Community Articles
Go to Site Index See "Community Articles" main page
General News · 8th May 2009
norberto
I was surprised by Barry Saxifrage's passionate post on supporting "clean" Toba Power. First of all, a bit of history on this project and this area.

On January 18 2006, Cortes Islanders joined the Klahoose people for a community meeting called by Chief Duane Hansen to confront Plutonic Power's plans to build two run-of-river plants in the Toba/Montrose River Valley. The meeting was held at the Squirrel Cove restaurant and was packed with people opposing this proposal. Donald McInnes, president of Plutonic was there, with a few staff, with maps, diagrams and all sort of details. It was a very important, heartfelt meeting, where all peoples of Cortes came together to say NO to this proposal that would have severe ecological damage in the Klahoose territory.

Several individuals from Klahoose talked very movingly, with tears in their eyes saying that territory was sacred for them and that they would never support such development. Many other islanders also expressed our opposition for this proposal. Among them, one of the most articulated and powerful was no other than Tzeporah Berman. And I think Carrie and Barry Saxifrage were there, also opposing the project.

After a few months of smart negotiations from Plutonic Power, the Klahoose people suddenly became partners in the project and it was approved.

I don't know details of the benefits Plutonic offered them, but the project is a go. I can’t condemn the Klahoose people for taking this step, it is only fair that, after so many years of waiting for the BC government for better treatment, they had an opportunity of getting a real “piece of the pie” in a huge project and they decided to take it.

I am not sure how much producing “clean energy” was a key factor in this decision, I am afraid the key reason was money. It seems that everything has a price, even the so called “sacred lands"

Other interesting point about this so important area. In the early 1990’s, there was a proposal from Sun Belt Water, an American company, to sell water from Toba Inlet and shipped it in tankers to California. The Klahoose people completely opposed this project, it was never approved. Even today, Sun Belt is still suing for compensation under NAFTA agreements.

Enough of history. Let me make a few observations on Barry’s ardent post.

There is no argument about the high consumption of fossil fuels from all of us. I’ve also said before that we Canadians are even worse than the Americans, and our carbon footprint is a shame and yes, our contribution to climate change is very high, and yes, our federal and provincial governments have done very little about it.

We also know that living in these islands, in an environmentally-friendly way is not easy. We have a huge dependency on fossil fuels: all the products we import to the island, we want strawberries, oranges and bananas all year-round, the ferry system, our cars and trucks, no public transportation, our over consumerism, the huge summer houses, our never-ending demand for energy keeps growing, etc. And of course, it is difficult to give up any of these commodities and facilities. To reduce our local carbon emissions is a big challenge.

The run-of-river proposals are one of possible alternatives to generate more energy. And this is where I have problems with Barry’s arguments. I have read many well-researched articles and papers about the environmental impacts from these projects and I can’t say these projects will generate “clean power.”

I agree that a few small scale of these run-of-river projects that have been carefully assessed may cause only minor environmental damage. But don’t tell me that massive projects like the Toba and Bute Inlet projects will not represent severe damage to forests, rivers, wild life, etc. in those areas.

Besides, I still believe that behind these monster projects the main goal is taking ownership, for eventual export, of the fresh water from those rivers. Generation of “clean energy” is only a smokescreen.

We must remember that a major partner in these projects is General Electric, an American company that, according to the Guardian Weekly, has joined forces with the World Bank and investment speculator George Soros to invest billions of dollars in a "Global Power Fund" to privatize energy and water around the world. Coincidence?

Barry talks abut ecosystem destruction from our carbon emissions. No question about it. But I also believe these massive run-of-river projects will cause severe damage to many ecosystems.

This is why I can’t support these massive projects.

Now, let me suggest a few alternatives.

First of all, we need to understand we can not keep growing and growing as if there are no limits. Our industrial culture has created this mess, we can not just pretend we can keep doing the same, just by switching to “clean power”.

What we need is to change our culture’s behaviour that is killing the planet.

How about a dramatic overall reduction on our wasteful way of living? I am talking about reducing our energy use, our use of fossil fuels, our driving and use of the ferry, our flying, our demand for more stuff we don’t really need.

How about demand BC Hydro and the BC government for immediate funding for other kind of projects that will generate “clean power”, like tidal power, wind and solar power, geothermal, and more.

By the way, Barry says that NDP is against all these kind of projects, I am afraid he is mistaken here. I think they only oppose the run-of-river projects.

One big obstacle here is that, as Barry well says, several communities have opposed these kind of projects. The NIMBY syndrome is real, even Robert Kennedy Jr., well-known environmentalist has opposed a wind farm project in the area where he has his summer house.

And now I mentioned Kennedy, I just remembered that back in 2006, the Klahoose people invited him to visit the Toba Inlet and get his support to oppose that project, and they were very proud for that. Interesting.

The challenge here is not only convince BC Hydro and the government about these projects, but to educate these communities of the benefits from and need for these systems. Maybe we can sell the idea of Community-owned energy systems, as it is becoming popular in some parts in Europe. Hey, this can also help in generating local green jobs in building, implementing and operating such systems, which is similar idea to what Klahoose say are doing by way of the Toba project.

Bottom line, supporting projects such as Toba and Bute is like saying:

hey, these projects we help with solving this climate change thing, without significantly change [reduce] our destructive lifestyle (that is causing climate change in the first place).

Unfortunately, it is too late to stop the Toba project, since it is already underway. It is too late to save those ecosystems. We should not permit that the same devastation happens with the Bute Inlet, which happens to be way bigger project than the one in Toba.

This is why I can’t support these massive projects.

And this is only one of many reasons I won't vote for the Liberals. I don't trust Campbell. His mantra seems to be: economic growth, at any cost. And this is fundamentally wrong.
Klahoose
Comment by James Delorme on 12th May 2009
Check us out and start to learn about us.
www.klahoose.com
Plutonic NOT the Answer
Comment by Robert Carter on 11th May 2009
Good dialogue. I agree with Norberto. The amount of power produced from a project like the Toba doesn't justify the the environmental devastation associated with it. I would have much rather heard that the Klahoose and other bands had received their land claim settlements than having to resort to this method of raising funds.
Unless we can 'raise the drawbridge' and stop masses of people from moving to B.C. we will continue to see rises in demand for power no matter how much each of us conserves individually. Unfortunately the rich don't feel it much when we raise the rates on power or fuel. The poor do. I still feel that two-tiered rates for power consumption is the right way to go and perhaps 1 more huge dam like WAC Bennett is better than a whole bunch of smaller 'run of river' power generators like what Plutonic is doing. Developing every last river and stream that flows into the Pacific with associated hydro tower swaths is certainly not good for the environment and will not serve our long-term power needs anyways.
conservation paradox and cap-n-trade
Comment by david on 10th May 2009
Conservation is a hard slog at whittling for sure Barry, and is one of those carrots that have been dangling in front of us for decades. And yet the irony is that every improvement in energy efficiency has lead to a paradox where energy use actually increases overall . Google "Jevons Paradox", or more recently the "Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate" to read more on this phenomenon.

If a socialist stick is needed as well as a capitalist carrot, maybe a cap-n-trade system where we actually have personal energy quotas, and high-energy users have to purchase units from low energy users, or simply learn to live within reasonable limits that won't cook us all?

I can hear the right wingers and petro-entitlement crowd hollering already, but lets face it, at some point the blissfully-ignored or rabidly-denied climate crisis will force war measures acts upon us like rationing. The gross inequities of energy consumption between rich and poor are actually what make our total average carbon footprint so huge. There are some real oinkers among us, so the poor and thrifty don't have to don the hair shirt or wear a crown of thorns. You just have to marvel at how the skippers of those opulent gin palaces can ply the waters around Cortes every summer with a big proud "he who dies with the most toys wins" grin on their faces.
Conservation YES! But how?
Comment by Barry Saxifrage on 9th May 2009
Just about every environmentally-concerned person I know on BOTH sides of the run-of-river debate wants conservation to be the top priority.

I don't know anyone who thinks we can create enough clean energy to replace all our fossil fuel use, 1-to-1, in time to stop climate chaos.

The debate is over how much fossil fuel energy we can cut via conservation, how much we replace via new clean power...and how to do it.

So far we haven't cut our per-person fossil fuel use in TWENTY YEARS, despite our promises and efforts like the 1-tonne campaign.

So what exactly will cause our society to radically change course in the few short years we have to all but eliminate fossil fuels?

What is the "conservation-first" plan?

What exactly is the strategy or policy that will get our society to finally make big, never-before-done, cuts in energy? It is going to have to be something totally different than what we have been doing.

Lots of the world uses far less fossil fuels and less energy than we do. How do they do it?

The answer is universally the same: HIGH ENERGY PRICES.

For example the Europeans tax themselves around $1.90 per liter of gasoline. And they use far less. If you want "conservation-first" with transport fuels (BC's biggest climate pollution source) you need to advocate doubling the price of gas.

If you look at electricity use per-person all over the world you see the same thing. The people who charge themselves high price per kWh use much less.

The data shows consistently that HIGH ENERGY PRICES = LESS ENERGY USE.

"Conservation First" is a great vision.

"High Prices Now" is the only strategy proven to do that.

To call for one you need to insist on the other.

Without much higher energy prices, conservation is doomed to fail just as it has for decades. And we don't have time to fail for another decade.

Advocating "conservation first" without calling for and supporting huge energy price increases will lead to climate disaster.

Yet NDP is saying 2 cents per liter is too much. And they are saying our tiny increases in hydro rates are too much. They want to roll back both. Greens and Liberals say we need higher energy prices to encourage conservation.

If we want to make big cuts in fossil fuel use in BC we need to DOUBLE fossil fuel prices like in Europe. That means at least a DOLLAR more in gas taxes.

If we want to make big cuts in electricity use in BC we need to TRIPLE our top tier hydro rates to match those already paid by Europeans and Californians for example.

You'll never get big conservation any other way. Once the "conservation first" folks start putting their efforts into campaigns to push for two dollar gas and 32 cent top tier kWhs, then I'll believe we might, for the first time, cut our fossil fuel and energy use in BC.

Until then I'm advocating for BOTH lots more clean power and much higher energy prices.
Exactly
Comment by Barry Saxifrage on 6th May 2009
Shane, you have captured the dilemma I find myself in.

I certainly did NOT want to take the heat for writing this article. I've had a lot of nasty things said to me because I continue to insist we stop our future-destroying dirty fossil fuel use....through any combination of cutting back and creating alternatives that society will sign up for.

I've put off submitting this article for weeks.

But it is way past time we stop our shameful, dangerous hyperactive climate pollution.

We are unravelling our own life support systems and those of billions around the planet. We have refused to make any meaningful cuts in our BC fossil fuel emissions. We have refused to build anywhere near enough alternative clean power to use instead. And now part of the left and part of the environmental movement is threatening to kill off the tiny first steps toward climate sanity.

We've TRIED not building new clean energy alternatives for years...and our fossil fuel emissions skyrocketed.

We've TRIED not paying pollution-prices for our dirty oil for years...and our fossil fuel emissions skyrocketed.

We've TRIED asking people to buy fuel efficient cars, walk, bike, stop flying for years. And yet our streets are full of climate trashing big cars, vans, suvs and trucks. Almost everyone is dumping mega-tonnes of climate thrashing emissions by jetting off hither and yon for pleasure. And our fossil fuel emissions continue to go up.

We've TRIED lots of "promises" and media campaigns and letters to the editor. And our emissions continue to go up.

We have to do something very different now.

Hand waving and wishful thinking has failed miserably.

That means we need to actually pay the real cost of our dirty and dangerous oil. The Germans charge themselves $1.90 in TAX on every liter of gasoline. We have people crying moral outrage over paying a 2 cent per liter carbon pollution penalty. Europeans have good lives that emit half our per-capita climate-trashing fossil fuel emissions.

It also means we need to produce a lot more clean energy to transition our dirty energy uses to. Other areas are paying top dollar to encourage more clean energy in time...over 40 cents per kWh. We have people crying moral outrage over our guaranteed long-term contracts for some of the cheapest new clean power kWhs on earth.

I don't care how we stop our killing our environment and kids' future via our climate emissions.

But rolling back our climate pollution penalties and moratoriums on clean power alternatives is a pathetic response and a disastrous choice no matter how vote-popular.

The options we have will get worse...the resulting bitter conflict get nastier...the longer we put off solutions that reduce our future-killing emissions dramatically.

I'm hoping people will wake up soon and choose real solutions that move our whole society off our fossil fuel addiction in time.
good dialogue !
Comment by norberto on 6th May 2009
Barry, Carrie and all,

thanks for your comments. I am glad my piece is getting some discussion.

Carrie's last parragraph summarizes what I was trying to say: first of all, lets reduce our energy use (and all our consumerism) and then, we may try to find new sources of energy.

That is my main concern, we can not keep growing as if there are no limits!

About the NDP platform Barry. You are right about that statement on "place a moratorium on new private projects.. ".

However, the next point in the same page 23 says:

"Allow BC Hydro to generate sources of energy including renewable, grren energy sources and energy conservation initiatives".

This tells me they are not trying to block all sources of alternative energy.

Actually the NDP platform has a complete section, starting on page 22, focused on protecting the privatization of rivers, streams, lands and forests. This sounds quite good to me.

And by the way, on page 42, the NDP platform says that

" their plan... continues the moratorium on offshore exploration and drilling and crude oil tanker traffic on the sensitive BC coast"

Don't forget that Campbell is trying to lift this moratorium.

I am not trying to say the NDP platform is perfect, but neither the Liberal is, nor the Green Party. Each one has good and bad points. And it is our individual choice to make a decision. That is what democracy is all about.. I think.

Back to the run-of-river topic.

An important website to browse, with many articles and videos, is ww.saveourrivers.ca . One of the articles is by Dr. William Rees, where he says:

" the era of material exhuberance in the First World is over. Public policy that does not reflect this reality merely accelerates ecosystemic and ultimately societal collapse.
"ecologically hazardous run-of-the-river hydro is an unnecessary strategy"

thanks,




how we all actually agree
Comment by sonyafriesen on 6th May 2009
we all want to support klahoose ,we all want to lower our carbon footprint,we all have pushed for goverment to move towards non carbon emmitting energy alternatives.so if some of us do not agree that the rush towards ror at the scale we are seeing in the bute inlet. it diffinently does not mean we are against all alternative choices including ror.i resent that being repeatedly said by people i really respect and who i usually find to be like minded.i'm asking that we move to huge conservation first ,because we can actually all do that today with no $ attached.we have enough ror projects up and going to take at least a few months to rethink,while i'm sure those current projects will continue.tidel energy is on its way to campbellriver,lets at least compare.so if i take this position it means i'm not supporting first nations ,i'm sorry i don't get it?I understand why klahoose would be concerned with what i might have to say ,but i repeat why would those of you who are truly concerned about globel warming ,aware of the dangers of industrial capitalism, suspicious of environmental assesment process which also give green lights to coal projects,have such a problem with us saying lets be careful how we regulate all this???I personally do not trust the current liberal government ,or most likely any government in power to do this for us,we must constently question the direction each green project is taking ,that is all many of us are saying.when G.E and water rights are in the arena why not voice concern.meanwhile we can not all go out and buy an electric car today but we can drive less.so we here in b.c. unless we break up the old dams ,have a bit of time to go with the hydro we have while we focus on real conservation ,and a real green energy plan,,,,china on the other hand?????
Longterm Toba stewardship
Comment by David Shipway on 6th May 2009
I have to trust that the Klahoose are making wise collective decisions, since this is their traditional territory, and they are in it for the long haul.

Online chat is a poor substitute for open communications though. I think it would be great if Klahoose made more efforts to educate islanders on what is really happening now in Toba, and share their environmental studies. I agree that much suspicion is based in ignorance and exclusion. At the time the first phase of Plutonic's Toba hydro proposal was in public review, few people got involved in the process. The issues are complex. I asked a few questions of EAO and got answers that more or less satisfied my initial concerns.

Obviously Plutonic's Bute proposal, which is far larger, and in more remote, unstable terrain, deserves a lot of scrutiny by all stakeholders. But the huge amount of public concern about privatization of BC Hydro and export of seasonal power should not be seen as a direct criticism of whatever positive partnership agreement the Klahoose have made with Plutonic in Toba, where in my opinion the ecological footprint of the hydro development is realively small compared with Plutonic's future plans all the way up the coast.

I do have wildlife concerns about transmission lines from Bute possibly crossing over the Toba estuary, and am dismayed to hear much of the transmission corridor timber is being left behind to rot because log markets are so dead.

It would be nice if we could see the results in Toba after the dust has settled, before we are asked to consider even bigger hydro developments in Bute and Knight Inlets.
I don't like the way climate is being used to fast-track such major power developments in remote areas, especially when the BC government is simultaneously pushing major expansions in fossil fuels and suburban sprawl, which are a big Carbon Bomb that will totally wipe out all the climate benefits of RoR hydro.

I'm really glad that the Klahoose were able to take over the Tree Farm Licence in Toba, and convert it to a Community Forest. This and the ongoing maintainance of the hydro infrastructure provides a secure economic base for a First Nation that until now just watched their traditional territories get ripped off. Long after Plutonic has come and gone, the Klahoose will be the stewards and custodians of Toba, and I wish them all the best in this bold new venture.
NDP will stop ALL private power
Comment by Barry Saxifrage on 6th May 2009
Noberto, you are just wrong about NDP platform:

NDP PLATFORM: "Place a moratorium on new private power projects until a full review of anticipated supply and demand is completed"

That means a halt to all independent power projects in all of BC. It means BC citizens will be telling the clean power industry to pack its bags and get out...and take the clean jobs and local clean power options away with them. It includes wind, tidal, solar, geothermal, hydro...everything.

While the USA, Europe and Japan are fighting to get their clean power industry ramped up as fast as possible to replace their dependence on dirty fossil fuels, the BC NDP wants to lock them out.

The NDP platform is easily available on the web at bcndp.ca and I very strongly recommend people read it closely. Be sure to read about NDP promises to kill many primary energy conservation measures:

* stop the "smart meters" program

* remove tiered energy pricing where big users pay extra which subsidizes small users

* ax the climate pollution penalty on most fossil fuels

If you want to make our energy cheaper, even the dirty Big Oil stuff...remove energy conservation tools...while halting clean alternatives...then you will love the NDP platform.

For those that don't want that, it is a false choice to say that you have to vote for BC Liberals. The Green Party also supports carbon taxes, energy conservation measures, independent power industry and lots more great energy policies. People have options.
Negawatts and More
Comment by Carrie Saxifrage on 6th May 2009
I’m glad to see this open and civil discussion over a matter of deepest public importance. Norberto’s mention of my support for Klahoose’s original opposition to Plutonic Power’s Toba proposal spurs me to weigh in.

I appreciated the opportunity to support the Klahoose First Nation’s right to self-determination when they initially opposed the Toba project. Now I’m glad to support them in their Toba endeavours, where self-determination and economic opportunity are aligned.

I can’t second guess the First Nation’s decision making. But I take great comfort that the result is the best outcome in view of what has become the baseline issue, as in “let’s solve this so our other problems still exist in 20 years.” My understanding of climate change has sky-rocketed. Due diligence regarding the scientific consensus on what we are creating for our children and people in other parts of the world brought me a sense of absolute urgency that we create enough oil-free energy to accommodate the massive switch over to clean electricity that must occur. These projects take years to bring power on-line. We need them yesterday.

I can’t make the call that transmission lines in my gorgeous back yard are worse than loss of drinking water, salmon, forests, ocean life and coastal ecosystems for my child, future generations, and hundreds of millions of people. Toba alone is a small weight on the scale that counterbalances these tragedies in the making. Nothing is big enough in itself. Everything is necessary. Climate change requires immediate learning and focus so we can actively and personally create a different future. Governments need us to create their political will. Expecting to see and live near clean power sources is an inevitable part of the change, especially if we don’t want nuclear. Proposed clean power sources still need scrutiny, but with an intention to support. As we switch from gas to electricity for transportation, we’ll need them even more. It’s not fair to create lethal consequences for others, and for the forest ecosystems we intend to protect, because we’re habituated to deadly gasoline.

Amory Lovins, energy researcher, states that it’s five times easier to reduce energy use than to create new sources. Let’s start there.

Cortes Carbon Calculator: http://www.stonebreakerdesigns.com/footprint/

The first Plutonic meeting...
Comment by Barry Saxifrage on 6th May 2009
Norberto, you may have been saying "no" to the Toba project at the 2006 Klahoose community meeting. But I wasn't. And many other voices there were not either.

What I said and wrote in public comments is that Plutonic could not proceed without meeting at least two hurdles:

1) Klahoose agreement
2) Environmental impact studies

I was very upset that anyone could come into Klahoose territory with a big project without bothering to even consult with Klahoose. I felt, as I still do, that development there had to be in a way that the Klahoose agreed with.

I was also very suspicious of corporations or governments environmental impacts in wild areas. I still am. And I wanted to be sure environmental impacts were studied, addressed and approved by Klahoose. And they have been. I've looked into impacts, talked to people who have visited the sites and feel this project is very much a net benefit to our fish, rivers and environment.

I also trust the Klahoose to protect their territory as they have in the past. They've had plenty of chances to "sell out" for big dollars and they didn't. If you are going to accuse them with that now you might want more than "I am not sure, but..."

What bothers me the most is so many people voicing what I see as ugly comments about other peoples' motivations when they haven't even done the work to find out.
Thanks for the history lesson Noberto
Comment by Bev Hills on 6th May 2009
Thanks for the history lesson Noberto, although with your qualifiers "and I think... I don't know... I am not sure..." I don't know how your essay qualifies as history rather than a distorted perspective on the matter of Klahoose. Many people assume a bunch of things about Klahoose, but I don't recall anyone asking them about it. I may work for Klahoose, but I don't speak for them nor would presume to do so.

In my opinion you severely overstate the Toba development by characterizing it as "severe ecological damage" when the contrary is the case.

I've sat back quietly listening to the ongoing debates on run-of-river power, and am somewhat puzzled with the lovefest going on with BC Hydro - who in my opinion have created some of the most profound and significant ecological damage to BC rivers, valleys and entire populations. Conveniently, their massive works are out of sight of most British Columbians...

I'd ask you to google Site C dam, to read the interesting scientific opinions about what that project has done, or what damage proposed expansion would create, but a google search produces up to 7 grams of CO2 according to one prominent US physicist, so that may not be a sustainable approach.

I recently visited the Columbia Valley - where my family lived for several decades - and I was near the headwaters of the great Columbia River, which flows from the Rockies to the Pacific over a 1,200 kilometre dipsy-doodle through numerous climatic zones. Did you know there are 450 dams on the first and second order watersheds in that system, with massive storage reservoirs and generating stations that led to thousands of people being displaced from their homes and many valleys flooded?

If people want to worry about the impact of power projects, I'd point them in the direction of concepts like the NWAPTA (sp?) scheme - dreamed up by planners in California in cahoots with the US Corp of Army Engineers - their vision is to dam the Rocky Mountain trench above the 49th parallel to provide California with potable water and presumably more power - the project was rationalized years ago on the basis that the social impact would be insignificant due to the low population - tell that to the 60,000 Kootenay residents that would be displaced.

Sounds crazy doesn't it? I don't personally believe that scheme will ever happen, but it sure makes one hell of a story and is equal to the fear mongering that persists on run-of-river and by overstatements such as your comments related to severe ecological damage ...

Given that I work for Klahoose, many will assume my view is biased, but I've been a dedicated environmentalist for most of my adult life - first with the Big Bend Resource Council, and then with the East Kootenay Environmental Society - whose newsletter I produced for many years. I am tired with the liturgy or sermon from the mount from paternalistic individuals who don't have the courtesy to talk with people or deeply understand the world around them but make assumptions about the facts of the matter. Rather than liturgy we need to find a balance between economic, social and environmental values that make sense for a sustainable future. The discourse related to Toba has in many regards no basis in fact, and deeply offends numerous members of this community who have dedicated their lives to protecting their traditional territory. We are awash in environmental studies - independently produced for Klahoose I might add - and this nation made a decision based on the facts rather than a fabric of fear.

I'm out of space so will end my editorial here...
Yea, the conversation is happening!
Comment by Dianne Hentschel on 5th May 2009
Norberto, thank you for your considered response to the Plutonic Run of River proposal. I well remember the Squirrel Cove Meeting. I remember looking up Plutonic on the internet, being surprised, and suspicious to discover that all the partners, who were based in Alberta, had backgrounds in financial management. I agree that conservation should be our focus not huge destructive run of river projects.
bute/toba
Comment by shane on 5th May 2009
Barry's article was shocking and I expected it to draw strong criticism from the environmentalists. I want to applaud Barry for speaking out strongly about this even though he must have known it would risk alienating a large group of people that is currently supporting most of his ideas. That takes real bravery and even if we disagree with him I think that deserves great respect.

Developing Toba and Bute have a lot of huge environmental and water use issues involved and it could very well be devastating for those lands. The agreements with Plutonic may not even benefit the bc population and it really sucks that Klahoose called us to a meeting to help stop this project then found out they actually wanted to support it. I'm sure I'm not the only one who was surprised by that sudden reversal. There may big a bigger issue than all of these things though.

The point I got from Barry's article is that the situation with climate change is so bad that we can't wait any longer. Something has to be done NOW, not tomorrow, not next week or next year but now today this very moment.

If we don't develop bute and toba we loose them through climate change, as well as the rest of the environment that supports us. If we do develop them maybe we still loose them but by doing so take a big step toward saving the rest of the environment. I personally am doing everything I can to reduce my carbon footprint and my energy use. And each one of us should do the same. But this isn't enough, the majority of the people and governments are not doing enouogh right now to make a difference.

So I think the answer is to reluctantly support these projects, applaud Klahoose for what victories they found in accepting the project and continue to pressure government and the population to lower their consumption and develop clean power alternatives.