Denying the obvious

[Urbane]

^^ Nonsense of course. Those who want to learn more about the need for the Site C Clean Energy Project can go to this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=65287

[maryjane48]

the only need for that dam is clarks ego . 70 percent of bcers want a bcuc review first .

[The Green Barbarian]

We would have to double in population for a Site C to be needed.
,

Link???

[lasnomadas]

We've been discussing the need for Site C since November 2015, and so far the pros haven't convinced the cons and vice-versa. Thank goodness we only have to wait 10 more days to put this debate to bed.

[hobbyguy]

The NDP supporters have been against site C solely because the NDP party decided they could make a political issue of it.

It is quite obviously a good project and good for the province, but the NDP thought they could deny the obvious and make a political football of it by being the party of "Noooo!" yet again.

So the NDP supporters trying to argue against site C have been reduced to specious nonsense arguments that do not bear up to the lightest of scrutiny.

That's a tough spot.

Much better to be in a fact based open minded position, which left me vehemently opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline, pleased with site C, and a qualified OK with Kinder Morgan.

That also leaves me in the spot where I would love to be able to take half of the Liberal platform, and half of the Green platform, and vote for really good balance. Sadly that is not an option. So the choice is Green or Liberal.

[Urban Cowboy]

We've been discussing the need for Site C since November 2015, and so far the pros haven't convinced the cons and vice-versa. Thank goodness we only have to wait 10 more days to put this debate to bed.

If only that were true.

[Hurtlander]

The NDP supporters have been against site C solely because the NDP party decided they could make a political issue of it.

It is quite obviously a good project and good for the province, but the NDP thought they could deny the obvious and make a political football of it by being the party of "Noooo!" yet again.

So the NDP supporters trying to argue against site C have been reduced to specious nonsense arguments that do not bear up to the lightest of scrutiny.

That's a tough spot.

Much better to be in a fact based open minded position, which left me vehemently opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline, pleased with site C, and a qualified OK with Kinder Morgan.

That also leaves me in the spot where I would love to be able to take half of the Liberal platform, and half of the Green platform, and vote for really good balance. Sadly that is not an option. So the choice is Green or Liberal.

Weird, you've got absolute hate and contempt for the NDP because they want to have the BCUC review the need for site C...yet you have suddenly developed a man-crush for Andrew Weaver and his Green Party that will outright stop site C if elected..
You really don't need to keep encouraging everyone to vote Green, the Greens aren't having any difficulty whatsoever steeling votes from the Liberals.

[lasnomadas]

The BC Liberal supporters are the only ones who are trying to make the Site C a political football. Everyone else knows it's simply an environmental and economical issue.

And certain pro-Site C commenters on this thread will vote Green when hell freezes over.

[maryjane48]

The BC Liberal supporters are the only ones who are trying to make the Site C a political football. Everyone else knows it's simply an environmental and economical issue.

And certain pro-Site C commenters on this thread will vote Green when hell freezes over.

exactly . us its baseed on what bc hydro themselves said . which is they dont need the power and with places now going solar in bc the strain on the grid is less

[Urbane]

exactly . us its baseed on what bc hydro themselves said . which is they dont need the power and with places now going solar in bc the strain on the grid is less

YOU keep saying that but BC Hydro didn't say it. Big difference!

[Merry]

Here's what BC Hydro has to say about it:

BC Hydro’s long-term energy planning process has found that Site C provides the best combination of financial, technical, environmental and economic development attributes, compared to other electricity-generation options.

https://www.sitecproject.com/why-site-c ... t-benefits

[maryjane48]

It noted, for example, that much of the power that will eventually be generated by the dam is already available to B.C.’s domestic market from such sources as the Columbia Treaty. The province owns the Canadian Entitlement portion of the electricity produced from the Columbia River dam in the United States. That power, the group said, is close to Site C’s estimated energy and capacity, and it’s already available for domestic use, but Powerex, BC Hydro’s power marketing division, sells it into the North American grid.


According to a Hydro fact sheet, the Crown corporation suspended its review of Site C as a potential option for new electricity supply in 1991 because “opportunities for demand-side management and gas-fired generation were identified as potentially better ways to meet demand.” hydro said that also


and then theres this


BC Hydro’s recently released 2016-17 third-quarter report shows core domestic demand from residential, light industrial and large industrial customers at 35,892 gigawatt hours (GWh) for the nine-month period ending December 31 compared with 36,062 GWh for the same period a year earlier. The 2016-17 core domestic demand is down 3.1% from the same period 10 years ago, when it was 37,046 GWh.

BC Hydro’s service plan filed with the province’s Budget 2017 shows domestic sales flat lining through to 2019-20 and the corporation’s debt rising to $23 billion during that time.


so the choice is clear

bclibs equal expensice dirty power


the ndp are committed to real clean sustainable power

[fluffy]

Hydroelectric is dirty power now?

[The Green Barbarian]

the ndp are committed to real clean sustainable power

Unless the NDP are comitted to nuclear power, your statement above is 100% unadulterated BS.

[hobbyguy]

Hurtlander, if you read what I say, you will see that I want half of the Liberal platform, half of the Green platform. None of the NDP platform.

That's based on trying my best to be non partisan and actually read the platforms and analyze them.

If you hang around these forums you will see me called a "leftist" on some issues and "right winger" on others. I try to see things pragmatically and on a fact based analysis approach. I do sorta lose my temper sometimes, but generally only when I see ideology trumping reason.

In this BC election I look to the future, and I see adequate results with the status quo. However, I see better results if we add some of the Green party platform planks. E.g. I really like the Green plank on combining daycare, stipends for stay at home parents, and early childhood education. It hits 3 issues at once without falling into the traps we have in the status quo.

But if I look at the NDP platform, and combine that with the same power players in the party - I see a backward looking return to the 1990s - which is not looking to the future.

None of the parties strikes the balance I am looking for, but the Greens and Liberals are forward looking in about half of their platforms respectively. Elections are about going forward. The NDP are looking backward and that perspective will will be no more successful than Trump's "bring back coal jobs".