Recent comments

If you really know where to look behind the curtain, Germany has shown the world solar doesn't work, 102 countries now have solar grid parity?  There are none, Hawaii with all its annual sunlight hours and high cost of imported energy for electricity cannot make grid parity.  So much misinformation, solar electric has a long way to go before its affordable.  Why this wasted money keeps being spent on unaffordable solar is astonishing.  When technology catches up and solar is affordable, I am all for it, here in Nelson where the sun rarely shines, it will be a long long time before that makes any sense.

Hi Ken

You know I value your input on this stuff.  But I will rebut a couple of your points.

You argue that people should cut energy use because they want to, and not because they have access to taxpayer-funded subsidies. And you imply that a $1.6 million expenditure to save 1.4% of Rossland's greenhouse gas emissions is a bad investment of taxpayer dollars.

You know, because you and I have talked about this, that the final figures aren't out for the Energy Diet's first phase.  So we don't know whether it really was $1.6 million invested and 340 tonnes saved.  I'm skeptical, but let's assume for the sake of argument that those estimates are right.

The $1.6 million gets you a lot more than 340 tonnes.  In terms of GHG emissions it gets you that much every year until the repairs fail or the house falls down.  In terms of payback, if the investments are typical it will save homeowners enough in energy bills to pay off the investment in less than 10 years.  In terms of local employment for contractors etc., well $1.6 million has huge impacts.

So the only question is: is it legitimate for the government to spend money on those things? Well, some of the money actually came from Fortis, not the government, and they have a legislated mandate to save power rather than build more costly new capacity, so that's a good use of ratepayer money.  Some of it came from government, though. And yes, maybe you can argue that the government should not be paying to lower my power bill (though it should be paying to lower bills for low-income homeowners - a focus of the energy diet phase II). But can you argue that government has no business addressing climate change? Or addressing regional economic development?

When the final figures do come out we can have an informed discussion.  But for now, at the level of principle, we disagree on your assessment of the energy diet.

BTW, I plead guilty on the "fattest energy town in BC" thing.  But I don't think we ever said that, did we?  Pretty sure that was a reporter's wording, though I could be wrong.

Cheers,

Aaron

Adrian Dix was not the right leader for the NDP.   He had very little in the way of compaign piz-zaz that a public leader desperately  needs.  The heading bobbing, swaggering gate that Dix put forth when stepping off a bus or walking onto a stage was a turn off to say the least.  He was not a good speaker nor was he an in the trench warrior that is needed from a leader of a political party.

The Liberals were a dead horse by  way of their history in this province.  From the devistation done to the forest industry, to the pawning off the tax collection dirty work to the municipalities any other NDP leader could have buried Christy Clarke's, Liberals.  Non of the above was mentioned throughout the entire election.  The NDP campaign was soft and non-confratational right from the very beginning.   Politics is a no holds barred competition where the winner takes all.  Adrian Dix was not a slap back leader.  A leader who demonstrates meekness will and did kill a political party. 

Like her or not, Christy Clarke won every round throughout the campaign.  

I like roses and I would definitely plan to come to see this paradise of roses. It is really great good to see and know that the vegetables and roses are growing under the same roof.

colocation

IT NEVER FAILS TO AMAZE ME THAT THE 99% HAVE A HATE FOR CORPORATIONS OR THE 1% AND YET DISPROVE IT BY PUTTING IN A GOVERNMENT FINANCED BY BIG CORPORATIONS!!!! TELL ME PLEASE WHERE ARE THE BRAINS OF THE 99% AT ELECTION TIME?

...That is not the question.

When asked about their fondest dream, how often will people (often yonger ones) quickly declare "Peace on Earth"... however they can't even make peace with their brother and sisters.

The statu quo... the way that the senate is used is not an option. It might be very useful to reform or even abolish the senate. However this is almost like the pie in the sky dream of peace on earth.

Practically we should look at what is the main goal of that institution: "A sober second thought".

This means that all the senators should be only senators. It is inconceavable that the senate would just be a pale copy of the house of commons with the grouping of the participants under the same political banners.

A Senator should be a totally impartial person whose judgement will not be tainted by a close association to any political party.

A Senator should not be allowed to participate in any overt political activity (fund raising, campaining).

A Senator should be focussing only on giving a "sober, impartial, fair, second thought".

The lack of total, primordial and blind commitment to the political views of any political party, might make it less probable that some decisions will be so devoid of common sense. That truth will be distorded to make it fit as neatly as possible with the views of a policitical party.

That a few senators abused the system with an unshakable sense of entitlement is not surprising. To have received their posting, most of the senators have the type of connections at the upper level that is a fertile ground for that sense of entitlement.

This is not the major issue. The major issue is the interpretation of the facts or distorsion of reality to prove their point of view. The political parties who are given these free munitions to annoy the currently guilty party, are much busier at making as much political mileage of the situation as to get at the source of the problem. And of course the guilty party will do anything to make the problem go away while providing as little ammunitions as possible to the other parties.

A tiny detail on the double majority, it is not 60%, it is "more than 50%". The real catch, however, is that this percentage is calculated on "the total number of registered voters in British Columbia", and the double majority aspect requires that "more than 50% of registered voters for each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts in British Columbia" vote in favour of an initiative.

If that standard - more than 50% of registered voters for each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts - were to be applied to form a majority government, we would never again see a majority government in this province.

That statute is a farce, a cynical and malicious one at that. 

Thanks, David. I'd like to add that our current mayor and councillors might well pass the vetting process you mention. Most people who run at the municipal level are just trying to be good citizens and take a lot of flack (much of it from the Telegraph here in Rossland!).

But I agree that we'd all benefit from the widest array of candidates possible.--ed.

I much agree Adrian.

There are many problems with the system, and I think the primary one is the way our "leaders" are chosen.

As in every riding, there are a few deidicated souls, some sincere, some for ulterior motives, who join a particular local party, who then chose a leader among themselves.

Then we are left to choose from one of those selected by each party.

Doesn't makes sense. Like I always say, there are elected officials, and then there are community leaders.

It's normal in any community for certain people to gain the respect of the others, and the community would normally accept assigning them certain responsibiltieis on behalf of the others.

But in our current "democracy" we have no system for moving those people respected by the community into positions of authority.

Instead, we have a few people who feel entitled to self-appoint themselves to run for office. In very rare cases, that's a good thing. But most of the time, those candicates have only been vetted by the handful in their own party, not the community as a whole.

I think it's time we reinvented the process by which we choose who will represent us.

I think to start with, for the next municipal election in Rossland, we should gather committees that would make proposals of who they consider most qualitfied for City Council, and ask them to run.

I firmly believe that most often, the best people to represent others tend to be too humble to step forward. And that's a good quality.

It should be the community's job to make our choice known to a certain candidate, and encourage them to run on our behalf.

Then the community can come out and vote and confirm which they think are ultimately the best choices.

I've got no love for the Liberals—zero—but the map's pretty clear that whoever it was who came out to the polls in BC's rural interior, with the exception of our pocket in the southeast, they were swinging hard for the Liberals. Big, fat, money-grubbing, resource-sucking, democracy-deaf red all over the place...

A little proportional representation would go a long way towards dealing with tiny margins that turn into hefty majorities, and it might inspire more people to vote too.

Valid points, Sjeng. But how do you square the circle of knowing a candidate based on the policies advocated by the party under whose banner she is running, when that same candidate, after being elected, is free to take a position at odds with that promoted by the party?

An example of that was the dilemma created for the Conservative candidate in the Skeena riding. The Conservative Party supported Enbridge's Northern Gateway project, but their local candidate stated his opposition to it. When questioned by local media, his explanation was that under the policies of his party, elected representatives would have the freedom to represent their constituents when that position is in conflict with the party's stand (I don't know, but I must assume that he was not lying).

So, pro or con Northern Gateway, how does a voter determine which way a vote will be cast on D-Day? How does an elected MLA determine what her constituents want, after the election, if not by referendum?