This week I spoke with two very different young residents of Dawson Creek, B.C. to get their opinions on Site C Dam, a proposed project 80 kilometres northwest of Dawson Creek (and just seven kilometres southwest of it’s neighbor, Ft. St. John) which has been deeply controversial due to the tradeoff between environmental damage and economic gain. The purpose of these interviews is to encourage peaceful, meaningful dialogue on the issue, with both sides given proper respect. When it comes to issues like this violence is always the result of a lack of communication and a lack of respect, so I would encourage all who read this to go in with an open mind and a sense of respect for those you disagree with. These are the virtues that keep us together and keep us alive. Let’s protect that.

Some quick facts before we get to the interviews:

-The dam will cost $8.3 billion in total.

-But will increase the provincial GDP (gross domestic product) by about $130 million after construction.

-The dam will, however, flood an estimated 5550 hectares of land, including wildlife habitats, heritage sites, and agricultural land, much of which is rumoured to be of very high quality (Classes 1 and 2). -The dam is expected to provide 33,000 person-years of work through development and construction.

For reasons of personal security I’ll address my interviewees as “Q” and “Z.”

Q is a current student of nursing at the University of Alberta, just about to enter her third year, and grew up in Dawson Creek, being engaged in the performing arts community in particular. Like most people in her situation, she returns to Dawson in the summers for work and is concerned about the direction the discussion of Site C is going:

Scott: So Q, my first question is, are you for or against the Site C dam in Northeast BC, and what’s the main reason behind your opinion?

Q: I’m against it, partly because of the mismanagement of it by the government in regard to safety and environmental protocols, and also because I think there are other options that have been ignored.

Scott: Other options for energy production?

Q: Yes, exactly.

Scott: So what do you think would be the best alternative for energy production in BC as opposed to Site C?

Q: We definitely have a lot of potential for a lot more wind power, I know the wind turbines here are doing well (referring to the Bear Mountain Wind Park, which features 34 wind turbines south of Dawson Creek), and solar, of course, and I believe geothermal has a lot of potential.

Scott: Do you think that, regardless of opposition, the Site C will be constructed anyway? Or do you think maybe if there’s enough opposition that it could be stopped?

Q: I think it will probably happen… I don’t want to be that person who says “Don’t bother”-

Scott: I don’t think anyone does…

Q: … But the realist or pessimist in me thinks that unless we get a new government, provincially specifically, anyone that supports the environment more, or has a better idea of what’s really going on up here (in the north) would make the biggest difference.

Scott: So as I’m sure you’ve heard, there’s recently been some violence in Dawson Creek where a man wielding a knife at a meeting about Site C was shot by police, and there have been several protests, do you think there will be more violence and protests around the issue?

Q: Yes, in general the less people are heard the louder they try to be, there doesn’t seem to be much communication happening, so that’s what frustrates people. I heard they placed the “Paddle for the Peace” people on a terrorist watchlist, which is just absurd and just adds to the problem of a lack of dialogue.

(Strangely enough, what Q says is true, Paddle for the Peace [Paddleforthepeace]was reported to be on a watchlist for potential terrorism, however the report in question showed that the federal government did not expect “public order issues.” [Toronto Star])

Scott: Do you think if there was more dialogue, more engagement, do you think that would reduce the chance of violence?

Q: Yes, but it’s one thing to listen, and another to actually take it to heart. If that guy who got shot was being aggressive because of the public meeting, then I think it’s hard to say how helpful dialogue can be if it just looks like meaningless PR.

Scott: Last question, it’s a tough one seeing as you’re against the dam, but if it does finally get built, do you think it’d be better for BC’s economy in the short term or in the long term?

Q: I think probably the short term, considering that after construction is finished I imagine the jobs it produces will be cut in half, and what remains won’t be available to a lot of people. (The construction camp accommodations looks to peak at housing 1,600 workers a year during construction, while jobs operating the dam itself will number somewhere around 200 according to most estimates that are posted) It’ll be good for the people who have the opportunity to be involved in it, but irrelevant economically to everyone else. And in any case you can say “Jobs!” as much as you want and people will jump on that, but construction isn’t a long term career for a lot of people.

Scott: Thank you!

Q: You’re very welcome.

Z is a recent graduate from SAIT Polytechnic in Calgary, AB. He also grew up in Dawson Creek, even graduating in the same class as Q, and like Q came back to Dawson Creek to work in the summers. Z currently commutes to Taylor, BC to work as a gas plant operator.

Scott: So, just to start off, in general are you for or against the Site C dam, and what’s the main reason behind that?

Z: Well I’m for it, and the biggest reason would be that it’s more of a renewable resource than thermal generation,

Scott: Than geothermal?

Z: No, sorry, thermal generation from gas or coal, and the technology for generation from water is better than what we have for nuclear currently.

Scott: Do you think it’d be better in the short run for BC, or in the long run? Is there a difference to you?

Z: Oh definitely better in the long run, because we have all that land that will get flooded (about 5,550 hectares), we’ll lose a lot of crop production…

Scott: Construction contractors will do pretty well in those years.

Z: Yeah, but long term the energy generation that thing will put out in the 100 years it’s supposed to last will be so much more valuable.

Scott: Can you talk about the alternatives to Site C?

Z: Yeah, so let’s talk about gas and coal first. Where I work we have gas turbines, and they’re very efficient. In the U.S. they mostly have a lot of coal producing their electricity which is much more polluting. So even though gas is a lot cleaner than coal they’re both not great, they both produce a lot of greenhouse gases. Thermonuclear… We don’t really know what we’d do with the waste here in Canada, it’s awesome because the energy it produces is very dense, but when they meltdown they meltdown hard, so at this point it needs to develop more as an industry before I’d trust it. Windmills are a good option, they don’t take up too much land compared to other production methods-

Scott: Do you think windmills are more cost efficient as a dam?

Z: No, they don’t produce nearly as much energy. I’d maybe be concerned about how much forest would need to be cleared but I think we’re doing okay on Bear Mountain for that so maybe it wouldn’t be so bad. Solar, I don’t really know much about solar, I know that it’s not as efficient…

Scott: I know China is developing solar, they just had a plane fly for over three months powered only by solar.

Z: It could be developed but right now I don’t think it’s a better option than water because solar panels are so expensive to make. I think geothermal is cool, I learned about it at school, but I don’t know how much power you could get out of it. I believe that hydro is definitely the most energy dense, the most renewable source of energy Canada has right now.

Scott: Do you think the dam will be built anyway, despite the opposition?

Z: Yeah, I think so. I mean, there was probably opposition to every dam that was ever built. It is troublesome though, because of the damage it’ll do to farmlands and Indian Reserves and such.

Scott: As far as the shooting that happened, the guy who was shot had just been protesting Site C, do you think there will be more violence linked to the issue?

Z: I think there’s gonna be a lot of protests, it could get out of hand. I do hope that the violence will die out over time, anyway. I heard someone hacked the RCMP’s database and leaked the name of the cop who shot the guy, and I don’t think that’s right, I’m sure they have bigger concerns than picking on a guy who made a mistake.

Scott: What do you think people should know most about the project?

Z: For school I did a project about energy production, and I know that Canada produces the second most hydro energy in the world, and that’s clean energy that provided for 59% of our electricity in 2007.

Scott: Do you think it’d be a good economic move to push for more innovation as far as energy production?

Z: Yeah, especially for clean energy like water and wind. I think people will be opposed to anything worthwhile, it’s a matter of actually talking things out.

Scott: Rather than it being an us vs. them type situation?

Z: Exactly.

Scott: Thanks Z.

Z: You’re welcome.

If you have more questions about Site C and the issues surrounding it, you can visit the website maintained by BC Hydro, [Site C Project] and for further news coverage of the issue I would recommend starting here [CBC] with CBC.

Readers, remember: Speak carefully, listen clearly, and be excellent to each other. Next week will be some coverage of the road to the federal election campaign, outlining some of the key political moments of the summer so far.