I just dont understand why site c is not already under construction. all I hear about is global warming , green house gasses, dirty oilsands. this form of energy is totaly green. it will emit no greenhouse gasses in the production of energy. as for the folks who protest this form of energy, get a life!! or better yet move to africa where you wont have to worry about it. another point of interest for you protesters is that you make a big arguement that it will flood agricultural land is a bunch of B.S. First of all it is a flood plane, secondly the most over looked part of it all is, accordingly to bc laws and legislation, you cannot have a farm or ranch within a quarter mile of any river or water source. the reason behind this law is to protect the water from contaminates that leach into our drinking water. I cannot believe that this has not been mentioned by either party involved in the debate. I feel for the farmer that has to move, but we all will have to make sacrifices for the enviroment that has the population freaking out about global warming!! and yes I will someday go hunting on the resavoir in my riverboat, not that I dont do it already elsewhere!

Site C is definitely not Green. Even BC Hydro, that is pushing for it, says that Site C is not considered to be Green. Large hydro, such as Site C, is not classified as a low-impact renewable because of the extensive environmental damage that results. Born and raised here also suggested that “it will emit no green house gases” which is incorrect. In addition to carbon dioxide emissions, the flooding of vast expanses of land results in the decomposition of organic material and methane emissions. Methane is thought to be 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas among the scientific community. BC Hydro has done a very rough calculation on predicted GHG emissions and concludes “an overall Site C reservoir emission rate of 30.6 tonnes/GWh” of CO2 equivalent. Given an estimated power output of 4,600 GWh, this would result in 140,760 tonnes CO2eq/yr. From the article entitled “Hydroelectric power's dirty secret revealed” in the New Scientist, “The green image of hydro power as a benign alternative to fossil fuels is false, says Éric Duchemin, a consultant for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). "Everyone thinks hydro is very clean, but this is not the case," he says.” Climate Action Network Canada has developed a consensus position that industrial hydro with reservoirs are “not "green", not climate-friendly, not renewable and not acceptable.” It does not make sense to destroy our environment in an effort to try to save it.

where would all the co2 come from? also it is not a vast expanse of land. mary, maybe you should take a drive to either dam and take a first hand look above the sites. you will not see any green house gas above them. green house gas is the result of emissions that form in the atmosphere which keep any reflected heat energy from escaping. thus a warming effect. you can see this if you go to vancouver. it will be the brown fog that is over the city during rush hour!! northern bc does not experience this. keep an open mind and dont be so one sided. if you can come up with a better solution you would get my vote for the nobel peace prize.

I would like to know the positive affects of site C. What benefits would arise from the site going forward. Job increases that do not rely on oil and gas etc. Environmental benefits as well as features to the Peace Country should be made known. Many seem to be against site c and we find that in all the comments. So, what are the features and benefits?

Mary ask for the positive effects of the proposed site c dam. In my opinion, there would be very few. People talk about the jobs, but most of the workforce would have to be imported and stay in camps. Only approx. 25 full time jobs would be the final result. Another effect I hear mentioned is a potential increase in real estate values. That is great if you want to sell and move somewhere else. Meanwhile, those of us who want to stay here are left with a sloughing, ugly resorvoir. I feel that some of the people who want the dam are only focused on personal selfish reason. They feel they will benefit financially. However, we are the stewards of what is left of this beautiful valley, and must look beyond selfish gain. Any possible benefit of site c is so greatly overpowered by reasons not to build, that I cannot imagine it ever happening.

I agree with you Ken. I think that ruining this iconic part of our home forever is criminally shortsighted. There just are not enough places like the Peace valley left to squander, this dam is irreversible and permanent. We who choose to live in the North continue to take it in the "ear" to serve the urbanites in the South. I have lived here for a long time and lose a favourite spot every year and am getting tired of it. BC Hydro has established over and over that they can not be trusted - the farcial "consultation" process illustrates this perfectly. To those who insist that scads of local jobs will be provided - I suggest you ask the oilfield contractors about big company loyalty, or better yet count Alberta plates on 100th. You could also ask my father-in-law who worked on the Bennett dam construction - he came from Saskatchewan and most of the people he worked with were from out of Province - remember the huge camp? To those who say we need the power, check out Hydro's own financial reports - they import power when it is cheaper and export when it is not, BC does not need the power at this time. Again, why should we lose our valley so that Californians can use that second blender. Also, I get so tired of the "green" argument. Dams are not green - this can be established by researching even Hydro's own literature. Hydro will not quit damming our rivers until we make them. Why should they? We keep rolling over and taking it. They need to honestly research viable alternatives.Check out the locales of the authors of the letters to the editor in local papers that encourage us to build Site C - most of them are from the lower mainland. Try to build even a run of river power project in the South - you'll get shut down in short order (as happened last spring). Why are the rivers in the South more environmentally important than our own Peace valley - a crucially vital wildlife corridor? Regarding the recreational aspects of the proposed reservoir, I guess watching the banks collapse onto the logjams for the next several decades might be fun for some, I prefer the river as it is though. At the end of the day, what do we tell our kids and grandkids when we finally manage to completely screw the North for our fat little pay cheques? Too bad, find your own place to ruin (if you can, if anything is left)? When do we finally say to all of these companies - Hey that's enough, go crap in your own home for awhile. I would like to personally thank Ken and those like them who actively protest the Site C project. To those of you who belittle the protesters and make personal comments about them, please try to remember that we live in a democratic society. This means that we have the right and the responsibility to protest actions that we oppose. Look at the countries that allow peaceful protest and compare them to those that do not. I am glad to live in a country that allows me to voice my honest opinion.

Being the third dam on the Peace makes Site C something that will just keep coming up until it's built, a massive reservoir is already in place - it's too easy. BC Hydro doesn't "need" the energy now just like we don't "need" 90% of the things we own. I don't see anyone here lowering their lifestyle to do their part or they wouldn't have the ability to post here... I appreciate that people don't want it to happen but realistically I think it's just a matter of when, not if with our current system and society. Nothing is going to change if people keep electing the same parties (or derivatives of) that built the first two dams with the same BS lines over and over again. If the majority of people really wanted a greener society they'd start voting Green; instead we elect an MLA that thinks the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is obsolete and an MP that used to represent the Reform Party but now follows and preaches the Conservative dogma with every press release. Besides, dams are a lot less polluting than the 50,000 or so Coal power plants in the world and the 600 hundred or so in US/Canada that still generate electricity. We can always go Nuclear?

I would suggest that one can have a computer and still have a valid concern with Site C. Do we lead fairly opulent lifestyles in North America? Absolutely. But saying that people can't oppose flawed power projects because the same people use electricity is like saying you should be ok with me dumping medical waste in your living room because you visit the Doctor. I look back 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, etc. and I see many, many changes to how average folks use natural resources. Again, lots of room for improvement but much better than it used to be. Supporters of Site C always fall back on the same old chestnuts - "its better than coal or nuclear" - yet another weak argument. People as a species are lazy and tend to not improve things until they have to. We seem to need serious impetus to implement serious change. Northern power projects serving the electricity needs of the Southern urban areas are inefficient and detrimental to their site locations. Hydro keeps nailing us because we do not have the large voter base and the dams are cheaper and easier than some of the newer alternatives. European countries who don't have large underpopulated areas are making huge strides in alternative energy systems because they have to. Hydro will take the same steps when we, the taxpayers, finally have enough and make them improve. Finally, the last poster seems to think that it is not worth fighting for our home because the decision has been somehow preordained. I think that we will ultimately lose this fight and this dam will be built. I also think that it will cause permanent damage to the home I love. I will keep fighting the dam until it is built so I can at least look my kids in the eye and tell them that a few of us went down swinging. But hey, feel free to rollover and give it up to the city boys if you want to. After all, history tells us that ordinary citizens have never changed governments.....right?

I would suggest that all of those posting in support and against get together for coffee over the holidays...shake hands...agree to disagree...and listen to each other. Leave all of the meanness and anger at the door...there is too much of it in the world. Have a wonderful and restful holiday!

Don't put words in my mouth thanks. I said it was probably too late to stop it, a point you do end up agreeing with, so I'm really confused at what you're even trying to say. If the people wanted to change the way things happen they need to change the government into something that would enable this change to occur. Electing the same parties and then expecting them to suddenly act differently this time doesn't seem very logical to me. Making a change to something like a Green Party government would require a major shift in the economy and lifestyle for our society. Frankly, I don't think we (in Canada) care enough and probably won't until it gets a lot worse. In Europe their Green Parties actually hold seats in governments and have for 25 years, we have yet to elect 1. By all means fight for what you believe in; it doesn't mean I don't think it's worth it, I just think you have to be realistic. To use your words though: "the decision has [pretty much] been somehow preordained" when we elected a government that puts Economy ahead of the Environment almost everytime when push comes to shove. Sure there has been progress to preserve the environment over the years, but we still live in an economic system that continually expands in a world that isn't getting any bigger.

that the backlash was directed towards me. tarmax has made good points and an alternate solution, but I will post to show that I took a spanking ( ouch, ouch)!! did not intend to personalize "protesters". I just feel protesting in general is a waste of time and energy and will fall upon deaf ears. ( the ones that should hear it) Make it heard at the election ! merry christmas.

Merry Christmas to you all. Hi Born and Raised Here, didn't mean to give you a "spanking" - I enjoy your posts (even when I don't agree with them) and appreciate your honesty. One of my personal pet peeves (and my wife would tell you that I have too many of those) is that as a society we seem to be falling into a mindset where the people we pay to represent us don't, or won't, listen to us. I keep hearing people ask why we should bother to make our wishes known. If we are vocal when we disagree, someone might listen. If we don't bother making our wishes known, it's a sure thing that no-one will listen. I agree with you and Tarmax both that effective change can occur through the voting polls - just doesn't always happen (yet another pet peeve, people who don't get off their sagging behinds to vote). Tarmax, sorry for your confusion, I will attempt to clarify. Also, not sure what "words I put into your mouth", if you would like to elaborate, I will extend you the same courtesy. When I spoke of the decision for Site C being "preordained" I was actually paraphrasing your comment, as I understood it, about the dam being pretty much a sure thing at this point. I hear this lots in blogs and over coffee. It ticks me off no end. Remember the "consultation" process? Not actually done yet. How dare these people make a decision like this without listening to the people who live here. Their condescending, patronizing little pats on the head for us yokels during the process were completely unacceptable. Again, Hydro is a Crown Corp. We pay them. They need to treat us with respect and REALLY consult us about decisions that will permanent alter our home. For Site C, against Site C - shouldn't really matter, how Hydro has behaved through this process should put a big knot on everyone's forehead. Also, I know we need electricity, I am not some sort of tree hugging, bark munching, stone-age druid. But I think that Hydro will not honestly research viable alternatives to their outdated, inefficient power projects until enough citizens get together to make them. Like you said, Site C is just too "easy" for them, and I don't think that this should be an easy decision at all. As I tried to say in my last post, I am enough of a realist to know that the minority doesn't usually win outside of Disney movies. I am also enough of an optimist to hope and pray that we quit losing huge parts of our home that we will never get back. I am also enough of a stubborn old Celt to fight for what I believe in, even if I think I'm going to lose. I truly believe that Site C will cost us way more than we will get back from it in every possible sense and I guess I am hoping for a Disney ending. At the very least everyone who knows me, and many who don't, will know where I stand on this issue. Again, Merry Christmas to all.

In fact there is some research that suggests that indeed nuclear is a positive alternative. Apparently a nuclear plant can do 2 things that will benefit the energy industry. 1) produce abundant electricity 2) produce hydrogen, lighter than gasoline and more efficient for fueling vehicles, including aircraft. And the exhaust is clean.