A beaming Darrell Dexter told the Halifax Chamber of Commerce last week that the $6.2 billion mega-project to import power from the lower Churchill river in Labrador “truly is Atlantic Canada’s CPR.” The NS premier was referring to the completion of the Canadian Pacific Railway in 1885. He might do well to remember the
Pacific scandal that got Sir John A. booted out of office for soliciting campaign bribes from the Montreal tycoon who got the CPR contract. There’s no suggestion of any financial shenanigans with “Atlantic Canada’s CPR,” but it was jarring to see our jubilant, socialist premier in St. John’s clasping hands with Emera CEO Chris Huskilson, who took home over $1.3 million last year in salary and bonuses. Huskilson is probably getting paid even more this year as Emera, parent company of Nova Scotia Power, continues to rake in record profits. If the lower Churchill power project does go ahead, the company can count on hefty government subsidies, higher power rates and, possibly, the chance to profit from exporting electricity to the United States.
The premier assured his Halifax business audience that the power from the lower Churchill would be “clean and green.” Unfortunately, that’s not true. The 550 metre-long, 29- to 32-metre-high Muskrat Falls dam would create a 60-kilometre-long reservoir, flooding an additional 36 square kilometres of wilderness, an area significantly bigger than the Halifax peninsula. The flooding and reservoir would destroy fish and wildlife habitat while producing carbon dioxide and methane emissions from submerged vegetation and trees. Rising levels of toxic methyl mercury would make fish unsafe to eat. (There are already restrictions on fish consumption because of the original Churchill Falls project which began operating in 1971.) Moreover, hundreds of square kilometres of wilderness would have to be cleared for transmission lines to take the power out of Labrador.
No wonder the Labrador Metis are opposed to the project, while the Inuit warn they won’t sign on unless damming the lower Churchill provides long-term economic and social benefits with minimal environmental effects. The Nova Scotia media prefer to focus on the Innu, whose leaders have already struck a deal with Newfoundland, but still need to resolve a few outstanding issues with the feds. During a phone interview, grand chief Joseph Riche seemed confident that could be done soon. “Muskrat Falls has a significant religious significance for the Innu people, it’s like a sanctuary,” he says, adding that any deal would have to be ratified by the 2,100 Innu, otherwise the project will not go ahead.
Some of the Innu are far from happy. “We are here protesting against the damming of the river,” Helen Andrew told me last week by phone as she stood with a small group of protesters by the side of the highway near Goose Bay. Andrew lives on the Innu reserve of Sheshatshiu about 50 kilometres from Muskrat Falls. She accuses Innu leaders of failing to consult with residents over their deal with Newfoundland. She also responds angrily when asked how she would answer those who argue that power from the lower Churchill should be considered clean and green because it could enable Newfoundland and Nova Scotia to burn less coal.
“No, I don’t think it’s clean and green. No, because it would destroy a lot of things here for us,” she says. “The fish would be no good for eating and also a lot of things would change, like the caribou migration because they cross this river.” When asked what she would say to the Nova Scotia government, Andrew is blunt. “Well, my message to the Nova Scotia government is our leaders here, the Innu leaders do not fully represent us,” she says. “They haven’t met with us and I don’t think they want to meet with us, so we are here protesting and we will keep protesting to show there are a lot of Innu people who do not agree with the dam.”
This article appears in Dec 2-8, 2010.
This project may not be clean and green, but it is necessary for the Atlantic provinces.
Mr. Wark,
You’ve been explaining to your readers why the power from lower Churchill will be less than “green”. Sure. But you ask an odd question (this quote is taken from an earlier editorial of yours but it’s apparent that you still see things is this light), “will Darrell Dexter finally see the folly of trying to save the planet from catastrophic climate change by destroying rare natural wonders…?” I’m glad you used the word catastrophic. We are talking about a possible end game. But how do you hold the one over the other? Hold the globe ransom to a river? Obviously what Nova Scotia does is of little consequence for the world but it’s clear from what you’ve said that, as a matter of principle, whether it is Beijing or Washington, we shouldn’t cut off the arm to save the body. The arm is too beautiful. That’s insane.
Having said that, your criticism of the hydro project having been arranged in an undemocratic manner; the native populations not being consulted by their leaders, some entire native groups having not been consulted, etc. I do think those are proper concerns. They all should have been at the table. But the deal should still have been done and they could have named their price.
Mr. Brisco
Canadian provinces need to stand up for themselves and begin implementing alternative sources of energy because of rising fuel costs and to reduce emissions. The Federal Government obviously has no intention of being part of a binding international agreement.
You cannot compare the two situations. There will be a localized environmental impact. The local people should have been further consulted about the deal. But these negative consequences are by far outweighed by the positive outcomes.
Engineers the world over are racing to build alternative energy technologies that are affordable, efficient, and have as little environmental impact as possible; however, we cannot wait. Hopefully, Nova Scotia will one day be able to harness the tidal energy of the Bay of Fundy with low-impact tidal current turbines (currently in development as we know).
If one river system is going to be negatively impacted in the meantime, so be it.
– Chuck T.
Bruce likes to complain, he can even make this awesome project seem like a bad idea. He only focuses on the negative parts of the project, and ignores all of the benefits. It’s a bias article and should not be taken seriously.
This RENEWABLE resource will enable Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to shut down existing coal and oil plants, That is defiantly green.
The concept of putting future generations of Nova Scotians dependent on a single extension cord hundreds of miles long under 100’s of feet of ocean seawater is risky to say the least!!!
Educating us to use less electrcity and developinga an economy that is not dependent on destroying the environment in someone else’s backyard is a more responsible and viable longterm approach.
This article is not very informative because it points out obvious downsides without comparing them to other options available. Everything comes at a cost, whether NS pays for hydro projects, wind turbines, tidal power, or whatever else. Not doing anything also comes at a cost since we are presently relying on fossil fuels for our energy needs.
No such thing as ‘Green Energy’.
It is a marketing slogan used by politicians across the spectrum and fast buck shills hoping to make us feel good.
Just find some way to provide long term reliable electricity at an affordable cost with a low environmental impact. If you have such a solution please provide a life cycle analysis showing why your solution is the best option. Fairytales not accepted.
When all is said and done, nuclear power using reprocessing of fuel is the “greenest” power generation technology by a long shot. Nothing else – solar, wind, tidal, fossil, hydro – even comes close. And in a lot of ways hydro is as bad as modern coal power, say.
Until folks – and I don’t mean anyone here – understand why power technologies are actually ranked this way on a “green” scale then it’s probably better not to use the label at all. One thing’s for sure, it’s absurd to think of hydro as “green”.
Ignoring green labels, there is the orthogonal characteristic of “renewable”, as has been mentioned. Hydro isn’t, not really. Reservoirs silt up, and as China, India and the US are discovering (and will continue to discover as time goes by), your water supply can dry up.
Having said all that, hydro isn’t the worst of all choices. It’s not a particularly good one, but it’s not the worst. Best would be using less power, as someone suggested. The chances of that are basically zero. So we may as well build the project. I do think it’s unfortunate, though, that with hydro in particular the consumers of the power almost never see the area that gets wrecked…not in North America anyway.
This article is ridiculous. Pretend for a second that you live in the real world. You know, the one where oil prices will continue to rise. The one where the US would like to reduce its consumption of foreign oil. Now imagine that we have a direct line of cheap, reliable hydro power for them.
It’s not green? What the frig is green? Stop trying to hold the Atlantic Provinces back based on a word that means relatively nothing. The world is hungry for energy and we have a surplus of hydro. Pretty sure the environment will pull through.
Nova Scotia can only sustainably benefit if the house of cards of our energy future is properly constructed. First, we all need to do more with less: efficiency and conservation, retro-fitting existing buildings, massive roll-out of technologies that will help Nova Scotians, that kind of stuff. There’s alot to be done, to change attitudes and make it work. Second, reduced coal burning from increased renewables, decentralized electricity and district heating systems. This requires explicit policies to phase out coal, nationalizing the grid for more democratic access, getting on with those sorts of initiatives. Third, is regional connectivity to load balance the renewable sources. This is where Churchill comes in. Underscoring the whole thing is a ‘Maritimes’ first mentality that flies in the face of NAFTA, deep energy integration and Emera’s pre-occupation with selling ‘green’ electrons south of the border at a premium while the coal still burns in Cape Breton. Dexter and co. need to keep their priorities straight… Churchill Falls is not a magic bullet, just a part of the bigger picture of adapting to the inevitabilities of a climate-changed world.
Localized damage to the environment, yes. Global reductions in emissions are worth it. When the stakes are as high as they are, something has to give. IMO Global savings > Local damage. I don’t think anything can be done without some sort of ridiculous criticism.
A local group fighting against damming the lower Churchill has posted an 18 minute video called “Labrador’s Treasure” at http://www.grandriverkeeperlabrador.ca/Lab…. The first couple of minutes give a good idea of the kind of pristine wilderness that would be destroyed if the dams go ahead. There are also photos on the website and an additional YouTube video called “Ours to Protect” showing Muskrat Falls in winter.
When the first video was made in 2006, two dams were being planned. A federal environmental assessment of those dams is currently underway. Now, the Newfoundland government proposes to postpone the second dam while the one at Muskrat Falls goes ahead. (I describe a few of the environmental effects of that dam in the editorial.) Nine professors representing a range of academic disciplines at Memorial University Newfoundland assessed the social, economic and ecological effects of damming the lower Churchill in a report they submitted to the federal environmental review panel last year. It makes sobering reading and I recommend it to those who argue that the benefits of destroying the lower Churchill outweigh the costs: http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/documents/35052/…
In 2000, the World Commission on Dams issued a massive report on the many political. social and cultural issues involved in building large dams. http://www.dams.org//docs/report/wcdexec.p…. The Commission states clearly that costs and benefits must be shared equitably. In this case, none of the power generated at Muskrat Falls would be available to residents of Labrador who rely on diesel generators for their electricity.
Some commenters argue that while the local environment in Labrador will suffer, the whole planet benefits because lower Churchill hydro power will reduce the need to burn fossil fuels such as coal. But that is not necessarily so in societies obsessed with economic growth based on ever-increasing rates of household consumption. As I wrote in an earlier editorial, economist Juliet Shor points out that in 1960, Americans consumed, on average, just a third of what they did in 2008. StatsCan figures show a similar increase in Canada, with personal spending on goods, for example, rising 57 percent from 1981 to 2005: http://www.thecoast.ca/halifax/mo-better-b…. And during those years, demand for electricity rose at astonishing rates. So, trying to replace one source of electricity with another won’t help if overall consumption continues to rise.
Secondly, there is no reason to believe from information released so far that the so-called “renewable” energy from Labrador would necessarily replace most of our coal-burning plants, some of which are quite new. Cape Breton environmentalist and independent power producer, Neal Livingstone argues much of the electricity could be exported to the US, the world’s leading consumer of energy while our coal plants continue to churn out “dirty” power: http://www.blackriver.ns.ca/docs/br_eac.pd…
Maybe we should go back to the days of living in log cabins, hunting for our food, travelling by foot or horse and buggy – ONLY then will things be “green”. Come on people, wake up! We as a society have created this problem for ourselves – we NEED electricity now, we NEED oil and gas and until the day we can curb our appetite for these things that used to be considered immense luxuries – we’re going to have to deal with the consequences.
There is no such thing as “green”, only greener than then previous option. Unless you’re living in the woods, in a shack you made yourself, on land that you’ve cleared with your own two hands, clothes made from the fibers you have harvested from animals you’ve raised, or better yet from grains you’ve harvested and you get me the message by walking 10 hrs in the snow to get out to civilisation – don’t talk to me about being green.
Once again Bruce, you have blessed the sometimes myopic readers of The Coast with some solid and sobering journalistic expertise.
It is a very telling thing when you see policies like this that capitalists and environmentalists both agree on. I like to call this type of anomaly green capitalism, as many other do.
When people rush to embrace such green capitalism (wind turbines, hydro projects, electric vehicles), I’ve noticed that they adopt very defeatist arguments when you try to point out the obvious inefficacies of these ideas in addressing the environmental crisis. They will say things like:
“Localized damage to the environment, yes. Global reductions in emissions are worth it.”
This is a good example of how green global capitalism (“cultural capitalism” as Slavoj Zizek would say) has effectively co-opted the environmental movement.
Another famous example is earlier this year when nine environmental NGOs (Greenpeace, David Suzuki Foundation, ForestEthics, and six others) signed the “landmark” Canadian Boreal Forest Agreement with 21 logging companies. The agreement claimed to have secured over 28 million hectares (i.e. the size of the U.K.) within the boreal caribou range from being logged until 2012. There were no plans to log these areas, and so they were effectively simply facilitating the greenwashing of the forestry industry.
The logic is always the same:
We want to save the environment –> the companies hurting it need make a certain percent reduction in the environmental damage (and by extension, the consumer needs to pay more to take into account increased cost of production) –> this results in less damage being done to the environment –> Yay.
I would argue that we can do better. The logic that I prefer to follow goes a bit differently:
We want to save the environment (which also means saving ourselves: eco-centric and anthro-centric world views are the same in the end) –> our society is hurting the environment (and itself) –> we need to re-integrate our society into the rules of ecology –> develop a culture of resistance to the current social system, debase and subvert the current corrupt power structures, eliminate the world financial system, return all land to the public commons, re-localize production and consumption patterns
As one commenter wrote:
“There is no such thing as “green”, only greener than then previous option.”
I would modify this statement slightly:
“There is no such things as “green”; only sustainable or unsustainable.”
Blow up the dam.
“When all is said and done, nuclear power using reprocessing of fuel is the “greenest” power generation technology by a long shot. Nothing else – solar, wind, tidal, fossil, hydro – even comes close. And in a lot of ways hydro is as bad as modern coal power, say.”
Totally agree with the idea of nuclear power, with the possibility of moving towards reactors with spent fuel reprocessing capabilities. For conventional nuclear fission at least, the technology exists, has been implemented on large scales, has few if any emissions, and provides loads of skilled jobs. Granted we would need to be very diligent about guarding and securely storing some of the weapons-grade materials produced in the event that we eventually pursue fuel reprocessing, but it can be done. With hundreds of nuclear power plants running for several decades, not a single major accident has ever occurred in the Western world.
I would still maintain that a properly implemented hydroelectric power station is superior to coal-fired generation. Hydro may be inferior to nuclear power in how “green” it is, however.
I find it strange that opposition to nuclear power is so vociferous, given its virtual lack of emissions and far lower levels of radioactive emissions in comparison to coal. Coal’s particulate emissions are filled with low level radioactive compounds that are concentrated upon the coal’s combustion. Nuclear waste is fairly concentrated and can be placed into centralized, shielded disposal areas–something that isn’t feasible with coal.
“I would argue that we can do better. The logic that I prefer to follow goes a bit differently:
We want to save the environment (which also means saving ourselves: eco-centric and anthro-centric world views are the same in the end) –> our society is hurting the environment (and itself) –> we need to re-integrate our society into the rules of ecology –> develop a culture of resistance to the current social system, debase and subvert the current corrupt power structures, eliminate the world financial system, return all land to the public commons, re-localize production and consumption patterns”
This is localized collectivism repackaged as localized “sustainability”. You realize that collectivism utterly failed during the last century, right? Not only did it produce multiple genocides all over the world, but communism’s environmental record is much worse than the Free World’s. The revolution has failed, each and every time that it has been tried.
No sane policy maker would ever take any of your proposals seriously. You call for The Road to Serfdom:
http://www.amazon.ca/Road-Serfdom-Document…