We are another week closer to the provincial election and the suspense is palatable. The excitement is building to a fevered pitch. It is all anyone can talk about!
Except of course, it is not.
Unlike our neighbours to the south, we do not engage in a perpetual election cycle. Direct advertising for candidates and parties is limited to a prescribed time period. Ditto with campaign signs and associated propaganda.
We have a much more civilized election process in common with many other democracies around the world. We have at least a few months to go before the upcoming provincial election really invades the 24 news cycle and our collective consciousness.
That said there are issues which we should be having a protracted and serious conversation about over the next 167 days. Public debate about important issues is healthy and a necessary component of a functioning democracy.
As I pointed out last week, one of the major issues in the upcoming election should be the environment. Not just the carbon tax but how are we going to proceed forward as a province on any number of environmental issues.
Ironically, all of the parties are likely to try and claim the environment.
It is obviously the home territory of the Green Party. It is in their name. A green environment - a natural environment unsullied by human enterprise - is a common interpretation of what "being green" is all about. A slightly less excessive view argues for harmony between human enterprises and environmental demands.
Unfortunately, it is hard to reconcile our economy's insatiable demand for resources with a pristine environment, particularly as the world's population is rising at a rate of 200,000 people every day. Yes, Canada still has a population density under 10 people per square kilometre but the same can't be said for the rest of the world.
Can the Greens truly provide an alternative structure to our economy which will blend growth with a sustainable environment? What would that look like? More to the point, what would be the trade-offs in such an economy?
The same questions could be asked of the New Democrats. Their policies seem to be responding to the BC Liberals and declaring everything they are doing as "wrong," without laying out a working plan for blending future economic growth with preserving the environment. It is all well and good to oppose something but what is offered as an alternative?
The BC Liberals are a little more nakedly transparent in their views.
They tell us natural gas is "clean fuel." No, it is not. However, it is cleaner than coal. And if electricity is going to be generated by a fossil fuel burning power plant, then methane is a better choice. More kilowatts per kilogram of carbon dioxide produced.
But it is not a clean fuel. And tying the economic future of the province to natural gas production is shortchanging our children and grandchildren.
The BC Liberals have also been pushing forward with Site C. A hydro-electric dam is relatively clean energy. The carbon dioxide emissions per kilowatt-hour produced are insignificant compared to other forms of energy production.
However, there is a huge cost to a dam. The reservoir will cover 93.3 square kilometres, much of which is prime farmland. That is an area about one third the size of Prince George. Not an insubstantial amount.
Do we need the electricity? Opponents argue much of it will be surplus right now. Proponents point out as the population of the province continues to grow and our economy expands, eventually we will be using it all.
In the meantime, we can sell the electricity on the North American grid and make a tidy profit.
The balancing of competing demands is the fundamental to all the parties as they reconcile their economic aspirations with an environmental platform.
Growth drives the economy but it also results in a larger population. It necessitates more infra-structure and more land converted into housing sub-divisions, industrial sites, and shopping malls. It demands more resources - mining, forestry, agriculture, and oil and gas activity.
If a political party wants to ensure it is elected, it has to have a platform based on a healthy, growing economy. How to do that within a sustainable environmental framework is the question. I would respectfully suggest in our province, no one has figured out how to do this yet.
The environment will be front and centre during the election but the parties really won't have "the answer." Each will have "an answer." Two of the major parties will argue they can do much better if given the chance to govern despite no evidence to back it up. Meanwhile the BC Liberals will argue they have done a very good job of balancing the economy and the environment.
A real debate will only happen through public engagement.
