David Suzuki paddling to protest proposed Site C dam
Long-time environmentalistDavid Suzuki has confirmed he'll be at this year's Paddle for the Peace in order to protest the proposed Site C dam in northeastern B.C.
“We fought this battle 30 years ago and we won,” Suzuki told the Straight during an interview at CBC studios in downtown Vancouver. “I damn near drowned paddling for the Peace [River] back then. We didn't know that the river had been lowered. It was like a waterfall, and the two of us flipped two canoes and it was so frickin' cold, I'm telling you. By the time we got to the shore, we were shivering. But we stopped it.”
Suzuki will paddle again on July 14 in the same place on the river, as part of the seventh annual event organized by the West Moberly First Nations and the Peace Valley Environment Association. He'll also give a short speech. He said he couldn't predict whether environmentalists, First Nations, or other concerned citizens could stop construction of the dam, which would be the third on the Peace River. The $7.9-billion dam would produce 1,100 megawatts of power per year, which B.C. Hydro claims on its website would produce enough power for 450,000 homes in B.C. The project now awaits joint provincial and federal environmental assessment.
“I don't know,” Suzuki said of the prospects of stopping Site C a second time. “We've lost quite a few [environmental fights] and won very few.”
Suzuki criticized the B.C. government's plan, unveiled in February, which proposes that three liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities be built by 2020. “Where the hell does she [Premier Christy Clark] think she'll get the power [to run the facilities]?” He claimed that Site C's so-called clean energy would be sucked up by industry if the LNG plan goes ahead as proposed.






Perhaps the NDP will have the intelligence to re-vision BC Hydro into BC Energy. Perhaps the people of BC will demand a vision that moves our province into a vitally necessary new era of low impact, more localized energy production from solar, wind, sea, hydrothermal and other new and emerging technologies which will, over time, deliver more efficient power at less cost per kilowatt hour when all costs are accounted for. Stopping Site C Dam is one fight we cannot afford to lose.
Clearly the Site C Dam proposal is more than about how much energy and revenue it will produce and whether or not it will be clean or used for clean purposes.
It is very much also about the immense economic activity this multi-billion dollar investment will generate. This and more that will come from the electricity produced which in turn will generate ever more activity is the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow that the BC government is chasing in the name of the "public good." And no doubt this quest is supported by many private and union interests.
Whereas (some) First Nations and environmentalists are instead chasing the Green Leprechaun, that little fellow who stashes his pot of gold at the end of rainbow, this way they hope to use the three wishes he grants to have British Columbians be convinced to let the Peace River flow without further interruption.
And what could those wishes possibly be?
That British Columbians will agree to save prime agriculture land from flooding, as well as avoid further impacts to one of the largest inland deltas in the world - a world heritage site no less - that lies downstream from the proposed dam?
That British Columbians will agree to ensure the cultural survival of those native peoples who throughout the watershed continue to depend on what's left of the river's flow for healthy fish, fowl and wildlife habitat, in addition to respecting their rights to their historic homelands?
That British Columbians will agree to lessen the overall risk to basic human survival that is posed by all the interconnected chains of destructive over-development both in their backyard and elsewhere by making hard choices today?
Then again is the real fairy tale here thinking that British Columbians can be compelled for any reason to stop this project?
Unavoidably, the Site C Dam proposal forces this question upon us and its fate will be our answer.