Dear Darrell D: Thanks for commanding your overworked spinmeisters to drop everything whenever I call for government info. Now, with their guidance, my reporting will never stray too far from truth, justice and the NDP way. Let me give thanks by offering these political insights on the $6.2 billion Lower Churchill power project. Darrell, watch your back! The news from Labrador is not good. Liberal MP Todd Russell has just released two informal surveys showing a huge majority of Labradorians are damning the dam!
“People are telling me if they’re going to inherit one hundred percent of the [environmental] damage, they damn well want to be compensated,” Russell says. “The people in Labrador have often felt,” he adds, “that we are a land rich in resources, but still why are our people suffering for lack of basic services?” He points out that Labradorians themselves won’t have access to Lower Churchill power, but will continue to pay sky-high rates for electricity from stinky, diesel generators. Yes, there’ll be a few years of work building the dam, but only a handful of maintenance jobs after that. Russell wants the suits at the power companies to offer a lot more.
“It’s my firm sense that unless these companies come to the table with more than what they currently offer,” he says, “then the people of Labrador are saying let the river run, there are other alternatives.”
I know you keep saying, Darrell, that at least the Innu are supporting the dam. Alas, that’s not quite true. Innu grand chief Joseph Riche reminded a federal environmental panel, which began hearings last week, that his people have yet to vote on the project. “Our consent is required for the Lower Churchill development,” he warned, “but it has not yet been obtained.” Since the Innu seem split, it’s not certain how the ratification vote will go. Meantime, the association representing Labrador Metis—a far larger group than the Innu—is so angry at being left out of negotiations, it’s seeking a court injunction to halt the environmental hearings until its land claims are recognized.
Fortunately, your friend and mine, Bruno Marcocchio of the Sierra Club, piled into his ancient Ford Escort last week and drove all the way from Sydney to Happy Valley–Goose Bay. He’s working hard there to persuade the environmental panel to reject the big dam. If he’s successful, you could step gracefully away from the whole damn mess. Hallelujah! Otherwise, I fear you’ll wear the blame when Nova Scotia Power tries to profit by wheeling Lower Churchill juice from Cape Breton to New England. I predict Nova Scotians will be some pissed when they learn they’ll have to subsidize the exports partly by paying for the transmission lines from Newfoundland and into New Brunswick.
Marcocchio is promoting an alternative scheme, one that tries to shift from relying on distant power dams to local generation. “The Lower Churchill project keeps us firmly rooted in that now-dead paradigm of ever-increasing, large, mega-project capacity delivering power to distant and ever-increasingly hungry markets,” he says. “That’s gone now, the paradigm has shifted and we’re moving into the age of smart-grid technology.”
For Marcocchio, that means a grid that monitors and directs power efficiently while allowing the widest possible range of small, local producers to sell their power to the grid. Yes I know, Darrell, that Nova Scotia already uses special meters that let homeowners sell power back to the grid, but Marcocchio wants a bigger investment in such smart-grid technologies rather than pouring billions into environmentally destructive projects like the Lower Churchill.
To be honest, I’m not sure about smart-grid technologies. But I do know that billions for distant dams, transmission lines and undersea cables will not magically turn us “clean and green.”
Time to step back from the Lower Churchill abyss and hold public hearings on our energy future—before it’s too late.
This article appears in Mar 10-16, 2011.
The comment on NSP going to snake power to the NEUS, my thoughts exactly many months ago. When has NSP done anything to help us? Anyone? All we are to them are sheep that pay whatever the fuck they want to charge for cheap energy, all thanks to the government. So why would this project be any different?
And what are you smoking on the public debate question? When has this government had any real debates about our money? Look at how the CC was steamrolled through and it has a private investor.
A quick update on the Labrador Metis attempt to get an injunction to halt the environmental review process: The hearing on the injunction was to have been held yesterday in the Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Ct. but lawyers for the province and the environmental review panel said they weren’t ready. According to this Canadian Press report, the delay appeared to irritate the judge:
ST. JOHN’S, N.L. – Aboriginal objections to the $6.2-billion Lower Churchill hydroelectric project won’t be taken lightly, a judge signalled Wednesday as he chastised defence lawyers for not being ready to argue their case.
“This is a serious matter,” said Justice Richard LeBlanc of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador.
“Having read what I’ve read so far, it seems to me there are some significant issues that need to be dealt with.”
LeBlanc set the case for a three-day hearing starting next Wednesday.
You can read the full CP report at: http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/br…
Good to know a member of the Sierra Club is driving large distances in an “ancient Ford Escort” looking to stop some long overdue progress in renewable technological development.
The author appears critical of the project on the grounds that the people in Labrador will not benefit, that the local Innu have yet to make a decision as a group on the issue, and the Metis are clearly opposed. Those groups have every right to be opposed. It is good to see the issue going to the court, and yes it might backfire that these Native groups were not included in the deal in the first place. However, at the end of the day this is a massive project that would finally bring a significant source of renewable energy to the province. The issues of energy security and reducing emissions are much greater than local environmental damage in an area of low population density in north-eastern Canada.
Ideal? Absolutely not. Handled the right way? Probably not, and the judiciary system will now be trusted to make a decision in this regard. Progress towards the increasingly urgent implementation of renewable sources into the provincial grid? Yes.
If you are in opposition, I hope that you are not one of the many who complain as fuel prices (and food prices, etc etc.) continue to increase nearly exponentially.
Hi -C-T-: I hope you don’t really mean what you seem to say in your response to my editorial, i.e.: “The issues of energy security and reducing emissions are much greater than local environmental damage in an area of low population density in north-eastern Canada.”
This is the 19th and 20th century imperialist justification for exploiting people in the colonies. Then, exploitation was justified in terms of advancing “civilization” and ensuring “progress”. Now, you seem to justify it in terms of “energy security” and “reducing emissions.” If you are really saying what I think you are, then shame on you. Saving the Earth has to begin with seeking social justice not with justifying exploitation.
If you want to learn more, you could read, “Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society,” by Ted Trainer. Or, you could surf to David Orton’s Green Web right here in Nova Scotia: http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/gw-hp.h…
While in the broadest sense your comparison may be accurate (re: “imperialist justification”, “advancing ‘civilization'”), the issue at hand cannot be compared to past colonialism. The hard reality is that we, as a global society, need to begin mass implementation of renewable sources of energy as quickly as possible. Am I advocating that the present quality of life (the consumer society as discussed in the book you mentioned) is sustainable? Absolutely not. But if we do not begin the transition towards renewables as soon as possible, we face the possibility of a major energy crisis. Not to mention the unfortunate side effect of climate change.
I do not mean to sound like a doomsday theorist here. Nor someone advocating social injustice. But, I feel I’m being a realist. And the realist side of me feels that the Churchill Falls project is a good opportunity for this province to incorporate a solid renewable energy contribution to the provincial grid.
As I mentioned… if it is decided in court that the Metis have been treated unjustly in regards to the Churchill deal, than so be it. In that case, I hope that some agreement can be reached between all parties so that the project may continue. In the meantime, lets also begin to look at solutions at a localized, intra-provincial scale.
I usually find it pretty easy to agree with Todd Russell. He tends not to miss many facts.
Here, in this editorial, I suspect his words might have been taken slightly out of context as he knows perfectly well that around four fifths of the whole population of Labrador uses electricity from hydro and that it costs about a third of what electricity costs us here in Nova Scotia.
The coastal communities, some of which a transmission line from the lower Churchill River would pass by do indeed rely on diesel generation for their power supply and they do pay a lot of money for that.
Fundamentally, the whole scheme is insane anyway. The energy cost of the transmission line alone would power Nova Scotia for a couple of years. We’re talking about 2000 kilometers here. Two thousand kilometers of multiple aluminum conducters. Perhaps as many as 8000 steel towers. How much energy does that represent?
And here we sit a stone’s throw away from the Bay of Fundy where more water sloshes back and forth in one day than flows through the Churchill in decades.
If Marcocchio is against it, I’m for it.
Thanks rgb for correcting a mistake in my editorial. As I look at the transcript of my interview with MP Todd Russell, I now see that he meant that coastal communities in Labrador pay sky-high rates for power from diesel generators. When I asked Russell about Labrador’s dependence on diesel generators, he replied:
“I believe 75 percent of all diesel-generated stations in the province are on the coast of Labrador. And what is remarkable is that after this multibillion dollar undertaking, those communities will still be on diesel power…The people in Labrador have often felt that and rightfully so and truthfully so that we are a land rich in resources but still why are our people suffering for lack of basic services, for lack of basic infrastructure. Things like cheap, competitive power. It’s my view that poor will remain poor even after this development if we do not have some guarantees and some assurances from the developers. That means Nalcor, that means Emera. It’s my firm sense that unless these companies come to the table with more than what they currently offer, and greater assurances on environmental issues, greater assurances on employment, greater assurances on business, greater assurances on infrastructure development, greater assurances on a legacy piece, then the people of Labrador are saying let the river run, there are other alternatives.”
Thanks again for correcting my mistake.
Wow! I’m guess Bruce Wark has to be working for Nova Scotia Power, it a clean ceap engery can’t have that
Undersea cabling has a working life expectancy of ???? years.(this time period can be interrupted with low probability but possible events such as under water avalanches,earthquakes,wartime or terrorism events,sinking ships,etc.)
The theory of “peak oil” suggests that the present oil wells will be dry in ??? years with present worldwide consumption which is growing.
It takes oil to mine,manufacture,deliver and install undersea cabling.
In ???? years it might not be the piece of cake it now is to do this-especially if the only ship that can go out there is our wind blowed Bluenose?
Folks in the future will be freaking out cause Timmy can’t heat their coffee or Ronald can’t get any cows for big macs cause were having to burn the fat to keep warm.
…and you won’t be able to ask your 4 new facebook friends to come and help either!
NOT SUCH A GOOD IDEA IN THE LONG TERM ALTHOUGH GREAT FOR THOSE IN THE short term DAM BUILDING BUSINESS AND THEIR FRIENDS IN political job creation HIGH PLACES.
— on the other hand bRUNOS IDEA OF SMALL SCALE LOCALIZED PRODUCTION WILL ALSO PROVIDE lots of work and incentives to invest locally and put all our electrical demanding eggs in many baskets-not to forget the copper/resistance losses will be less so capacity doesn’t have to be as high.
..and it will also save their nothern Labradorian environment and culture from the ravages of white men greed etc. infecting the eco-system of the area.
When the rest of us are freezing out they will be enjoying life as normal has been since their history began.
In an intelligent political world this concept might have merit.
However if history is to repeat itself the big guys making the big money will get their way just like the ones from sysco,the impending convention centre,and other political bright ideas etc.
..so children learn to do without cause when your sittin’ in your rocker at the old folks parking lot your gonna wish you had.
Why is it that people who live no where near these proposed projects are always ready to destroy the environment? Is it because you don’t have to see the Environmental/ economic/social/and cultural damage every day. So some how you don’t have to feel responsible for what your NS Government has agreed to do? You elected your NS Government, so you are responsible ! If it was a five minute drive from your house, how would you feel then? We are 29 thousand souls here in Labrador, and we have the right to be able to drink the water, eat the fish, birds and wildlife, without having to consume Methyl Mercury,or to watch as many species of birds, and wildlife disappear ! Up here it’s not money, greed, power, or destrcution, that feeds the soul, it’s the spirit of the Land and our ancestors ! We’d like to keep it that way !
So build the damn thing…& make it a requirement that an electrical power corridor will be sent up the Coast to power the communities.
I ain’t rocket surgery boys & and girls.
When you ask how will it be paid for…the money spent on diesel is more expensive than electric power produced by gravity !