Can anyone explain just what the hell the Premier is talking about? Does he have any idea?
“The straight line that could be built would trap Manitoba’s future.”
How saving hundreds of millions in construction costs and lost electricity, and providing economic opportunity to impoverished aboriginal communities will “trap our future” is completely beyond my grasp.
If he honestly believes this is the right choice for Manitoba, then rather than addressing the issue through news releases and one-liners, I wish he’d actually sit down with someone from the media and give an in-depth explanation as to his rationale.
How will preserving every last tree in this forest benefit Joe and Jane Manitoban and their kids? What is the real threat of developing a utility corridor in this area? How does a hydro line differ from the proposed road development in the area, and couldn’t the two be combined?
I want real answers, not rhetoric. Real leadership, not environmental posturing.
Filed under: Uncategorized | Tagged: Manitoba Hydro, Manitoba NDP, gary doer, province of manitoba, manitoba hydro line
In one of my environmental classes at the U of M we looked at the proposed hydro line in relation to the boreal woodland caribou. Apparently the animals can become displaced and disoriented if there is even a one time noise or land disturbance in their area, and the unfamiliarity of a service road and humming hydro lines would drastically alter their relationship to their habitat. Fertility drops are a concern as the animals don’t mate unless they feel safe. The herds are already at record low numbers and they are listed as endangered. From what I was told (unverified) the government (federal or provincial ?) would step in and stop any development even if they wanted to go ahead with it.
This information was followed with a raging class debate about the importance of the caribou. Are they worth millions of tax payers dollars? The class was split.
“…a raging class debate about the importance of the caribou.”
I don’t know why, but that sounds very funny to me.
Surely we could tend to the needs of the displaced caribou and other wildlife for a fraction of the savings we’d enjoy from building on the east side, no?
And won’t wildlife along the western route be equally disturbed?
Alright, I must admit. It was more like a polite side taking discussion with hands up and turn waiting. But boy, were some good points made.
One argument that ecologists said was that the West side is the caribou’s niche and that there is no suitable other location to relocate them to.
The other argument is that the caribou take up so much darned space for their habitat that the cost / benefit is hard to justify.
On the other hand, we can’t just let a keystone species die off, especially when the cost is affordable. The ramifications for an ecosystem when a species as important as the caribou dissappears is exponential, yet entirely unpredictable. For every species that goes extinct due to human activity, it is another nail in our own coffin.
On the other hand etc etc etc.
Oh, I meant the East side was the caribou’s niche.
And to answer your last question: While the West side would be longer and potentially cut down more trees, cutting down more trees doesn’t not necessarily equal environmental degradation. The West side ecosystems and animals are more resilient and would probably handle the disturbance of a construction crew better (so I’ve been told.)
I love the caribou, they’re delicious. But I have a hard time believing that for $25-$50-$100 million we couldn’t figure out a way to preserve the caribou and other native wildlife while still building the hydro line.
Then again, I don’t really know, because no one has bothered to seriously look at the issue. The government made its mind up some time ago, based primarily on the UNESCO heritage site argument. An argument that has since been proven false by the man who used to chair the very committee that makes decisions on these things.
Now Doer simply talks in generic terms about “preserving our future”, and how this piece of forest is precious and magical. The language is so flowery, I’m starting to wonder if there’s dragons and Smurfs hiding in there.
One thing I haven’t heard them talk about yet is the caribou. You do raise a fair point though, it’s just too bad the province isn’t letting anyone seriously research and debate the issue.
In all the debate about the Bi-pole 3 East Side route, it is amazing that people’s comments show great concern about some possible ill effects on caribou but little mention is made about leaving a dozen or so First Nations in poverty. Since when is alleged risk to caribou more imprtant than native people living in poverty. Don’t Native communities deserve Hydro, a highway, employment opportunities and easier access to all amenities including health care.
Gary Doer’s stand on Bi-Pole 3 is disgusting, He has no respect for the native communities.
I realize that I’m late to the discussion here, but just wanted to add a couple of things:
“The West side ecosystems and animals are more resilient” .. that is not necessarily the case: according to this website (http://www.bipole3.ca/) the west route could damage a threatened Aspen parkland.
Also PolicyFrog & Mr Waddell: Gary Doer thinks you’re simple: “The debate on the transmission line will be a difficult debate. Simplicity is on the other side,” Doer said. (found this on Pissing in the Tent)
I realize I’m also late to this discussion, I just stumbled upon this blog today, and it’s not too too old yet, so I’ll comment.
I’m well along into my studies in Ecology, and work with Manitoba Conservation in the summer. The issue at hand isn’t “what about the caribou” or that theres “nowhere to relocate them to.”
The thing is, simply, the larger tract of untouched ecosystem, the more valuable it is. Not monetary value per se, but ecologically valuable. See; Galapagos Islands, and places in New Guinea. The Boreal Forest could indeed be one of these areas, but not if roads and hydro lines are built through it.
Roads destroy that delicate balance. Any sort of activity. Even though a single hydro line seems relatively insignificant, it changes things. I’m not sure if I can convince you in a reply like this that it does.
In a world where all eyes are on the Amazon, which gets cut down and “developed” without mercy, we have an oppurtunity in Manitoba, IMO, to take an initiative and preserve something like this. Right now it’s rare, it’s unique. There are fewer and fewer and fewer places left like this to preserve.
What if, 10 years ago, the entire East side was protected as a national forest? It might have been heralded. But now, the issue of a difference in building cost and efficiency apparantly overrides environmental considerations.
Say what you want about this, but what the hell do we need a new transmission line for? I wasn’t under the impression that we were short on electricity here in Manitoba. If Hydro is selling this power for profit, routing the line down the west side seems like a small price to pay.