Quote:
Originally Posted by chowhou
That's not what I remember; I remember environmentalists being up in arms about site C because it was for LNG development. Let's not forget the BCNDP has also lead the charge when it came to BEV adoption in Canada and electrification of residential energy and certainly hasn't put any pause on LNG development. I think you've being overly charitable to the government here.
|
That's not how it was viewed in 2014, when the 'Liberal' government (and the federal government) approved it. There were three sources of opposition; The local First Nations, who launched an unsucessful lawsuit, citing a devastating impact on their traditional land, local farmers, throught the Peace Valley Landowner Association, who launched a legal challenge, citing the 3,800 hectares of agricultural land (much of it of very high agricultural value) which has now been lost and environmental groups, who were concerned with habitat loss.
LNG wasn't (at the time) the justification, it was overall need for additional power. There wasn't an expectation that LNG would need additional electricity until later. LNG was actually said to be why the government might not have been approved the dam. There was concern that the cost and manpower of Site C and a fledgling LNG industry may be too prohibitive at once. In 2014, in New York, Christy Clark told Bloomberg media that “LNG is our priority in British Columbia and we don’t need to do Site C in order to fuel up the LNG industry…Hopefully, we will find a way to do both, but if it’s one or the other, I’m choosing LNG.”
Threaded Mode