High-profile environmentalist David Suzuki wrote an article about renewal energy published in the Georgia Straight: Run-of-river power projects may offer green energy solutions (and read the comments)

Suzuki wrote, “It’s ludicrous to think that we must sacrifice all environmental considerations to get green energy onto the grid.” He's right. He also wrote, “We also need a better system for water licences and Crown land licences to avoid the gold-rush mentality that is leading numerous private interests to stake claims on rivers for power projects. And we need strong environmental regulations, along with monitoring and enforcement, to ensure impacts are minimized.” No disagreement from us on this, either.

When Suzuki refers to a “better system”, he's grossly understating the case. The current environmental assessment process is heavily loaded in favour of the proponent of a river privatization project. When a project gets to this stage, the proponent has already made an substantial financial investment in it. The proponent will protect that investment by calling in IOU's from the Liberal Party of BC; this will be very effective, because the ultimate decision is made by a cabinet minister. When open houses take place, the proponent chooses the venue, and gets to decorate it with pro-project material. If personnel from the Ministry of Environment are present, it's only to observe and answer questions, not to actually present any negative aspects of the project. The Environmental Assessment Office is empowered only to consider “the potential effects of proposed project and ways to minimize or avoid adverse effects.”

Suzuki also failed to mention Bill 30, which took the power to evaluate and approve or disapprove river privatization projects away from local government.

Suzuki mentioned the “gold-rush mentality,” but more elaboration was called for. The fundamental issue is, these projects aren't being proposed for the benefit of the people of BC; the beneficiaries are multinational corporations like General Electric.

The issue of “benefit” deserves further scrutiny. All of the major proposals, such as Upper Pitt and Bute Inlet, involve long stretches of power lines to take power away from communities located near the project. And none of these projects are intended to provide lower-cost electricity to BC residents and businesses.

Finally, the fundamental assumption of Suzuki's piece is that “we want to put the brakes on global warming and reduce our reliance on nonrenewable fossil fuels.” He fails to mention that the projects currently under consideration will do nothing to accomplish this purpose. The problem is, “run of river” projects only produce significant amount of electricity in the spring, when there is a lot of water in the rivers. This is a period when the reservoirs behind our public dams are full anyway. The river privatization projects will be producing electricity we don't need, for private river power which we will be forced to sell to our neighbours at a loss, while these foreign corporations rake in huge guaranteed profits from our public assets.