I was going to add this to the comments on the WTE proponents event thread, but have decided to make a separate post. As most know, I am opposed to the proposal. I made my position clear on the info page but have not done so here. Please indulge me this long post, as I feel that I must make my position clear. I will not debate the comments to this post. My position is as stated here. I will take up enough space enunciating it, I should not and will not elaborate further. I represent over 50,000 voters. Approximately 20,000 of them are residents of Nanaimo. I also represent over 4,000 on Gabriola, fewer on Mudge and Decourcy, as well as thousands more in Cedar and Yellow Point. The Nanaimo residents and their city council are being asked to decide on the land use question of the WTE proposal, but the residents of those Islands and Cedar/Yellow Point, many of them far more directly impacted by this than are most residents of Nanaimo, deserve a say here. I aim to ensure that they are heard. I also represent Snuneymuxw people directly impacted and who have a clear right to consultation on these and all matters affecting them. My provincial role is implicated by the regulation and approval process, an provincial responsibility, as well as the obligations to first nations. The debate over the technological and scientific merits of WTE will rage on. Across the globe, WTE seems to me to be losing that debate, with the immediate toxic consequences of emissions and legacy pollution issues around fly ash turning the tables against WTE all over the world. That debate informs the political decision of whether or not to allow WTE, but the decision, in the end, is political one of principles. It is the balancing of the information available against the values and principles of a community. It is reasonable and justified to take a position on WTE based on principles. That is what I want to address. First, the principles and ethics of Vancouver sending its trash to Nanaimo to be burned in our local air shed. If incineration is harmless and advisable, then it is everywhere. Therefore, the Lower Mainland should be willing to have the facility in their own backyard. If it is ethical and reasonable for Vancouver to refuse the facility, then it is everywhere, including the Sunshine coast and Fraser Valley, where it has been refused. It is, therefore, acceptable for Nanaimo to refuse it as well. Yes, Vancouver now sends it garbage to Cache Creek and many communities on Vancouver Island currently send off Island, as far away as the States. That does not make it any more reasonable or ethical to send Vancouvers waste to Nanaimo. In fact, in 2010 Vancouver adopted a bylaw that forbids mass incineration within its jurisdiction. Second, we are told that since we have existing emitters, including Harmac, an immediate neighbour of the proposal, we must accept this new emitter. This is fallacy. Harmac is an existing operation, providing existing jobs that pay to support existing families and existing mortgages. Harmac has been there for many decades and, over that time, has constantly been forced to improve its operations and reduce its footprint. Its water use and emissions have been reduced in the order of 90%. The fact we have drive through restaurants and poorly running vehicles does not argue for allowing any new emitter, but rather that we do a better job controlling and reducing those inputs. Third, the effort to reduce our flow of waste has been as a result of increasing environmental consciousness and a diminished land fill capacity that confronts our near term future. That pressure has resulted in broad public education campaigns to reduce, recycle and compost. Significant public investment has been made. Private operators have invested in the process. Nanaimo was commended at the last Union of BC Municipalities conference for achieving over 70% diversion of its municipally collected waste. Vancouver, on the other hand, diverts about 50%. This, despite the fact that Vancouver has endorsed a zero waste mandate. That mandate is important to my next point. Fourth, the WTE proposal creates a commodity of waste as a fuel. Recycling and material recovery also creates a value of waste, but for reuse. The two values placed on waste will compete. The incineration option will eliminate the motive to reduce. In fact, it will become an incentive to increase the waste stream. Vancouver has a zero waste mandate and even if they get half way there from their existing 50% diversion rate, the source of fuel for the WTE facility will be drastically reduced. the facility, to operate at a profit in generating power, will increasingly compete for trash and, according to energy prices, will out compete recycling and composting for the waste stream. It is my belief that WTE will effectively eliminate reduction, recycling and composting efforts on Vancouver Island. Fifth, if it is truly a regional and even provincial problem and solution, then we should view it that way in its entirety. How does it make sense, provincially, to ship waste in hundreds of barges from the principle source to outlying communities? Why have one hundred barges plying Georgia Straight from Vancouver to Nanaimo when you could have one barge from Nanaimo to a facility in Vancouver? Unless youre Seaspan, a partner in this project, and make your revenue by barging, how can that make economic or environmental sense? Sixth, our region has invested heavily in diversifying its economy. We have seen large public investment in supporting the tourism industry. One can question the wisdom of these investments but, the fact is, they have been made. From the cruise ship terminal, the convention centre to trails and parks. We have seen many significant small, medium and large private enterprises support that choice with investments in hotels, bed and breakfasts, kayaking and others. We have several local official community development plans, adopted after thorough consultations, none of which envision such a dramatic shift in focus. Finally, we live in a democracy. We have the right to say yes and the right to say no. The debate over the efficacy of the technology will rage on. I believe that the principles involved provide the grounds for refusal, regardless of the outcome of that technical debate. Proponents will portray opponents as being against development and jobs. That is ridiculous. All German Shepherds are dogs, not all dogs are German Shepherds. All good, community supporting, net gain jobs are jobs. Not all jobs are good net gains for our community. I have spent 10 years as an MLA. I am constantly trying to understand the people I represent and their values. I feel that I am safely and accurately representing the vast majority of those people when I express my opposition to this proposal. All of this cries out for us to find better answers. The positive side of this proposal, is that it has sparked greater awareness of the issue of waste creation and management and has created an opportunity to achieve better results. That, finally, brings me back on topic of this page. The discussion of how to avoid WTE and achieve better solutions. That is a discussion worth having and one that will create unity of purpose rather than division.
Posted on: Sat, 18 Jan 2014 15:18:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015