LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
- August 22, 2006
Editor,
My wife and I have spent many enjoyable hours and days in Princeton. We have friends there. At one time we owned a home within blocks of the hospital. We especially appreciate the clean air and hope that in the future we will be able to spend more time in your community. The likelihood of a coal fired power plant being constructed not far from Princeton is disconcerting.
It's disconcerting because, as residents of Abbotsford, we have some understanding of the insidious way in which pollution creeps into a community, unobtrusively and largely unheeded.
When I was a boy, growing up in Abbotsford, pollution was never mentioned. My friends and I breathed the air without ever needing to inhale from a puffer. But now we're hearing of teachers who have their students' puffers lined up on their desks so they can be used quickly if there is a respiratory emergency.
Asthma has become a serious problem especially for children, but also for adults in the Fraser Valley.
Not only is health impacted by air pollution, but also enjoyment of the outdoors. My wife and I have a pretty decent view from our third floor condo, but we never sit out on the patio because the air is definitely offensive. For the same reason, we rarely walk in our neighbourhood anymore. And in case someone isn't interested in personal health, there is also a great cost to Fraser Valley agriculture, amounting to millions of dollars every year. The dangers of pollution came into our midst as innocently as a Trojan horse, one pollutant at a time.
In Abbotsford we know something about power plants. Some six years ago an American Company, Sumas Energy 2, wanted to build a gas fired power plant just across the border from Abbotsford. As is almost invariably the case when polluting enterprises come to town, the company promised jobs and various other benefits.
We were assured that only the most up-to-date, clean technology would be utilized and we would suffer only a minimal increase in pollution. In addition, we were told the power was needed to maintain our local level of hydro service.
Fortunately, several alert citizens and an astute reporter began investigating this proposal. In spite of the smooth, confident assurances by the company, we learned that the power was actually primarily intended for the U.S. market, the technology would permit large amounts of pollutants to contaminate our community, and the jobs would be few.
Governments and corporations know that usually there will not be a concerted defense against a polluting enterprise and that after an initial protest, the furor will subside. Concerned individuals believe they can't do anything because they are only one person.
In Abbotsford, we dealt with this by inviting concerned citizens to join together and become members of a cohesive group. One of our most effective strategies was to develop a form letter to which people could add their own thoughts. Local and provincial politicians began to sense a powerful citizen opposition to the plant and some worked tirelessly with us. We were able to interest the media in our efforts to protect ourselves.
They were impressed by the 20,000 letters sent to the National Energy Board and the 50,000 signatures on a petition. They were also impressed with our passion and our persistence.
After fighting us with big city attorneys, well paid expert witnesses and public statements calculated to frighten us, SE2 finally backed off 6 years later.
If the citizens of Princeton want to oppose the coal fired plant, which would likely be more polluting than Sumas Energy 2, a few individuals will need to take the lead and organize an opposition. Your mayor is already opposed. Most people will not take the lead, but they will follow credible individuals who have a plan and a measure of passion.
If anyone wants to talk with people who took the lead in Abbotsford, I would be happy to supply names.
My phone number is in the Abbotsford directory. A lot of people in our community have learned that clean air is not something we can be complacent about. And because my wife and I want to continue coming to Princeton, we hope you will not be complacent either.
- Art Martens, Abbotsford
The Editor:
Most readers will remember a cute ad BC Hydro used to run which began with someone putting a plug into an outlet. It then said something like, "Electricity doesn't come out of the wall." It then went on to follow power lines to a dam to make the point that electricity has to be produced somewhere by some means. There is no form of energy production that has no down side in someone's opinion.
I am often amazed by the number of people in general who want something for nothing. How many women are so environmentally committed that they would seriously throw out their wonderful electric washer and dryers and go back to a scrub board and clothes line? How many men would discard their all their nifty power tools and go back to hand saws, planers and chisels? And what fun we would all have in the winter, huddled about the fireplace, coal lamps and candles burning softly while we tell each other quaint stories; instead of watching television, playing computer games or reading a good book without eye strain!
We, the people, are gobbling power at an increasing rate because there are ever more of us and we have ever more great gadgets.
The government has made the decision to purchase power from small private developers rather than build more giant dams to mar the landscape and displace people, vegetation and wildlife. I agree with this decision!
Nuclear power is another large-scale power option but for me it would be the absolute last resort. The additional needed power must, and will, be produced; if not here then elsewhere.
As I have followed this story in the papers I, like Don Burbidge, have observed a good deal of confusing, contradictory and incomplete information but I don't necessarily share his conclusions. I see no devious conspiracy by government or industry.
Government must provide what people want and need. Industry is entitled to a profit for risking an immense amount of money on an unstable commodity so we can all plug in our toasters. There is no free lunch! And please, stop with the implications that uncaring government and big business is out to poison us. What would be their motivation? We ALL breathe the same air!
The true confusion stems from opposing agendas with the sky is falling propaganda from the environmentalists on one side and on the other, too many benefits touted by big business, whom we have all been conditioned to distrust. There is no need to be confused if you are willing to do a bit of homework.
I actually visited the Compliance Energy Corporation's information centre on Bridge Street and picked up a big folder with a ton of information; actually way too much information. Most people would take one look, roll their eyes and say, I don't have time for this! I am a patient reader but I struggled with the volume of excessively technical information, most of which is of no direct relevance to the Princeton man and woman on the street. This failure to communicate simply and clearly is not harming community awareness though, because very few citizens have taken the opportunity to at least try to become informed. The guest book is virtually empty.
I had two questions. The first, and probably most important to all of us, was about emissions. I wanted to know just what, and how much, emission is anticipated because I wanted to compare the amounts to a known standard like that set by the American Environmental Protection Agency, as it applies to a region similar to ours. Instead I found a small graph of Wood and Coal Emission Limits for 2005, comparing wood and coal for BC, Alberta, Washington and Canada; not really helpful! In the Draft Terms of Reference document I found some 2005 emission limits for new coal-fired boilers from the Ministry of Environment; not meaningful to me either! That is probably because I am not an engineer.
These folks really could use a public relations person to bring their information display down to earth!
I prowled the net for hours searching for clear Canadian or British Columbian numerically stated minimum emission standards but found nothing concrete. It seems that our Clean Air Acts, federally and provincially, are still works in progress. However, of this I am certain; whatever standard is imposed, it will be tough and it will be vigorously enforced.
While I failed in my search for solid evidence, I did learn enough about the procedures and penalties involved to convince me that the Compliance Power Project will be as good as these things get with current technology, OR ELSE!
I was also concerned about the ash. What, if any, toxins does it contain?
If there are toxins, what is planned to prevent leeching or windblown dispersal? The literature simply says it will disposed of on site or in a separate dump site; not very enlightening.
Probably the ash is perfectly safe, but it would have been a good idea to say so!
I disagree with those who think that this plant will fill the air with visible smoke or hurt tourism. Europe is covered with these plants, plus a multitude of nuclear cooling towers.
Where I have traveled, the skies were clear, the villages clean and pretty, and those of us who can afford it still flock there in droves.
About thirty years ago I took my children on a tour of the working Similkameen Mine. They loved it and I found it fascinating. I don't think the Power Plant need be any different if handled right. It is, for now, unique and will attract curious visitors. I can see science classes from all over the Region coming here for field trips.
Compliance Coal has promised, and so must deliver, action on traffic patterns and numerous other local issues. Their corporate track record is good and I have no reason to doubt them. Yes, I know, in the olden days this terrible thing happened and such and such went wrong!
I remember what Trail used to look like as well as anyone but this is 2006. We have technology that did not exist in the bad old days and we have the strong laws and the level of public awareness needed to insure enforcement of commitments and adherence to legislated standards.
I believe in the R's. Reduce, Reuse and Recycle. I am pleased that the Similkameen facilities will be brought to life instead of rotting away; reused instead of expending new materials needlessly.
I strongly disagree with those who think that well-paid new jobs are not worth a small risk or minor traffic inconvenience.
Perhaps too many of us here are retired on a sufficient fixed income, like me. We don't have to worry about work. When the Similkameen Mine closed, Princeton withered to a mere shadow of its former self. We are now, functionally a one industry town: a rather vulnerable position. We are not the only place with a big abandoned mine, coal and lots of dead and dying trees. The Compliance Coal people, or some other company, can find another location.
Whatever emissions result will still go into our communal atmosphere BUT we will be out roughly 230 full-time jobs during the two-year construction phase and about 40 full-time operating positions over the estimated 30-year life of the plant.
Opportunity on this scale does not come along often and may never come again. By all means, be concerned about your childrens welfare, but also think about the day when they must go out into the world and make a living: It is not likely to be in Princeton unless things change a great deal.
- Karin Green, Princeton
Dear Editor:
Beware! If you're a Provincial Liberal, this letter is not for you. Not only will you have difficulty understanding it; but also if and when you do, you won't care.
If there was any solace in the fact that my taxes are paying for the 2010 Olympics infrastructure, it was that the primary beneficiary, Whistler Village, was a Canadian enterprise. That all changed for me last week with the announcement that the destination ski resort was sold to foreign interests.
I would like to alert any other Canadians who still possess even a shred of nationalism, that our taxes is now paying for a highway that will primarily benefit an American conglomerate.
Apparently, this is of no concern to the high rollers running this province who sell our railroads, privatize anything that is of benefit to Canadians and farm out our jobs to foreign interests. A pox on their house!
Sincerely,
HPToews, Princeton
Dear Editor,
I was very pleased to read in your paper of Tuesday August 8th/06, the article, 'Town of Princeton and Area H surpass recycling expectations.'
I would just like to remind readers that reducing, reusing, and recycling is not new to Princeton. The Princeton Recycling Society was founded in the early 1970's and with a devoted bunch of people began the 30 years of awareness, education programs and lobbying that laid the ground work for the present impressive results.
The building of a recycling depot, funding of curbside programs, cardboard bailing and amazing school wide educational programs were a few of the projects that this non-profit group accomplished over the past 30 years.
Most of the work was done by volunteers along with Canada World Youth and Canada Works grants. It is my opinion that the success of the present recycling program is due to the hard work and patient people who were the Princeton Recycling Society. They taught us the valuable lesson our forbears knew as necessity; to reduce, reuse and recycle so that a minimum of waste need enter the landfill.
Yours sincerely,
Dina Slowikowski-Campbell,
Princeton
