Monday, December 21, 2015

Deceit as government policy

Writing in The Tyee, Damien Gillis provides the best analysis I've seen of Christy Clark's LNG fantasies. Read it and share it.

Three Fibs Premier Clark Uses to Sell LNG Dream
Sorry, it's not clean. It won't pay off. It's not popular. Here's why.
  • Fib #1: LNG is 'clean'
  • Fib #2: The business case for LNG is solid
  • Fib #3: First Nations and communities broadly support LNG


Recommend this post

15 comments:

  1. "Why is our government pushing so hard for Site C? The answer lies in the theoretical emergence of a Liquefied Natural Gas industry in the province, a premise on which Premier Christy Clark has staked her political future. According to BC Hydro’s filings with the BCUC, only with LNG plants coming online would our hydro consumption begin to outstrip domestic supply, and only then in about eight years."

    Quoted from:

    http://blogs.theprovince.com/2015/12/21/guest-column-the-real-reason-clark-co-are-spending-9b-on-site-c/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wish Clark had staked her future on LNG because then we'd know she would soon be gone and she'd take the Underboss with her. However, she'll only go if arrested or pushed out the door.

      There is so much money involved. Under the Liberals, the resource industry has saved many billions that could have gone to the public treasury. That financial self-interest explains why there will be huge amounts available for disinformation campaigns before the next election. Dark money from mostly foreign-owned corporations will be spent to influence voters and reward government supporters.

      Delete
  2. The Damien Gillis article in today’s TheTyee (thetyee.ca) entitled “Three Fibs Premier Clark Uses to Sell LNG Dream” contains this information concerning an interview of fracking expert Dr. Robert Howarth at Cornell University:

    “It is true that ‘natural’ gas, an old euphemism for methane, burns cleaner than coal when you turn on your stove or fireplace at the end of the line. But when it escapes into the atmosphere before it's burned, it's some 80 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 over a 20-year period. What Dr. Howarth's research shows is that far more methane escapes while fracking, processing and piping it than we previously thought (3.5-7 per cent of it)."

    Here are some quotes from a BC government website: https://www.britishcolumbia.ca/invest/industry-sectors/natural-gas/

    • “Each year industry extracts about 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. Based on the amount of gas industry is able to recover and increased activity, British Columbia has over 150 years worth of natural gas supply.”

    • “British Columbia currently produces 1.4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas annually.”

    There seems to be 2.6 trillion cubic feet missing between the first statement and the second. Is BC’s loss from fracking, processing and piping in a range very much higher than 3.5 to 7 percent? Like 65%? That would certainly contradict her contention that BC is a leader on fighting climate change.

    I’m sure Fletcher and Baldrey will be asking her for clarification.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But, wouldn't asking questions or offering comments not approved by government turn a journalist into an activist and thereby rob him/her of credibility?

      Delete
    2. Of course. Those would be actions completely beneath their journalistic standing, and they have well-earned reputations to protect. What was I thinking?

      Delete
  3. Christy simply does not know. She is "parroting" what the group of insiders is telling her. The "dark money" is controlling the script for both her and the now useless MSM that just publishes the spin, and does not bother with relevant information, or demands accountability for the rest of us. The numbers, estimates and dollar values are all over the map.
    Listen up people...your democratic institution here in B.C., has been co- opted by a group of "dark money" supporters, "posing" as a political party, using a "puppet" leader, to create an economic environment. In this environment, a select group of people and corporations, are actively involved in the deception of "creating" projects for their own economic ends, all the while under the guise of creating a wonderful future for the province. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    The massive debt being incurred, along with the ignoring of other industries and government needs, are a hallmark, of a third world corrupt regime.
    The taxpayer in this province needs to organize, and begin a concerted effort, to bring this "deception" to an end, and remove the corruption from governance in this province. I do not believe that the powers that "police" corruption in this province, are willing or are even capable of confronting this government. It would seem that an outside entity is going to have to. This is my personal opinion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truth has nothing to do with it. 2 + 2 = 5. Remember…? We've been in thrall to absurdist government, only more overtly with Christy's incessant whoppers.

      Two purposes to the "deception" are not to deceive, but to demonstrate that criticism is impotent against the BC Liberals, daily nose-thumbing us from within their supposed keep of immunity, and, second, to self-reassure---that is, for the BC Liberals to presume a continually granted or renewed licence to deceive.

      Enforcing loyalty by way of complicity is probably older than our species. One has to wonder why so many blatant breaches of public trust by the BC Liberals are not prosecuted, but culpability flows from the government to the police, not the other way around; for example, the BC Liberals grant police licence to apply to the BC Civil Forfeiture Island for money, ostensibly to fight crime; the perversity of this system is the omission of trial, conviction, sentencing, or charges---regards the forfeiting subjects; however, the underlaying perversity (despite the government's attempts to cloak the CFO's operations in complete secrecy) is the obvious conflict of interest between police, instrumental in initiating forfeitures, and their eligibility to access money from the forfeiture fund---now nearing $50 million, over 95% sourced from unnamed subjects of a secret process. The police are currently named in a civil lawsuit for speeding the forfeiture process against the plaintiffs without investigating the veracity of criminal accusations used to initiate the process (the target was subsequently acquitted of the criminal charges in open court, but incurred some $150,000 in legal fees on the CFO matter). Yet, even without a publicized case like this one, the opportunities for abuse of process are obvious, and thus the question of whether access to improperly forfeited funds under the guise of official sanction is some kind of sop to police is perfectly legitimate. The point is, however, if it really is a sop, for whatever reason, it flows from the BC Liberals to the police, not the other way around. The investigation or termination of the CFO would not not need the police's permission.

      We've hear so much about our "broken" political system, criticisms which often refer specifically to official abuses of process, yet the blame is often placed (misplaced, IMHO) on the electoral system instead of the plain instruments of these abuses---in the CFO's case it includes police, in the BC Rail corruption trial it involves the judiciary, but in every case it involves the BC Liberals. To be blunt, it involves the perversion of the criminal justice system by the government so it can get away things that should be, under the law, prosecuted and punished.

      I agree that the system has been remiss in prosecuting these abuses, but I think it's plain the real problem is the party in power, less so the police, even less the electoral system.

      It's not reasonable to allow known culprits to investigate themselves---even a schoolboy can figure this out---so, as to your point, some independent, outside agency is required. Ain't gonna happen so long's the BC Liberals are in power. We should know what to do about that---no, scratch that---we DO know what to do, but, with so much at stake, namely, the exponentially increasing licence of perfidy only worsening when we re-elect culprits, we still couldn't see the NDP succeeding the worst government BC's ever had. It comes around to us and the Opposition; if both of those elements get it straight, the police, the CFO, and dozens of other "corrupted" offices of authority can be detoxified and reset to proper function.

      But prosecution of breaches of public trust MUST be done, eventually, and deterrence remains one of the main reasons why.

      Delete
  4. If Christy thinks she is cleaning up the environment by selling LFG to the Chinese market so they can use less coal why not turn the pipes eastward to Alberta to help the Canadian market to wean itself from coal burning for electricity. Plus it would not have to be liquefied thus maximizing another 25% of production not needed to liquefy. Alberta's coal fired generators have already been given the notice so lets partner with our neighbours instead of supporting the fantasy of LFG. No fantasy tax structure, either. Better the devil you know....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alberta is more likely to commit to a truly clean energy source: solar. Along with Saskatchewan, Alberta has the best photovoltaic potential. PV potential and insolation

      Sunny solar Alberta:
      Sunny Alberta has 1.6 megawatts of installed solar capacity. Germany has around 30 gigawatts of installed solar energy capacity. Thirty gigawatts equal 30,000 megawatts. This means Germany has 18,000 times more installed solar capacity than Alberta.

      However, when you compare Calgary’s solar potential to Berlin’s it doesn’t even come close. The yearly photovoltaic potential in Calgary is 1292 kWh/kW. Berlin’s photovoltaic potential is 848 kWh/kW. This means a one-kilowatt solar system in Calgary will produce 52 per cent more electricity than one in Berlin...

      Delete
    2. And the difference between here and there is a Gov Policy that looks to the future rather than the next election cycle. They also have a grant system in place. Here we have a hodge podge of meaningless tax credits or nothing at all. We still refuse to have a Government in Ottawa that will have the courage to take control of Canada's energy needs with a National Policy. And no I am not talking about Trudeau v.1's attempt.

      Delete
    3. It will take Alberta decades to convert to alternatives so in the meantime their coal fired generators can easily be converted to natural gas. A cleaner alternative until solar, wind, etc. can be up and running. Don't need to liquefy the gas either.

      Delete
    4. @ Robert. And no LFG barges either!

      Delete
  5. From what I have been told by a number of clients about 2 years back, a large number of West Vancouver residents are heavily invested in the provincial energy resource sector.
    Could this be why the present government continues to spout disingenuous nonsense about provincial energy resources coming online and soon?
    All of the smart money left oil and gas a while back; from what I have been reading, folks like George Soros, Warren Buffet, Pete Peterson, David Rockefeller, David Koch etc. all divested out of oil and gas reserves.
    Check out this report from Bloomberg
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-12-17/just-wait-bankruptcies-latest-market-real-trouble
    A lot of money is switching to renewables. Easy to comprehend why as green initiatives have grown 136% in the last 6 years.
    Natural gas drops 25% in 30 days and 39% since August? Smart money will not go that way which is why the BC Liberals are rushing headlong into LNG.
    The words “smart money” can only be used in a sentence with BC Liberals in that way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Interesting comment. One would have thought the "dark money" would have the foresight to get their money out of a potential "bad" investment, long ago.Unless of course you are "privy" to inside political information. This has obvious implications and speaks to the level of malfeasance, within the party itself and the "sharing" of "confidential" government information between government insiders and "outside" investors or "other" interested parties. Confidentiality of government negotiations with foreign governments and or corporations is now called into question. The "suspected" collusion between ministers of the crown or their subordinates, and outside individuals speaks to an obvious breach of trust, in that the taxpayers are being set up to pay for infrastructure that will enable profits to accrue to the insiders, "privy" to confidential government negotiations. If the projects fail, the taxpayers are on the hook, the other individuals walk away with whatever profits they can, prior to the failure. Again, opinion only, nothing is proven.
    This is however an interesting theory. Hmmm, there's always the question of where the $700 million came from, in Malaysia?

    ReplyDelete
  7. http://www.news1130.com/2015/12/30/bc-mining-companies-could-see-power-payments-deferred-province/

    What is wrong with this picture?

    ReplyDelete

COMMENTING

This is an archive only of items published before April 22, 2016. These and newer articles are available at:

https://in-sights.ca/

If you read an article at this blogger site, you can comment on it at the new site.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.