Video: B.C. NDP leadership candidate John Horgan on the environment

    1 of 1 2 of 1

      John Horgan says he'd make the environment a key priority if he becomes B.C. premier.

      The NDP leadership candidate dropped by the Georgia Straight offices on February 10.

      In an interview with reporter Matthew Burrows, a combative Horgan discussed his positions on the carbon tax, logging in watersheds, the Site C dam project, transit, fish farms, and other environmental issues.


      We're now using Facebook for comments.


      Charles B

      Feb 16, 2011 at 12:21am

      John Horgan was part of the Carole James Leadership that ignored the environment for 7 years .. He ignored Sustainable BC the policy of the BC NDP adopted by two conventions. Instead they came out against the gas tax and caused the BC NDP to loose the support of all the environmental organizations in BC. Horgan, Dix and Farnsworth neither of them have an environment plan or vision for BC.


      Feb 16, 2011 at 5:42am

      I will vote for John if comes out and states he will end logging of all old-growth forest in bc and will switch to logging second-growth forest!

      Freya Keddie

      Feb 16, 2011 at 9:10am

      I like that Horgan says that communities should get to decide on logging in their drinking-watersheds. The current government has proven that local autonomy means nothing to them, and I've had enough of their ham-fisted "top-down" governing.
      I like Horgan's pragmatic (rather than dogmatic) approach to issues.

      Fan'o Truth

      Feb 16, 2011 at 3:30pm

      John Horgan was part of the Carole James Leadership that ignored the environment for 7 years ..

      This statement is totally without foundation. You hear this kind of thing from Carole James haters, people who had to get even with her for slights real or imagined.

      For some reason these people thought there was something about Carole James that made her fair game for machinations that would normally be considered improper.


      Feb 19, 2011 at 2:25pm

      Quite correctly the first thing John is planning is do is to put a moratorium on all Pirate Power contracts, canceling as many as is possible. Hopefully we can rid ourselves of most through some legal wrangling.

      Since BC gets only 30% of its energy requirements from relatively clean electricity, the rest coming from filthy petrol and natural gas product, we have to decide whether to launch a unilateral war on GHG's or more prudently wait for an international concensus. I suggest we wait.

      The aim would be for all future BC energy supply being electricity supplemented with solar heating and low hanging fruit conservation.

      Run of the river power when funded by BCHydro is in the $6B/GW area but somewhat intermittent and a massive GHG producer when the effect of using weirs and Alpine lakes as reservoirs and the huge cuts of timber for required power lines. There is certainly an unquantified effect on fish as flows are cut back.

      Biomass ie firewood at about $6B/Gw is a giant emitter of of deadly particle emissions like coal and destructive of forest and farmland.

      Site C at $20B/GW once again a huge GHG producer with its destruction of 10000 hectares of prime BC farmland.

      Wind power at $15B/Gw + a minimum of $8B a GW for transmission line and $2B/GW for minimal pumped hydro storage. A massive source of GHG's for clear cuts required for the farm, roads and transmission line.

      Solar is a no brainer for space/water heating but at $45B/GW + storage + transmission it's worthless as an electricity source.

      Geothermal without high pressure super critical steam and and earthquake solutions is an expensive novelty.

      The Brits just dumped tidal and there are no real large scale demo's going.

      Best to let the US government with all its resources come up with an answers to geo and tidal before investing our own precious resource.

      The Candu 6E nuclear reactor has been built all over the world at a cost of $2B/Gw (10% of Site C) in 4 years or less with the latest in 2007 in Romania. Its successor the ACR-1000 just approved by the CNSC is being quoted at $2.5B/GW which AECL claims will drop to under $1B/Gw after the first twenty or so are built. If the $65B the Canwest/Gordo fascist have committed to stockbroker power companies had been spent on Candu 6 nuclear power instead, BC Hydro would be 100% off fossil fuels and exporting clean and green nuke power in the next five years.

      There are no environmental impacts of a nuclear reactor with the tiny amount of waste fuel perfectly contained until burned up on site by new compact GenIV nukes. In fact the Candu reactor can burn repackaged used nuke fuel rods from American PWR reactors producing no net waste.

      Nuclear power is now at a 72% acceptance in BC according to a recent survey. When citizens are educated on nuclear power and realize power bills are many times higher with hydro and wind opposition would largely disappear.

      Alberta, Washington, and Idaho are looking nuclear power into their power grid. If BCHydro doesn't participate either by building an expensive transmission grid to import neighbour jurisdictions dirt cheap nuke power or building its own, business will simply leave the province bankrupting the economy.

      BC needs to work with other provinces and AECL to develop a common nuclear strategy.

      As we move from fossil fuels to nuclear power, the natural gas in as a heating fuel would phased out as quickly as possible and replaced with nuclear electricity, with the freed gas made available as a transpo fuel replacing petrol. CNG,DME, LNG and of course now gas based synfuels are now available at $25 a barrel.

      Shipping, and railways would run on small reactors like the Hyperion, and electric or hydrogen cars will take up much of the load finally eliminating natural gas use. If pure hydrogen fuel fails,it would be a simple exercise to convert hydrogen synfuels.

      hold their feet to the fire

      Feb 23, 2011 at 9:44am

      It is so refreshing to hear someone running for the position of Leader who actually KNOWS what he is talking about and readily admits when he doesn't. Power to the people is defined by bringing in stakeholders to ensure full reasoning is part of important decision making. John Horgan has my vote!