Darrell Dexter was playing politics when he huffed and puffed this week about Quebec’s objections to federal subsidies for an undersea power line between Newfoundland and Cape Breton. “The reality is that when good things happen for Quebec, it is seen as a triumph of federalism,” the NS premier complained to the Herald. “But when good things happen for other regions, they are seen as an affront for Quebec.”
Obviously, Dexter sees a potential undersea power line as one of the “good things” that federal money could help us buy, but on that score, he is wrong. An undersea cable would carry electricity from proposed hydro developments in Labrador that would complete the destruction of one of Canada’s most spectacular natural wonders, the mighty river known to the Innu people as Mishta Shipu. English-speaking Labradorians translate the Innu name as Grand River, but in 1965, the Newfoundland government renamed it Churchill River after the death of the cigar-chomping former British prime minister. A year later, construction began on the massive Churchill Falls hydro-electric project flooding a vast area of Innu hunting and trapping territories, destroying Innu camp sites, tents, canoes, fishing gear and burial grounds and creating the Smallwood Reservoir, the world’s third-largest artificial lake, bigger than the land mass of Prince Edward Island. The flooding converted naturally occurring mercury in soils and vegetation to extremely toxic methyl mercury contaminating fish that the Innu eat.
Now, the Newfoundland government is proposing to destroy the rest of the river by constructing two hydro-electric dams on what it calls the Lower Churchill. The project would flood an additional 126 square kilometres of wilderness creating two reservoirs nearly 300 kilometres long and contaminating the waters with more methyl mercury. None of the 2,800 megawatts of electricity would be available to Labradorians who depend on diesel generators for their power. Instead, transmission lines would be built to carry the power to Newfoundland. Most of it would then be sent via a costly undersea cable for potential use in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the US.
“Say no to the Lower Churchill, I beg you,” Roberta Benefiel told about 15 people at a public meeting in Halifax on Monday. “It’s not clean, it’s not green and it’s not cheap.” The 64-year-old Benefiel, who lives in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, oversees Grand Riverkeeper, a group that is fighting the proposed hydro dams. She says she brought her message to Halifax hoping that people here would recognize the plight of the river. “I know it’s out of sight, out of mind and I wanted as many people as possible to understand how we feel about this river, about the beauty of the river and what it means to us in Labrador. It’s not just a hydro project.”
Benefiel says she realizes that the Nova Scotia government sees hydro power from Labrador as one way of helping it meet its 40 percent renewable electricity target by 2020. In fact, Nova Scotia’s recently released renewable electricity plan calls Lower Churchill power “clean, low-impact renewable energy.”
“I don’t think they realize either that people live on this river,” Benefiel says. “I also don’t think they realize the fact that it’s not clean and it’s not green…River ecosystems are not a renewable resource.”
“Please write to the premier and tell him Nova Scotia should not be interested in bringing dirty power from Lower Churchill,” Bruno Marcocchio told Monday’s meeting in Halifax. Marcocchio was representing the Sierra Club, which supports the campaign to save the river. “This is a 1960s mega- project mentality applied 50 years later,” he added. “Lower Churchill will be a $15 billion disaster.”
The massive hydro project is currently undergoing a federal environmental review. Will the panel members assessing it recognize its inherent injustice? And will Darrell Dexter finally see the folly of trying to save the planet from catastrophic climate change by destroying rare natural wonders like the Mishta Shipu River?
This article appears in Aug 19-25, 2010.
Maybe Miss Benefiel would rather go back to candles and eating what you kill the same day too and don’t forget burning wood in your stove for heat we can’t be at that either…Listen everything has a cost associated with it and if you need power hydro is a hole lot better than burning coal, nuclear…get over it Miss Benefiel ..as bad as what it sounds it IS called progress……
Sorry Joe, there are clean alternatives…(wind and solar for example) and if you believe your government will shut down those dirty coal plants in NS… think again. The power from coal is and will still be, cheaper than this project… and I suggest you will likely choose to use the “cheaper” alternative yourself.
And you are correct, everything has a cost! What we, as a society, should be doing is looking at all the alternatives and choosing the one with the “least” cost,; financially, socially and environmentally. In this case, no alternatives have even been put on the table… so we have no choice. Democracy is swept under the table. Out of sight, out of mind truly describes this project… it is out of sight of all but those who live near it, less than 10,000 people in central Labrador, and those brave souls who choose to travel the gravel roads to visit its wonder! Out of mind because those few souls have little political power or clout to get their message out. Please educate yourself about alternative energies and think again!
15 people turned up at the meeting, plus it’s opposed by Bruno Marcocchio – well, that’s it then, cancel the whole project!
We need Nuclear power.
“Sorry Joe, there are clean alternatives…(wind and solar for example)”
BUT WIND WILL MAKE US INSANE ref: Last week’s Coast.
“The flooding converted naturally occurring mercury in soils and vegetation to extremely toxic methyl mercury contaminating fish that the Innu eat.”
Specify the levels of mercury and methyl mercury. If the “contamination” is one part per trillion (ppt), then this above information means nothing, as the impact on living things would be negligible. If, on the other hand, it is more like one part per million (ppm), then you may have a case here. Which is it?
And what exactly do you propose if you take away hydro and nuclear power as options? 100 % of our energy from solar and wind?! You do realize that both wind and solar are fluctuating power sources–a modern power grid requires a fairly steady supply of electricity at all times, which would require massive (and prohibitively costly) amounts of battery storage from wind and solar sites. Otherwise you have a limit of 10-20% of your generating capacity coming from solar and wind.
Do any of the Coast’s writers ever think about these points?! Or is this all about making ourselves feel good that we are “environmentalists”?
I’m all for weighing the costs of different ways of generating power, but lately I’ve been finding that the Coast has gone on a rampage of criticizing various green(er than burning dirty coal) power generating schemes without offering any other alternatives.
Andrew, the danger of methyl mercury concentration in fish in the Churchill River is not particularly controversial. An environmental impact statement prepared for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro in 2008 describes the extremely serious health effects of methyl mercury: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents_static… (See section 3.3). The report contains calculations of the anticipated recommended consumption (meals per month assuming only one species is consumed) for people eating fish from the Lower Churchill after the project is completed. Table 6.3, for example, shows that children and women of child-bearing age should eat no more than one meal per month of lake trout. Other adults should eat a maximum of only three meals per month. Recommendations vary for six other fish species.
At the moment, Environment Canada recommends that people eat no more than one meal per week of lake trout and northern pike from the Smallwood Reservoir and the Upper Churchill River: http://www.ec.gc.ca/mercure-mercury/defaul…
The purpose of my editorial is not to “take away” hydro as an option for generating electricity. I’m trying to let readers know that the Lower Churchill project is not a “clean” or “low impact” source of electricity in spite of what our politicians claim. Similarly, my feature article and earlier editorial on the 60 MW wind project being built in Pictou and Antigonish Counties was meant to show that, among other things, industrial wind can produce adverse health effects without necessarily reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I notice that jennier complains that the Coast is criticizing green(er) power generating schemes without offering any alternatives. OK, fair point. But what I’m anxious to avoid is any suggestion that we can continue consuming electricity at present rates and still save the planet. The title of Ted Trainer’s book sums it up nicely: “Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society.” In her new book, “Plenitude: The New Economics of True Wealth,” Juliet Shor tries to show how we could live satisfying lives in a more sustainable, less wasteful economy. The point here is that we have to think beyond what I see as various techno-fixes (“low impact” hydro from Labrador or “green” electricity from Pictou-Antigonish) and envision an economic system that safeguards everyone’s well-being without poisoning the planet.
A fifteen billion boondoggle without a viable transmission corridor or markets is not progress. This is no more than a desire for a grandiose political legacy by Danny Williams.
The world has changed since the Sixties. Demand will not continue to grow exponentially. Most jurisdictions that have separated energy policy from political expediency are reducing demand, not looking to buy more power. It is much cheaper to save power than produce new (and dirty) supply. New England, the primary target for this energy, have already invested heavily in demand side management(DSM), and will need less power, not more by the time this project is online.
Reservoirs emit significant CO2 for at least fifteen years as the vegetation rots. Mercury will render the fish inedible for at least fifty years. Upper Churchill still leaves fish with more than double the .5 ppm of mercury forty years after inundation. Saving energy reduces CO2 year after year.
The secondary tragedy from this proposal is that lazy politicians avoid aggressive and cost effective DSM. Nova Scotia is a case in point. Rather than a reduction strategy that would create jobs in construction, manufacturing and maintenance of new technologies they claim Lower Churchill is the answer. They now claim that Lower Churchill will allow them to meet carbon reduction targets in 2015 and 2020. It is not physically possible to get LC online in time. The result will mirror what happened to our commitment to reduce mercury emissions. Ignore the promise and give Nova Scotia Power another five years to meet targets that our partners in New England and the Martimes met five years ago.
In the meantime no aggressive reduction, no strengthening of the grid to allow more renewables and no savings for homeowners and industry occur. In fact Larry Hughes outlined on CBC radio last week that if we continue with this dirty energy colony mentality our power rates will rise when LC comes online.
It is time to wake up and meet the challenge that the rest of the world is undertaking.
If we could find a way to stack and utilize ad hominum attacks we may find the solution to our energy and global climate crisis
The Upper Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project and the proposed Lower Churchill Project, or any other mega hydro project, are NOT low impact and are certainly not “Clean, Green and Cheap”, a fallacy perpetuated by politicians with self interests.
As to methyl mercury cantamination in the fish, it is not controversial because it is not well know what the implications are. It affects the whole food chain and can cause brain damage in humans because it bioaccumulates in the body. Health Canada says that methyl mercury levels in Lake Winokaupau (100 kms. downstream from the Upper Churchill Project) is still unacceptable and this is 38 years after the first turbine was turned on in 1972. Signs posted around the Upper Churchill Project and downstream warns us to eat only two meals of trout a month or 1 meal of pike a week – one meal being 7 ozs. The proposed Lower Churchill Project will bring us more of the same.
In respect to alternatives the first thing to do is to eliminate subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and then these alternatives can be competitive. Governments could further promote alternatives by dedicating substantial funding to research and development. One alternative never mentioned is to place turbines in the Labrador Sea where the current races along at 3.5 knots and could produce all the power we would ever need, into perpetuity.
There is an 18-minute video on the Grand Riverkeeper.ca site that shows the beauty of the Mishta Shipu and that discusses the issues involved in building two hydro dams on the river: http://www.grandriverkeeperlabrador.ca/Lab…
I wonder if the powers-that-be in the NS NDP government are aware of the devastating effects of the Lower Churchill project.
Has anyone see what is in Dartmouth lately ? Three smoke stacks , an oil refinery and lets not forget that HRM is banning windmills in the urban parts of HRM ,
Just took a look at the environmental impact statement for the project. Predicted peak levels of methylmercury in fish will be near Health Canada’s limit for the compound, after which the levels will decline over 10-30 years and return to their baseline (naturally occurring) concentrations. Consumption of most fish species from this hypothetical reservoir would mainly be a concern with pregnant women–they’d basically have to avoid consumption of pike from this area.
The tone of my last comment was perhaps a bit abrupt.
Recently, a friend of mine made an interesting comment, paraphrased as “Sustainable systems are stagnant systems. Unsustainability is actually a good thing in that it forces societies to come up with new solutions to pressing problems.” I think he has something there. I certainly don’t want to live in a stagnant civilization, and I doubt that many people would once they realized the implications of it. Besides, other societies won’t necessarily agree to stop the clock–and if we want to maintain our edge on them, we can’t either. We were forced to perpetually move forward the moment agriculture began several thousand years ago.
So, are we going to see some articles in favour of certain forms of nuclear power, or alternative ways to go about this hydro project to lessen its impact? Or perhaps carbon capture technology? Because electrical consumption rates will not be going down by any substantial amount–you’ll basically have to stick a gun to people’s heads to get them to willingly decrease their standard of living and the complexity of their society. China and India are also massively ramping up their electricity production, and won’t be stopping anytime soon.
I believe it is both possible and necessary to save the planet without decreasing electricity consumption rates. Technological solutions are the only feasible way to go about this–and they will arise in response to environmental problems. Recycling, hybrid cars, and CFC alternatives are a few obvious examples of technological solutions.
Juliet Shor’s book sounds like a Utopian scheme, whose members “withdraw” from our modern consumer society while still relying on the security and prosperity generated by it–they are still defended from foreign invaders by a modern armed forces, still have running water (supplied by a massive system of pipes and reservoirs), the internet is still available (Carsharing and sites like The Coast function on it), they still have a steady and reliable supply of power, telephones are still present, modern medicine is still there in case of an emergency…see a pattern here? Are you willing to give up MRIs and vaccines to live in this world? Because Schor’s proposed world couldn’t produce these things.
To Andrew S,
Whew, where shall I begin. Sustainable systems are dynamic and resilient, NOT stagnant. With so flawed an assumption you can go just about anywhere with your uninformed bias.
I will repeat, the fish in the Churchill are still more than twice acceptable levels forty years after flooding. Why do you accept NALCOR’s claims minimizing the impacts when the evidence clearly shows otherwise? Add the new mercury to the system and what do you think the outcome will be? I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see.
To survive as a species and to spare the rest of life on the planet we must, and can easily do, much more with much less. The result will be a better standard of living, NOT less.
Your reactionary unwillingness to even examine the evidence ensures your circular arguments, based of course on not only wrong, but deliberately inverted assumptions (stagnant and sustainable).
There is no hope for those who are unwilling to acknowledge the problem and that the World as you know it is crumbling. A carbon neutral future will make life better for all creatures. Reactionary denial will destroy the way of life you are so desparately clinging to by claiming white is black and black is white
To Bruno M.,
“Whew, where shall I begin. Sustainable systems are dynamic and resilient, NOT stagnant.”
What evidence do you have to back up your claim? What is your (preferably detailed) definition of a sustainable system? What unintended consequences are possible with a change to this system? How do you intend to achieve this system?
“I will repeat, the fish in the Churchill are still more than twice acceptable levels forty years after flooding. Why do you accept NALCOR’s claims minimizing the impacts when the evidence clearly shows otherwise? Add the new mercury to the system and what do you think the outcome will be? I guess there are none so blind as those who will not see.”
Show me why my claims on this point are incorrect. I will concede my error if you do so in a thorough and detailed manner. Do you mean all species of fish, at all measurement sites? Which study are you referring to? What are the margins of error in these numbers? And I am well aware that methyl mercury is a toxic compound–I have a masters degree in analytical chemistry. The question with toxins should always be: what are the concentrations, and how are they changing (including equilibrating) with time? The above article did not mention these very important subjects.
“To survive as a species and to spare the rest of life on the planet we must, and can easily do, much more with much less. The result will be a better standard of living, NOT less.”
Prove it. What are you proposing and how do you intend to implement these changes?
“Your reactionary unwillingness to even examine the evidence ensures your circular arguments, based of course on not only wrong, but deliberately inverted assumptions (stagnant and sustainable). “
Am I really the one who isn’t talking about evidence? See any hard numbers mentioned in the coast article and in most of the comments? Refusing radical and far reaching changes in the absence of evidence is not reactionary–it is prudent.
You also didn’t address the majority of my previous points. Is your argument based on sound evidence and consideration of the consequences of your proposed changes (as well as alternative changes, say third strategies)?
Never have I denied the evidence of climate change, nor have I ever advocated a “do nothing” approach. Tax breaks for good environmental behavior, further research into improving battery, solar cell, and wind turbine technology, adoption of nuclear power as a key carbon-neutral technology, among other measures, are all changes to (and in some cases continuation of) current policy that I would support.
One 5th the size of Churchill Falls now, powering enough to make NL an independent energy province displacing billions to trillions of pounds of coal and CO2 emmisions. Investigate the mercury impact, minimize it…hell, even neutralize it…but folks unless you’ve got a better idea….
To rcrmpn: You ask for a better alternative to the annihilation of the Lower Churchill River. Well, seeker of Truth, why not investigate for yourself? Here are a couple of places where you might start finding out how it is not necessary to destroy the planet in order to save it: http://home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/ and http://www.ramshorn.ca/
Andrew_S:
“Besides, other societies won’t necessarily agree to stop the clock–and if we want to maintain our edge on them, we can’t either. We were forced to perpetually move forward the moment agriculture began several thousand years ago.”
Andrew, it sounds like you are saying that civilization (i.e. the social arrangement that began with totalitarian agriculture in fertile crescent, circa 8000 B.C.) is predicated on the idea of competition between states. In reality, state nationalism is a relatively recent phenomenon that is closely linked with the globalization of trade and financial markets.
I despise state nationalists, and it sounds to me like you are one of them. The illusion that we are seperate from the rest of humanity due to abstract concepts such as “the state” are the cause of your anxieties and fuel your desire to “maintain our edge on” other societies.
So, do you honestly believe that because we are living in state “Canada” that we deserve to “have an edge” on “other societies”?. Give me a break. In adopting this stance you are merely riding the wave of our bloody national legacy of aboriginal and ecological massacre under the banner of “progress”.
You complain that Bruce and Bruno do not give you any alternatives, but is it not a greater crime to simply say that the model of civilization that we currently use should be leveraged to perpetuate itself and fix its shortcomings? No amount of neo-liberalism, resource exploitation, green capitalism, and concentration of wealth are going to address the problems of social inequity, economic polarization, ecological collapse, climate change, and the whole suite of other quagmires we are continuing to struggle and sink in.
It’s like that over-used phrase says: “there’s no such thing as a free meal”.
It is the same for the earth: “there’s no such thing as a free earth”.
Let me be clear:
Borders and state nationalism are a criminal thought crime that has been perpetrated on the people of the world in order to serve the interests of those in power. Their utility is in allowing social and economic inequities to flourish while raping the earth and the few remaining pockets of aboriginal culture in order to extract valuable resources for the benefit of the few.
Could you explain to me why you believe that we should “maintain our edge” on “other societies”? While you’re at it, perhaps you could explain to me why you believe that there are “other societies” at all… any person not living within a holistic aboriginal society which honours mother earth above all else is living in the same “civilized society” that began to assimilate all other societies 10,000 years ago.
I would rather see a hydro dam, than another dozen coal fired power plants. Power Plants putting millions of tons of polution into the air, water & land.
So flooding a couple hundred square kilometers, so water power can produce electricity is IMO a better option than Coal/Oil power production.
Having lived lived in labrador I know the beautiful land which will be destroyed….even a new bridge caused major change on this magnificent river, I will hate to see what “progress” brings….
Bruce Mark, what about the Inuit who have and continue to live off the land…it’s not just the innu
Borders and state nationalism are a criminal thought crime that has been perpetrated on the people of the world in order to serve the interests of those in power
you are out to lunch.where the hell do you get these ideas.is it in the communist manifesto. brainwashed left wing nut bag.get a grasp of reality will ya.
To Tom,
It’s really cute that you despise me.
“While you’re at it, perhaps you could explain to me why you believe that there are “other societies” at all… any person not living within a holistic aboriginal society which honours mother earth above all else is living in the same “civilized society” that began to assimilate all other societies 10,000 years ago.”
Go to Japan and see how long it takes you to run into a cultural misunderstanding, or to at least notice a difference in the way people behave. Or go to Saudi Arabia and walk the streets dressed in women’s clothes. See how long it takes before you are either arrested or lynched.
The myth of the Noble Savage is still with us, I see. Aboriginal societies do not honour “mother Earth”–they historically did not do much damage to it because they lacked the technology to do so. But, by a strange coincidence, several extinctions swept through both the Americas and Australia shortly after humans appeared there–almost as if the aboriginals there hunted some easy to catch and large animals to extinction.
“You complain that Bruce and Bruno do not give you any alternatives, but is it not a greater crime to simply say that the model of civilization that we currently use should be leveraged to perpetuate itself and fix its shortcomings?”
No, it isn’t a greater crime to propose reforms to the current economic system that we have. Otherwise you are simply playing with people’s lives and livelihoods based on your ideals and feelings, as opposed to evidence–you will have to implement your changes based on force, which is the only way your vague ideas will be put into widespread practice. Over one hundred million people lost their lives in the last century because certain people thought it would be a good idea to completely overturn the economic systems in their countries, and replace these systems with an abstract ideal that didn’t take into account the nature of real people.
i agree with the first comment. i would rather of this than coal powered plants or nuclear.
We offer you a range of loans. All our loans have competitive interest rates and simple application procedures. We provide finance for every aspect of your life.Visit us today for financial solution at: zongfinancialservice@yahoo.com.sg
Your Full Details:
Full Name……………
Loan Amount Needed…..
Loan Duration…………
Phone Number……….
Applied before……….
State………..
Monthly Income ………
Country……
You are to send this to our Company Email Address zongfinancialservice@yahoo.com.sg