Hydro and other proponents, if asked on a personal level, wouldn't support this project with a clear conscious.
Post a Comment