kingofsurrey Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 On 5/30/2017 at 3:16 PM, ronthecivil said: Besides, main contracts are already signed and under construction. Way too late to put it back the way it was. It would probably literally cost more now to not build it. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Yah, but Christy drove the province into the ground..... thats why she is so hated.... No, the Liberals (and the money behind them) did that (if that's your argument). Christy is just the smiling face of the party who did what she was told to by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 5 minutes ago, ronthecivil said: Sure, just expect it to me more expensive per MWh than the dam. Actually, compared to the existing legacy Hydro dams, everything is either less green, more expensive, or both. Which is why it's impossible to compete, and why everything else gets a bad rap. Gordon Campbell built a ton of those things, and even today I heard someone on the radio complaining about the costs. Those things are expensive! And if the Europeans had a river like the peace that had additional hydro capacity that hadn't been built yet, you can bet your bottom dollar they would do the same thing. They just don't have the option. You can study this around in circles like crazy. If you want to copy Europe, build a gas enhanced waste to energy plant in the lower mainland. You want to talk about the only thing that can compete with those legacy dams, well then you would be on to something! Besides, main contracts are already signed and under construction. Way too late to put it back the way it was. It would probably literally cost more now to not build it. Try again Ron. http://globalnews.ca/news/3390946/site-c-dam-project-should-be-suspended-ubc-study/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Just now, kingofsurrey said: What about leaving it half build. Write a big 1 billion dollars wasted message on it.... Leave it up like that for perpetuity. A symbol of bad BC LIberal Party Management. USE this image in the next 4 provincial elections to destroy the BC liberal party... It would be in court for the next for provincial elections. I don't think that would have very good optics for the governing party. Good thing (for them) that your not their policy advisor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 On 5/30/2017 at 3:21 PM, J.R. said: No, the Liberals (and the money behind them) did that (if that's your argument). Christy is just the smiling face of the party who did what she was told to by them. Don't disagree..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 3 minutes ago, ronthecivil said: It would be in court for the next for provincial elections. I don't think that would have very good optics for the governing party. Good thing (for them) that your not their policy advisor. Why ? Surely BC Politicians should do the right thing and halt the project.... UBC article The report lists three main reasons for halting the project: – A decline in the cost of other options for generating electricity such as wind power – A reduction in electricity demand in 2024 and beyond, according to BC Hydro forecasts – An increase in the cost of Site C The report claims cancelling Site C by June 30 could save taxpayers between $500 million and $1.6 billion, but recommends “suspension and review by the B.C. Utilities Commission rather than outright cancellation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, Ghostsof1915 said: Try again Ron. http://globalnews.ca/news/3390946/site-c-dam-project-should-be-suspended-ubc-study/ Hardly a condemnation or declaration as a white elephant or lame duck. And trust me, I LOVE wind power. It's FUN. Doesn't mean that we shouldn't build site C. Especially when the main contract for the dam construction and turbine procurement are already signed. You know what's a waste of money? Lawyers! Even DELAYING the project is an invitation to a potential legal quagmire, and shouldn't be touched with a thousand foot pole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 1 hour ago, ronthecivil said: LOL. No wonder women don't want to run for politics. All the other women pile on like crazy. My sister only spew vitriol about her to, as if she stole her boyfriend or fired her from work or something! A man would never face that kind of hate. Not sure why it exists though. Jealousy? Uhhh....uhhhmmmmm. This guy thinks otherwise And if women aren't in politics because of this, how bloody tough are these two gals? Trudeau gets dumped on like nobodys business. Clark will come up with something or she'll step down, the Libs will fail to rebrand and we'll see a rise in the Conservative party again. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised to see someone try to raise the socred banner again myself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 43 minutes ago, J.R. said: That requires smart, informed (and not scared) voters. Know where we can find some? But that shouldn't discourage people. Being informed in this day and age requires weeding through a lot of crap information that's out there. And a lot of people who "think" they know may only know in relation to what they've read/heard. Some others simply go on what they live by and experience, which is equally important. It depends on what the scope is ... people have varying degrees of interest in things and they all differ. So what you may be "informed" of may be of no interest or value to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Why ? Surely BC Politicians should do the right thing and halt the project.... UBC article The report lists three main reasons for halting the project: – A decline in the cost of other options for generating electricity such as wind power – A reduction in electricity demand in 2024 and beyond, according to BC Hydro forecasts – An increase in the cost of Site C The report claims cancelling Site C by June 30 could save taxpayers between $500 million and $1.6 billion, but recommends “suspension and review by the B.C. Utilities Commission rather than outright cancellation Is site C power expected to cost more than wind power, or is wind power just not as expensive as it used to be? What are their sources? Does the cost savings include all the costs of litigations and potential judgments for the breach of contracts (there's multiple contracts), in very bad faith? Have you, or the person that wrote the article, ever administered a construction project, or participated in building a wind farm? I already wrote a game plan for your heroes that let's them win no matter what. What's your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 A lot of false info posted here... From todays Van Sun ROB SHAW(Vancouver Sun) Published: May 29, 2017 VICTORIA — A B.C. NDP government, backed by the Greens, would do everything it could to kill the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion, to hold a referendum in 2018 on proportional representation, to eliminate Metro bridge tolls, to increase the carbon tax, to bring in a $15 minimum wage and to put the Site C dam project before an immediate review, according to details of the power-sharing deal between the two parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 On 5/30/2017 at 3:34 PM, ronthecivil said: Is site C power expected to cost more than wind power, or is wind power just not as expensive as it used to be? What are their sources? Does the cost savings include all the costs of litigations and potential judgments for the breach of contracts (there's multiple contracts), in very bad faith? Have you, or the person that wrote the article, ever administered a construction project, or participated in building a wind farm? I already wrote a game plan for your heroes that let's them win no matter what. What's your problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 21 minutes ago, ronthecivil said: Is site C power expected to cost more than wind power, or is wind power just not as expensive as it used to be? What are their sources? Does the cost savings include all the costs of litigations and potential judgments for the breach of contracts (there's multiple contracts), in very bad faith? Have you, or the person that wrote the article, ever administered a construction project, or participated in building a wind farm? I already wrote a game plan for your heroes that let's them win no matter what. What's your problem? I'm also skeptical of the reduction in demand post 2024. Sure things will get more efficient... but we're also going to have a crap ton of immigration between now and then and a LOT more things like cars running presumably off electricity vs fossil fuel. More people using more electric things, even with added efficiency, doesn't scream 'lower demand' to me. I'm neither here nor there on Site C. I see the environmental and business concerns but I also like green energy infrastructure (which it is). A review to make sure it makes long term financial sense (with, as you said, lawyer involvement taken in to consideration...Gordie I hate lawyers). Fill your boots. Just make a call, make it soon and make sure it's the right one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 9 minutes ago, debluvscanucks said: But that shouldn't discourage people. Being informed in this day and age requires weeding through a lot of crap information that's out there. And a lot of people who "think" they know may only know in relation to what they've read/heard. Some others simply go on what they live by and experience, which is equally important. It depends on what the scope is ... people have varying degrees of interest in things and they all differ. So what you may be "informed" of may be of no interest or value to me. Discourage people from what? Yes, it certainly does require weeding. I think 'generally', people would (if not, should) all care about jobs, clean air and water, food, energy security, health care, education etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/ndp-green-alliance-to-focus-on-electoral-reform-stopping-kinder-morgan-and-banning-big-money-1.4138290 Quote British Columbia's NDP and Green parties have signed a detailed agreement outlining how they will work together in government for the next four years. The 10-page accord outlines dozens of policy issues that two sides will work on. Both parties have pledged to work to stop the federally approved $7.4-billion Kinder Morgan pipeline project that would triple the amount of bitumen moved from just north of Edmonton to B.C.'s coast. Trudeau stands by decision on Trans Mountain pipeline despite B.C. result "[We would] immediately employ every tool available to the new government to stop the expansion of the Kinder Morgan pipeline, the seven-fold increase in tanker traffic on our coast, and the transportation of raw bitumen through our province," the agreement said. The pact will only come into effect if Premier Christy Clark resigns, or if the Liberals are defeated in a confidence motion in the legislature. Electoral reform and big money The NDP and the Greens are also pledging to hold a referendum on proportional representation that would take place in the fall of 2018, concurrent with the next municipal elections in British Columbia. If the referendum passes, the 2021 provincial election would be conducted under the form of proportional representation that is approved. The two parties also want to change the fixed election date to the fall, which, if passed, would put the next election in the fall of 2021. They have also agreed to a deal to ban union and corporate political donations, as well as contributions from non-residents of British Columbia. The changes to political fundraising would also put a limit on individual contributions. Tolls and bridges The two parties disagree on what to do about tolls on Metro Vancouver's Golden Ears and Port Mann bridges. But the NDP is planning to include the waiving of the tolls in its budget and the Green Party has committed to supporting that budget, even though it will speak out against the toll ban. If the Clark government is defeated and the New Democrats are asked to form government by the Lieutenant-Governor, the legislature would be recalled within one month of the swearing in of an NDP government. The agreement would require spring and fall sittings of the legislature every year. Some of the issues not included in the pact are the future of the Massey Bridge, a change to the foreign buyers' tax and ride-hailing. But they say all those issues will be raised in the legislature, if the NDP and Greens form government. As for other transit projects, the NDP and Greens would work with mayors to find more equitable funding. Carbon tax increase proposed The one tax increase in the NDP-Green pact is a change to the carbon tax. "[We would] implement an increase of the carbon tax by $5 per tonne per year, beginning April 1, 2018, and expand the tax to fugitive emissions and slash-pile burning," said the agreement. On MSP premiums, the plan is to reduce them in half by 2018, which was part of the Liberals' budget. The two parties will then commission a panel to look at how to eliminate the tax before a possible 2021 election. Fentanyl crisis and minimum wage The accord also says an NDP government would create a minister responsible for developing and implementing a mental health and addiction strategy, as well as a youth mental health strategy, to help deal with the ongoing opioid crisis. "[We would] develop an immediate response to the fentanyl crisis based on successful programs that invest in treatment-on-demand, drug substitution, early-warning monitoring systems and co-ordinated response," the agreement said. It also says an NDP government would "establish an at-arm's-length fair wages commission that will be tasked with examining a minimum wage of at least $15 per hour and that would also oversee regular rate reviews." Child care and basic income There is no specific mention of a $10-a-day child-care program, promised by the NDP during the election campaign, but the parties say there is still a commitment to get to there. Instead, the agreement says an NDP government would "invest in child care and early childhood education to improve quality, expand spaces, increase affordability and ensure child care is accessibly for all families." It would also establish and implement a basic income pilot project that would be funded in the first NDP budget. Site C review Consistent with the NDP's election promise, the agreement states that the Site C hydroelectric dam would be reviewed, but would not be temporarily stopped. "[We would] immediately refer the Site C dam project to the B.C. Utilities Commission on the question of economic viability and consequences to British Columbians," the deal said. The B.C. NDP has pledged to consult with the B.C. Green Party on major policy issues and all legislation to be introduced in the House. "Both parties will ensure that they have all their elected members at all sittings of the House, as is reasonable, and will vote in favour of the government on confidence motions," said the agreement. Green MLAs will be able to vote against NDP policies that are not confidence motions. Both parties have also agreed to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Killing the Kinder Morgan will incidentally destroy the Alberta NDP. Talk about Blue on Blue attack.... or in this case, Orange on Orange. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Just now, Lancaster said: Killing the Kinder Morgan will incidentally destroy the Alberta NDP. Talk about Blue on Blue attack.... or in this case, Orange on Orange. It won't get killed IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted May 30, 2017 Author Share Posted May 30, 2017 3 hours ago, J.R. said: Because corporations will still find ways to get them money. Do you think those people are just going to give up and say "oh well"? A grass roots party, with an 'actual' leader getting a few seats is a lot different than an established party (and everyone it's beholden to) getting a new leader and claiming to 'renew' itself. The Liberals would be fools to split. It would ensure they likely never see a majority again. those people? like, employers? so $10 from someone who runs a business is bad, but $10 from a grass roots person is ok. Ok then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Just now, S'all Good Man said: those people? like, employers? so $10 from someone who runs a business is bad, but $10 from a grass roots person is ok. Ok then. No, like multi-billionaire corporate types S'all. $10 from someone who runs a private business is fine. $500,000 from a corporate donor who expects certain privileges and favours for that support, is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancaster Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Just now, J.R. said: It won't get killed IMO. I agree. Too much money and jobs on the line for it to be cancelled. The plan going forward would mean a severe blow to the Greens (kingmaker, but unable to do something "Green"). Not sure about the effect on the BC NDP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.