It's a sad day in BC with the Greens and NDP joing up.

[Urbane]

It's a sadder day when one realizes no one in BC is winning.

On the other hand, Canada and Canadians are truly blessed. We live in a great country and I can think of no other country in which I'd prefer to live. And where to live in this great country? I can think of no better place than right here in British Columbia. I know that in the recent election we were told how terrible things are here but for the vast majority of us life is good. I won't rehash old stats but we really need to look around and realize how fortunate we are.

[Queen K]

I meant with this apparent deadlock and business interests getting the message that BC may not be a stable place to invest money into right now.

But overall, ya, I photograph BC all the time and there's good reason for doing so.

[hobbyguy]

Queen, you are correct when you state that a lot of folks don't realize that generally, if you are a BC resident, you have already "won".

I also see political and ideological battles being raged in BC over issues where BC has already resolved the "problem". The primary impetus for Greens in most countries/jurisdictions is to swing electricity to renewable production and eliminate fossil fuel usage in doing so. The LEAP folks want to "flip the switch" and go to renewable electricity production.

The "gold standard" for the green electricity folks is Costa Rica. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/30/truth-behind-costa-rica-renewable-energy-reservoirs-climate-change who managed 100% renewable electricity for a record 76 days. California has set the "aggressive" target of 50% renewable source electricity by 2030.

Note from the Costa Rica article: "Costa Rica gets most of its electricity from hydroelectric plants"

IF BC were a country (we are bigger than Costa Rica), where would we stand?

http://www.bcsea.org/news/could-bc-become-100-renewable-energy-region-part-1-of-4-part-series

"We are fortunate when it comes to electricity, for our power supply is already 95% renewable"

The province of BC is not "sitting on its hands" regarding further "green" improvements either. Site C, despite the phony controversy, is renewable energy that will power BC well into the next century. BC Hydro is working on transitioning Haida Gwaii away from diesel generation and toward renewable (most likely it will be through a wind IPP). BC already has a carbon tax regime. BC has a generous program to promote EVs, hybrids, and fuel cell vehicles: http://globalnews.ca/news/3227200/b-c-drivers-can-get-up-to-12k-incentive-to-buy-electric-vehicle/ (all require more electricity - which will come from site C in part). BC already has many programs to drive more efficient energy use: https://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/residential/savings-and-rebates/current-rebates-buy-backs/home-renovation-rebates.html and https://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/residential/savings-and-rebates.html etc. Charging stations for EVs and other infrastructure for EVs, Fuel Cell vehicles etc. have a program of incentives.

In other words, the greens(small g) have already "won" in BC. We are very close to "gold standard" Costa Rica (and may get to 98% with site C). We make California (with their big eco-activist movement) look like dirty nasty troglodyte polluters. Yet we see "California trendy" solutions for BC being proposed for a problem that we don't have.

The real "battle" lines for the future are that there is no going back from the globalized economy, there is no going back from the next phase of the technological revolution that is fast approaching (AI), there is no going back from the challenge we face in demographics, and there is no going back from the Paris Accord.

One of those battle lines, is happening in Alberta. Late to the party Alberta has introduced a carbon tax. Late to the party Alberta is shutting down coal fired electricity generation. Late to the party, Alberta is promoting wind power to replace fossil fuels. The transition away from an over reliance on fossil fuels for everything, including their economy, is going to be expensive. Alberta is running huge deficits. They could use a hand from other Canadians as they push to transform their province in the long run. Away from coal and oil and natural gas. It won't happen overnight. Alberta needs $$$ to make those things happen. The only way that Alberta can get those $$$, pragmatically, is to sell more oil in the short term.

Can we help Alberta become more green? Yes we can. Should we help Alberta to do so if we can? Yes we should. How can we help Alberta? Firstly by expanding our world envied supply of synchronous electricity so that if (when) the wind doesn't blow, affordable electricity is available to them. Secondly by helping them to generate the needed $$$ by allowing more sales of their oil. If we can.

Can we? Safely? Yes we can. In the complex mini economic ecosystem of oil transport through Juan De Fuca, we can. The pipeline route is an existing route (no further ecological/cultural disruption). The pipeline already does, and will do more to displace inbound tanker traffic to places like Cherry Point thus making the net increase in tanker traffic smaller. But, oh my, the possibility of a big spill! Exxon Valdez! I agree. How do we approach that? Spill clean up capabilities - somewhat irrelevant! Why? Because no marine spill actually gets cleaned up.

So the only answer is to prevent spills in the first place. Can that be done? Yes, to the point of the risk being so infinitesimal as be zero.

The tanker industry itself is exponentially safer than it was at the time of the Exxon Valdez. Technological changes in navigation (GPS, Chartplotters etc.). Double hull tankers that since their adoption have virtually eliminated large spills. Those changes were not driven by the tanker industry wanting to be "good guys", rather they were driven by regulation and cold hard cash (insurance costs). Tanker operators can not afford to be Exxon Valdez "cowboys". The Exxon Valdez alone spilled 36,400 tonnes of oil. The entire industry, despite being exponentially larger today, spills around 1-2,000 tons in total per year worldwide - and most of that total happens in poor safety regime areas like Bangladesh and Pakistan. https://ourworldindata.org/oil-spills/

So the tankers are exponentially safer. Meanwhile, thousands and thousands of large container ships, bulk carriers etc. go in and out of Juan De Fuca. The largest of the container ships carry as much oil as a 1960's tanker, about 40% of the amount spilled by the Exxon Valdez. Even at that level of spill, 40% of Exxon Valdez, it would be an ecological atomic bomb for the Gulf Islands. Just by numbers, the container ships pose a far more real threat than do tankers. Even the smallest ones, as we saw off Haida Gwaii, are beyond what our capabilities could handle if they get into trouble. Yet zero serious incidents.

Can we do better? Can we make it so that ALL ships are prevented from major spills? Yes we can. Yes we are! BC is getting a hugely beefed up marine safety regime and spill response regime (useful for small spills, but pointless for an Exxon Valdez). Most importantly we are getting massive salvage tugs. Tugs that have the capability of towing a disabled large container ship, or even the a super tanker (super tankers can NOT be used by K-M) disabled off Vancouver Island away from danger in a storm.

So in the larger scheme of things, paradoxically, proceeding with the K-M pipeline is a big win for the greens (small g). Alberta will be able to speed up a transition away from an oil based economy and toward a more diverse lower emission economy. Point blank, Alberta is the poor cousin when it comes to "green", and so has more progress to make. BC gets a far safer coastline (big tankers ply the waters just outside our boundaries all the time), the ability to clean up most of the smaller spills (all of the spills in the Pacific Northwest in the last two decades have been relatively small, and mostly from barges and tugs). BC gets some jobs, and $50 million per year to boost other programs as sweeteners.

Once again, we see a parochial ideological battle being fought, when the facts do not support the arguments. It is more about being "California trendy" and misplaced ideological purity than reality.

Can we afford such a dictatorial approach? Should we want a dictatorial approach to anything so important? Real, collaborative solutions are what is needed, and ones that distinguish the nuances of the possible.

What we have seen so far from the Horgan-Weaver backroom coalition is a dictatorial approach driven by ideologues, and it will not have a good outcome. Sad indeed.

[LordEd]

Throne speech preview: http://globalnews.ca/news/3538778/bc-li ... ne-speech/

The Christy Clark government is hinting that two key BC NDP platform pieces will be included in Thursday’s throne speech: an end to corporate and union donations, and an increase in welfare rates.

[Jflem1983]

Looks like 3 parties working against the people .

[hobbyguy]

When the Green party flipped from supporting the party with the most seats, Andrew Weaver essentially said, "Let the games begin".

When the NDP decided to sign up the Greens as partners, Horgan was saying, "I wanna be premier, and we can win this game".

The Liberal response has been, "OK, you wanna play games, we can play too!"

The game master is Andrew Weaver. The chief enabler is John Horgan. The consummate player is premier Clark.

In the end, no matter how this developed, it will/would have been a lame duck government, and very little of a constructive nature would result.

The 44 seat Green/NDP will get nowhere fast. Andrew Weaver has the trump cards, but not enough of them.

The Liberals are currently just setting the stage for how significant portions of what will get done does get done. Campaign finance reform a la Liberals has been stacked against the NDP and in favor of the Greens and Liberals. The welfare rate changes are actually an area where there seems to be some acceptance all around - as the Liberals got the message, even if it was not one they initially wanted to hear. The daycare issue is interesting, in that the Liberals also got the message there, and decided to frame it so that the Green platform position is the acceptable one (which I am glad to see, as it was far superior) - taking the position, I suppose, "well, if we are going to HAVE to do it, lets go with something that will actually work".

The current tempest in a teapot over the Speaker rules, is just further setting of the stage. To a large extent, it is designed to provide political advantage to the Liberals, but it also has the effect to some extent of ensuring that the NDP do not rip up the implied contract between the governing party and the people. In that, it has some positive effect, although the motivation is most likely to gain political advantage for the Liberals.

In the long run, I do not expect this current government to last long. (Regardless of Green/NDP or Liberal)

I do not think the Liberals think it will either. But they are realizing that a more socially progressive approach is what folks want.

The Liberals also realize that PR is unworkable, and works against their political interests. I suspect that the Liberals have that as part of their game plan, and are playing the cards to make it as messy and silly looking as possible. They DO have to be careful with that, overplaying will cost them more than they gain.