The latest: leading experts on both sides of the debate have been invited to deliver a special briefing to BC cabinet; learning from Newfoundland's hydrodam megaproject mistakes; with so many reasons to cancel the project, the decision should not seem so difficult.
Premier Invites Energy Experts to Cabinet for Site C Dam Debate
On Wednesday in Vancouver, the senior expert retained by opponents of the dam, Robert McCullough, released a report outlining why the public would be better off with cancelling the project – even at an estimated loss of $4-billion. With the savings from cancelling the project, Mr. McCullough estimated, B.C. could build 25,000 new homes in the Vancouver area. Mr. McCullough is set to take part in the cabinet briefing on Nov. 30.
Muskrat Falls Inquiry Won’t Save Newfoundlanders from a $12.7-billion Sinkhole
It's only after construction contracts are awarded, shovels are in the ground and thousands of workers are hired that the economic folly of these projects becomes apparent to all. Costs spiral upward – twofold so far in the case of Muskrat Falls. There are eerie parallels in British Columbia's $9-billion Site C hydro project and the $8.7-billion Keeyask dam in Manitoba. OPG's $12.8-billion refurbishment of the Darlington nuclear facility risks following the same path.
Site C Makes No Sense - Economic or Otherwise
Tell Horgan if he thinks this is a hard decision, he is not framing the question properly. Energy is but one aspect. There are many more areas of great public importance that will be negatively affected by the dam. It’s not just about B.C. Hydro ratepayers, it’s about taxpayers and future generations.