Ryan Strome Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 1 hour ago, kingofsurrey said: Politics is not about what you believe in . Politics is what will get you re-elected. Self preservation. Look to the NDP to plug their nose and finish site C even if they don't believe in it. This is the most likely approach to get them re-elected...... To do otherwise would be career suicide... How do you feel about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 9, 2017 Author Share Posted June 9, 2017 13 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: From wikopedia The panel's view is not shared by agrologist Wendy Holm, past president of the B.C. Institute of Agrologists, who provided expert testimony before the Joint Federal Provincial Panel on the agricultural impact of the project. According to Holm, the part of the Peace River Valley that would be flooded by the Site C dam could meet the fresh vegetable nutritional requirements of over one million people. Holm stated that the Peace Valley, with its fertile alluvial soils and class one microclimate, is capable of producing the same range of crops that can be grown in the Fraser Valley, 1,200 km (750 mi) to the south. Higher yields are possible due to long summer days, making it "the only large tract of land for future horticultural expansion in the province." She noted the importance of the Valley for future food security of the province in that more than two thirds of B.C. vegetables are imported, mostly from drought-plagued California. The Peace Valley is closer (than California) to the Fraser Valley and is far closer to communities in northern B.C., the Yukon, and the Northwest Territories.[28] According to David Suzuki, flooding valuable farmland to build the dam will undermine Canada's international commitments under the Paris Agreement. Suzuki considers the farmland essential to reduce B.C.'s dependence on imported foods and minimize the carbon fuels needed to transport those foods: "It seems to me crazy to put farmland in the north underwater," Suzuki said. "We live in a food chain now in which food grows on average 3,000 kilometres from where it's consumed. The transport of all that food is dependent on fossil fuels. Food has got to be grown much closer to where it's going to be consumed."[29] sure, unless its used for ranching. But lets use her math, she's said its actually closer to 3X what BC Hydro says, so lets say 60, hell why not 100 sq miles to make the math easy. By her calc's then the ALR should be able to feed 18,000/100 x 1,000,000 people = 180,000,000 people. Thats fricking amazing that BC could feed1/2 the US. Does that really sound like a reasonable thing to you? Or if I just go with her numbers, BC should be able to feed the entire USA. Thats impressive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Just now, Ryan Strome said: How do you feel about it? Mixed feelings. Do you want to win the battle or win the WAR ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 3 minutes ago, S'all Good Man said: sure, unless its used for ranching. But lets use her math, she's said its actually closer to 3X what BC Hydro says, so lets say 60, hell why not 100 sq miles to make the math easy. By her calc's then the ALR should be able to feed 18,000/100 x 1,000,000 people = 180,000,000 people. Thats fricking amazing that BC could feed1/2 the US. Does that really sound like a reasonable thing to you? She is past pres of the B.C. Institute of Agrologists - i tend to believe her... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Just now, kingofsurrey said: Mixed feelings. Do you want to win the battle or win the WAR ? I mean your opinion on site C? I'm not fully up to speed on it. I have just been reading some of your posts and others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 9, 2017 Author Share Posted June 9, 2017 2 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: She is past pres of the B.C. Institute of Agrologists - i tend to believe her... great.... but how exactly does it change anything? its still a very small amount of land! and we clearly have a ton of capacity, far more than BC will ever need. You're actually making my point even more valid. Why do you discount the need for more green power? If you do the research you'll find out that wave power isn't quite economical yet (maybe 20 years) and wind and solar can help in some areas but can't provide all the lower mainland will need. Honestly bud, I really think your hate for Clark is driving this and not the actual project or the minimal impact. Everything has tradeoffs and this one is about as good as it gets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 19 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said: I mean your opinion on site C? I'm not fully up to speed on it. I have just been reading some of your posts and others. Heh, i am interested in the project. I have very mixed feelings about it and i am trying to gather more information.... Yes, i have concerns as it seems steps were skipped over to get the project going before the election happened. Doesn't seem like good decision making analysis / practise to me .. Seems like politics maybe influenced the go ahead..... I would prefer to see decisions made on science and economics not based on POLITICS. If we have more study and debate on it and all is good. I say go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 On 6/9/2017 at 2:47 PM, kingofsurrey said: Sorry but flooding fantastic farmland the size of 14 stanley parks is not green power....... Putting fish and wildlife corridors at risk is not green power...... I do agree that fouled up projects great a long term negative legacy.... But will excess power that is not needed fall into this category ? You know wind farms can eat up a similar amount of land. They aren't exactly small, and also impact the environment. (Besides the birds, you still need roads, transmission lines, transformer buildings, etc. It's still an industrial site.) If the objective it to wean NORTH AMERICA (which still uses tons of coal and oil) off of intensive carbon energy generation, and you want "green" alternatives, then hydro power has to be an expanding part of the mix to provide the reliability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 On 6/9/2017 at 3:57 PM, kingofsurrey said: She is past pres of the B.C. Institute of Agrologists - i tend to believe her... May have made a mistake and been misquoted. Does it really pass the smell test to you? If you REALLY care about agriculture start lobbying for more downtown condo towers and preserve Fraser valley farmland instead of views and shade for the Vancouver wealthy. Or as king of Surrey try to double your downtown population. FYI with the rise on modern farming techniques (at least in NA) the amount of farmland required has actually gone down. In fact many former areas that were farmland have been allowed to just grow over. In fact, if you want to nerd out with farms, you could build an Okanagan V 2.0 in valleys near Lillooet (which is way closer to the population centres of the province). It's would be hard at all to increase the amount of farmland, should we so desired. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 15, 2017 Share Posted June 15, 2017 On 6/9/2017 at 4:16 PM, kingofsurrey said: Heh, i am interested in the project. I have very mixed feelings about it and i am trying to gather more information.... Yes, i have concerns as it seems steps were skipped over to get the project going before the election happened. Doesn't seem like good decision making analysis / practise to me .. Seems like politics maybe influenced the go ahead..... I would prefer to see decisions made on science and economics not based on POLITICS. If we have more study and debate on it and all is good. I say go for it. It has been in BC hydro's plans for decades. Serious work planning the project began at least a decade ago. Using an average consumer rate of 10 cents a kilowatt hour, the projected generating capacity of 5100 GHw, and a 5% interest rate, it services itself so long as the budget stays under about 10 billion. Long term, if oil goes to 5$ a barrel, then there's no peak oil, and we have radically changed the economy. Slim to no chance of happening. Long term, if oil goes to $500 a barrel, we will be elated for thinking ahead and actually making it possible to service the economy with green power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apollo Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 Sooo... when are we gonna see some changes? Is it possible they have a snap elelction in a few days time? Heard something about June 22nd? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapper Posted June 19, 2017 Share Posted June 19, 2017 People forget that the BC Liberal party also entered into negotiations with the Greens to form a coalition/coalition type government. That puts the BC Liberals in full support of coalition / coalition type government. As both the BC Liberals and BC NDP have both endorsed a 2 party alliance to run BC - this means over 80% of BC voters voted for parties supporting this ...... BC's LG in a real bad corner on this one - her hands are kinda tied and both the Libs and NDP will get their shot at testing the confidence of the house. However you are correct that I suspect no matter what the outcome - BC will have another election within a years time. Today's news quotes the Liberals change on some policies as absolutely trying to win votes .... further cementing my thoughts that they are attempting to bring down parliment to get back to the polls as fast as possible. Its a no lose situation for her - if they get a quick election and lose .... she still moves to opposition, the same outcome if she simply moves there after losing the confidence vote. If she wins she gets back power. This is all about her and the BC Liberals thirst for power .... has nothing to do with turning a new leaf or working for the 60% that didn't vote for her. If or rather when the election happens I hope the NDP and Greens each pick 10 ridings and agree not to run against each other. So in some respects I think a snap election will bolster the NDP - as only die hard liberals are seeing this as anything but a last grasp attempt to hold power instead of governing for everyone by them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goalie13 Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 19 hours ago, iwtl said: This is all about her and the BC Liberals thirst for power .... has nothing to do with turning a new leaf or working for the 60% that didn't vote for her. You could say it's a thirst for power, but it is also the right thing to do. The Liberal party's ideologies don't jive with that of the NDP, whom 60% of BC didn't vote for either. It would be wrong to just roll over and play dead at this point. If they truly believe they have the best plan for BC, then I fully expect them to stand up and fight for it. I would be disappointed if they did anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonLever Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 1 hour ago, goalie13 said: You could say it's a thirst for power, but it is also the right thing to do. The Liberal party's ideologies don't jive with that of the NDP, whom 60% of BC didn't vote for either. It would be wrong to just roll over and play dead at this point. If they truly believe they have the best plan for BC, then I fully expect them to stand up and fight for it. I would be disappointed if they did anything else. There is a thirst for power among all political parties. No party goes out to lose an election. I would say the thirst for power is stronger with the NDP given they have not been in power for 16 years. The NDP will say and do anything to get power as we saw during the election when they promise no tolls without saying where the revenue lost would come from. And they made a deal with the Greens to grab power even though they had less seats than the Liberals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 Just now, DonLever said: There is a thirst for power among all political parties. No party goes out to lose an election. I would say the thirst for power is stronger with the NDP given they have not been in power for 16 years. The NDP will say and do anything to get power as we saw during the election when they promise no tolls without saying where the revenue lost would come from. And they made a deal with the Greens to grab power even though they had less seats than the Liberals. Remino us how that's different than the Libs who now all of a sudden care about those on welfare, and housing and more. No politician is different than the other and Clark and the Libs have shown time and again they'll do anything to get their way and triple delete the evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 21 minutes ago, Warhippy said: Remino us how that's different than the Libs who now all of a sudden care about those on welfare, and housing and more. No politician is different than the other and Clark and the Libs have shown time and again they'll do anything to get their way and triple delete the evidence Clark and the rest of her verminous crew operate with zero shame or scruples. Whatever they can do to maintain, they'll do. Are the voters in BC that gullible that Clark sees her embarrassing flip-flopping as normal, or are she and the rest of the Liberal party that desperate these days? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 22 minutes ago, PhillipBlunt said: Clark and the rest of her verminous crew operate with zero shame or scruples. Whatever they can do to maintain, they'll do. Are the voters in BC that gullible elderly that Clark sees her embarrassing flip-flopping as normal, or are she and the rest of the Liberal party that desperate these days? FTFY, as the population ages and finally goes the way of the inevitable attitudes have and will continue to change. Thankfully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipBlunt Posted June 20, 2017 Share Posted June 20, 2017 39 minutes ago, Warhippy said: FTFY, as the population ages and finally goes the way of the inevitable attitudes have and will continue to change. Thankfully That does make sense, although I've spoken to quite a few younger people who hold that same blind and gullible trust in the government that doesn't allow them to question what they see. Hopefully with the emergence of generations, the staid, same line of thinking disappears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 On 6/19/2017 at 4:15 PM, iwtl said: People forget that the BC Liberal party also entered into negotiations with the Greens to form a coalition/coalition type government. That puts the BC Liberals in full support of coalition / coalition type government. As both the BC Liberals and BC NDP have both endorsed a 2 party alliance to run BC - this means over 80% of BC voters voted for parties supporting this ...... BC's LG in a real bad corner on this one - her hands are kinda tied and both the Libs and NDP will get their shot at testing the confidence of the house. However you are correct that I suspect no matter what the outcome - BC will have another election within a years time. Today's news quotes the Liberals change on some policies as absolutely trying to win votes .... further cementing my thoughts that they are attempting to bring down parliment to get back to the polls as fast as possible. Its a no lose situation for her - if they get a quick election and lose .... she still moves to opposition, the same outcome if she simply moves there after losing the confidence vote. If she wins she gets back power. This is all about her and the BC Liberals thirst for power .... has nothing to do with turning a new leaf or working for the 60% that didn't vote for her. If or rather when the election happens I hope the NDP and Greens each pick 10 ridings and agree not to run against each other. So in some respects I think a snap election will bolster the NDP - as only die hard liberals are seeing this as anything but a last grasp attempt to hold power instead of governing for everyone by them. It's funny how you can spin changing one's policies from anything and everything between a desperate attempt to cling to power, to flip flopping, to listening to the electorate, to shifting towards a more moderate stance, to updating one's policies to align with the times! Just pick your allegiance, and begin to hurl insults or compliments as required! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted June 21, 2017 Share Posted June 21, 2017 22 hours ago, Warhippy said: Remino us how that's different than the Libs who now all of a sudden care about those on welfare, and housing and more. No politician is different than the other and Clark and the Libs have shown time and again they'll do anything to get their way and triple delete the evidence Triple deleting is so pointless. Just don't put things in writing in the first place! It's called a phone! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.