LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
- December 5, 2006
To The Editor;
Ignorance is bliss. In 1742, Thomas Gray, an English poet and professor of history at Cambridge University, penned the verse, where ignorance is bliss, tis folly to be wise. Lately, it seems for Councillor Maria Sadegur, ignorance is bliss. A couple of weeks ago, Compliance Energy, the company behind the proposed 56-MW coal-fired power plant, took three Princeton councillors on a tour of coal-fired generation plants in Alberta.
Following the trip, Councillor Sadegur, who was visibly moved by the trip, quickly dismissed concerns about the health risks from the emissions from coal-fired power generation, telling CHBC that, we found everything very pristine, no emissions from the plant, adding, its 99% pure, I don't think you can't get any better than that. She also went on to mention that mercury is already in the rocks around Princeton, and it hasn't hurt anyone.
Councillor Sadegur's argument on the CHBC report was consistent with what she told me a few weeks earlier in the Councils chambers, when she questioned the threat of mercury and other air pollution from the proposed plant and went on to tell me that her grandmother had lived near a coal plant for over fifty years and had yet to experience any ill effects.
Councillor Sadegur also stressed that she is waiting for the results from the environmental assessment before deciding whether or not she will support the proposed plant.
In all likelihood, the coal-fired power plant will easily pass the BC governments weak and ineffective environmental assessment, which has been labeled as a mere formality by Councillor Jim Manion. Operating under the abysmal provincial standards, the plant would release over 2.6 kg of mercury and 140,000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions directly into the skies above the Similkameen Valley. BC's emission standards are inadequate and fail to protect the health of local residents.
Councillor Sadegur's low level of awareness is alarming. As an elected representative, she is failing to protect present and future generations of Similkameen Valley residents from the adverse environmental and social consequences of coal-fired power generation. Mercury that is in the ground and rocks should stay there, where it has no toxic effects. The proposed plant will diffuse at least 15% of the mercury emissions directly in the local air, which is of particular concern, as even low levels of mercury regarded as safe have been shown to cause serious health problems.
The recent trip to Alberta, paid for by Compliance Energy, seems to have left a lasting impression on Councillor Sadegur. The obvious question arises, as an elected decision maker, should she be accepting trips paid for by a proponent of a controversial (or any) project?
Ignorance is bliss for Councillor Sadegur, who is currently serving her first term as councillor. For the sake of the Similkameen Valley, lets hope its the last.
- Mike McLean, 2005 Green Party of BC Candidate for Yale-Lillooet
The Editor:
I am truly disappointed with the hostile tone the very one sided Compliance Energy debate is taking. What should have been a rational debate about the positive and negative implications of the Compliance Energy Project for the Town of Princeton has, in just one month, deteriorated into a divisive mudslinging. Through recent personal conversations I have found the views of the Save the Okanagan Similkameen committee (SOS) unshakable by rational debate and sadly, it appears that to present an opposing position has come to be seen as immoral, irresponsible or ignorant.
For the SOS committee supporters there can be no upside to the energy project. They must all be independently wealthy, because to them, economic issues just don't matter. The SOS committee declares itself for clean air; clean water, clean soil and good health (forgot world peace?). Who would oppose that! This cliché, however, does not pay the rent or put food on the table.
Of course, we want to protect our children from all possible harm but real life poverty and neglect inflicts terrible harm on children, sometimes visible, often not. It is NOT mere theory that poor nutrition and health care for the unborn and for growing children can have very sad developmental consequences. Child Poverty is the silliest buzz word of our time. There is no child poverty without adult poverty. Unemployed parents and parents on some form of assistance are a disproportionately large segment of the Princeton community. If you doubt that, open your eyes and look with your heart the next time you are downtown. The suggestion that a power plant will somehow deter young families seeking their future from coming here defies reason. Young families have no reason to move here unless they are on some form of assistance or are already signed on with an existing employer like Weyerhaeuser; what would they do for a living?
This line of reasoning also did not wash with my, now probably former, SOS supporter friend. The response in a nutshell: Who cares about the chronically unemployed druggies and welfare bums!
I don't think that 40 or 30 or even 20 well-paid, full-time jobs are something we should dismiss lightly. It is a significant infusion of employment when you consider that our only substantial provider of work, the Weyerhaeuser mill, has only 240 full-time employees. The 200 temporary construction workers will undoubtedly spend considerable money on goods and services but that consideration is not as important as the permanent work force that will expand and enrich our community on all levels. Even Compliance Energy plant itself will require goods and services that can be provided locally. If Compliance can attract a large green house operator and other industry spin off, as they suggest, the circle of economic benefit grows even larger.
It is disappointing to see high profile members of the community, those to whom we look for rational guidance, in the forefront of opposition! The Town of Princeton should be their greatest concern, but it appears that I am the only one to notice that Princeton is deteriorating before our eyes. In the three plus years I have lived here Napa closed shop, eventually replaced by the Copper Mountain Western supplies store, now also rumored to be closing. Work Wear closed; the fledgling Garden Centre has given up. Our bakery has closed for the winter because nobody could be found to run the place for the owner and our only heritage character building, the hotel, will soon be a distant memory. Need I go on!
Princeton has grown old, not fashionably trendy old: just old. Nothing fresh and new graces our town core. The only recent development has straddled the highway. I sometimes wonder how our downtown merchants survive, never mind thrive.
It is our community leaders who should have been organizing a true information meeting. One were both sides of the debate could explain their positions without harassment, with an unbiased mediator, with one or two scientists from appropriate fields who can clarify areas of dispute for the audience. I sincerely hope they still will! I will certainly be there!
The SOS meeting of Nov.2 was not an information meeting. It did not pretend to be. It was aimed at rallying opposition and it obviously succeeded. The Pembina Institute and Wildsight, the principal speakers, represent the environmental movement. That's like asking the NDP what they think of the Liberals. Based on this, we the jury, are asked to pass judgment on Compliance Energy. That would be rendering a verdict when only the prosecution has been heard. I cant do that: no one should!
We, as a community, are being urged to rise up in protest against Compliance Energy. Environmental advocates tell us that we must save the Similkameen Valley! FROM WHAT: a little prosperity for Princeton? Now Wildsight is promising a STANDOFF! Like what; are you going to blockade Highway 3?
As I have said in previous letters, I have also investigated and I do not believe that the energy project will do us or our children further harm. It may not be a billion dollar gasification plant but it will not be the smoke spewing caricature that people are painting.
Like many, I wondered why coal and biomass now, and why here?
MLA Harry Lali blamed the Liberals because they are capitalists; by definition insensitive to environmental issues. It is an energy hungry world. People need and demand power to run their daily lives. The government, regardless of political stripe, must deliver this service; hence the current government has been forced to consider all reasonable alternatives short of nuclear.
Thirty-eight contracts to Independent Power Producers were awarded July 27, 2006 (see www.bchydro.com): 29 hydro (water driven), three wind, two biomass, two waste heat and two coal/biomass projects expected to produce roughly 7000GWh of electricity yearly. Of these, Tumbler Ridge (coal/biomass) is by far the largest with an expected output of 1,612 GWh. The Princeton project is comparatively small with only 421 GWh. Most of the hydro and wind projects are small producers but when all are put together they are expected to meet the needs of the Province.
Critics fail to mention that vigorous opposition from environmental and native groups has made large hydroelectric dam projects impossible to get off the ground. Run of the River projects are also being opposed by communities for environmental and aesthetic reasons. For wind and solar power you need the right terrain and a company willing to risk a large amount of money on a weather driven resource. It seems so far nobody is willing to take a chance on stable sunshine. Coal andbiomass projects also can't go just anywhere. They need a reliable supply of coal and waste wood to be viable. Tumbler Ridge and Princeton were considered appropriate candidates. At this very moment a very exciting tidal power demonstration project is underway at Race Rocks. At www.racerocks.com you can watch the work in progress.
Someone tell me please, what is so wrong with all of this?
The projects are very dominantly green and diverse. Without Tumbler Ridge and Princeton we power gobblers would be short over 2024 Gigga Watts. The total output of all the coal and biomass projects is 2778 GWh. The remaining 35 projects, on average, produce only about 130 GWh each. If the coal and biomass project were eliminated, where would all this power come from? What would you have the government do?
Maybe we should hold our noses and go nuclear and have all this hassle behind us! It is easy to be an armchair quarter back. Mr. Lali would do us a greater service if he directed whatever influence he has to upgrading Highway 3.
It seems that demystifying coal is also in order for those under the age of around fifty, maybe even sixty. Coal is not some new, evil element from the bowls of hell. Until the 1950s it was the fuel that powered just about everything.
Coal, most simply put, is nothing more than CONCENTRATED vegetation, mostly trees; highly dehydrated and compressed for many millions of years within the earth. Everything that was ever in the original plant life is still there, minus the water, and the oils and the gases, all of which we extract separately. Think about that when you light your wood stoves and burn your garden clippings. Early humans began using fire 790,000 years ago. It gave us an incalculable advantage over all other life. In spite of the environmental ignorance of our ancestors, we survived and thrived and rule the planet! Thank you, Dawn Johnson, for making this point.
I wish it were a perfect world with abundant, absolutely clean and affordable power and completely harmless industry. We are striving to that end but we are not there yet! Who knows what wonders the future holds and what miracles of technology will emerge. Massive research efforts are going on all over the world and we have good reason to be optimistic. We can hope for the future, but we have to live in the present!
If not Compliance Energy; then what? When will we have another substantial industry knock on our door? Will anything ever be good enough, clean enough? Will we ever again grow into the vibrant town Princeton was in its glory days when it was the focal point for the surrounding prosperous mining towns? Will we ever again merit a grand hotel like the one we lost, or a new Overwaitea, or at least a paint job for Fields?
Should Weyerhaeuser one day decide that Princeton is no longer a money maker, forty years from now Princeton may be a mere collection of gas stations along the highway, given of course, that were still using gas. Maybe by then we will have cars that can independently convert water to hydrogen and they'll just zoom, zoom by!
- Karin Green, Princeton
To The Editor;
As a long time resident of Princeton from the years of 1972-1980 and again 1997-2005 I share concerns of the local residents regarding the coal-fired generation plant. For the reasons outlined below I believe it will have a negative impact on the quality of life in the Similkameen and Tulameen valley's.
All residents of BC and Canada should take exception to the use of coal-fired generation but it is the proposal in Princeton that is the focus of my comments. It is well known that emissions from coal-fired generation are significant both in the forms of gas and solid (dust). These emissions cause irreparable damage locally and add to the greenhouse effects globally. Recent energy demands by the global community have put pressure on politicians around the world to relax their diligence in order to increase energy supply.
This has moved the onus of decision making from science to economics and the obtaining of votes today is not particularly beneficial to the future of our children and grandchildren. I take exception to the comments made by the esteemed councilor after her visit to the Alberta generation plants. "No emissions and 99% pure!"
An informed comment about air quality and emissions would require that you to know what type of coal is being burned and what the quality of that coal is. Although there are three main types (bituminous, subbituminous and lignite) which themselves can very significantly in the amounts of toxins such S02, Hg, it is my understanding the Compliance Energy want to burn the garbage from their Coalmont Mine along with a wood supplement.
I suggest you be sure this does not include hydrocarbon waste from other sources as well. The amount of contamination being discharged is in some way proportional to the level of contamination going in. 99% may sound great as a percentage number but it isn't brilliant if you are generating 2,000 kilograms of emissions a day and putting 20 into the surrounding environment. In most cases we think of emissions as solid or chemical but heat and humidity must also be considered. It is likely that this plant would contribute significantly to the valley's inversion layer during the winter months. Hence those beautiful clear crisp days that Princeton can be so well known for will be reduced.
I have been in the mining business for over 40 years, of that time I spent more than 30 of it as a laboratory manager, research chemist or chief assayer at mines and commercial laboratories around the world. I am a certified assayer in the Province of BC. When it comes to coal-fired generation I have yet to see a practical application of environmental controls that will achieve zero emissions or 99% pure. What emissions are included in this radical statement (no emissions and 99% pure), what emissions are omitted and what percentage of each of the included emissions is recovered. Once it is recovered what is being done with it? "Oh. I forgot, you have a convenient land fill site in the old Similkameen Mine Pit for this toxic waste!" It may be important to point out that the best recovery for mercury in any studies of actual operating plants is 85%. Keep in mind, this is only recovered, you now have it, you have concentrated it and you have to do something with it.
Comparing coal generation plant in the foot hills or the prairies to one in the mountains is absurd. Up until the last part of the 19th century mine smelters used the philosophy that the "solution to pollution was dilution", they therefore built plants with increasingly high stacks to dissipate the S02 and flume gases. Moving the contamination higher and further from the source increased dilution with air and reduced the high emission levels close to the plant. We have probably all seen the result in places like Trail and Sudbury. My point here is that in the prairies the emissions are more readily diluted and less noticeable than they would be in the closed river Valley's of the Princeton area.
Part of my reason for returning to Princeton in 1997 was to make it my retirement home and enjoy the pristine beauty of the Similkameen and Tulameen Valley's. A contributing factor to my leaving last year was the potential loss of that pristine valley. Provincial and regional approved projects such as waste disposal at the Similkameen Mine, coal-fired generation proposals and the more destructive exploitation of coal bed methane put the natural beauty and serenity of the Similkameen Valley at risk.
Meeting the requirements of poorly conceived regulations or emission limits will be of little consolation in fighting the assault of global warming. Princeton has been put on front lines of this fight and along with that comes the opportunity to take a stand and contribute to the fight against global warming. The instant gratification is that you also preserve the natural beauty of your Valley.
- Jack Stanley, Vernon
