I don't blame you. Choosing between the parties in this provincial election is like choosing between a light grey Chevy Malibu and a dark grey Chevy Malibu. If only a bright red Dodge Challenger SRT8 was available...
So far in this election, the boldest idea has come from the Green Party: free bus fare. The second boldest idea has come from the Liberals: relax Sunday shopping laws. Both the Greens and the Liberals are holding back on the excessive spending promises, meanwhile the NDP and PC parties are dropping money bags from helicopters. Unfortunately, neither the Liberals or Greens have a chance in this election. John Gerrard may get re-elected as the Liberal's only seat, meanwhile Green Party leader James Beddome is an underdog in Wolseley and no other Green candidate even has a shot.
The realistic discussion pertains to the NDP and the PCs, but when you look at the two main parties from a high level they look pretty much the same:
CRIME
NDP: more cops on the street
PC: more cops on the street
HEALTH CARE
NDP: more doctors and nurses
PC: more doctors and nurses
ECONOMY
NDP: won't balance the budget
PC: won't balance the budget
TAXES
NDP: minor tax credits with no significant tax reform
PC: minor tax credits with no significant tax reform
EVERYTHING ELSE
NDP: spend lots of money
PC: spend lots of money
Rather than campaigning on ideas, the NDP is campaigning on things the PCs might do, and the PCs are campaigning on things the NDP failed to do. The only difference is the NDP has a track record, and the PCs do not. Whether you think that track record is good or bad may be your deciding factor in voting, but if you're looking for something to tip the balance, this should be it:
BIPOLE III
I haven't blogged about Bipole III 2,587,398 times because I think it's just that interesting. I've written about it because it's an irreversible and extremely costly decision, and also because I have a very low tolerance for idiotic behaviour. The NDP government has routinely addressed problems by throwing money at them rather than making any sort of difficult decision, and this is the most extreme example of that, except in this case there is more at stake than just money.
Let's just cover the main aspects:
COST: The west route will cost about $1 billion more. That's "billion" with a "B". This is if we build additional capacity with Keeyask and Conawapa. If we scrap our export plans because they turn out to be too high-risk or may result in losses for Manitoba Hydro, then the East side route will not require converters, saving us an additional $2 billion, for a total of $3 billion savings.
FOREST: The argument is that the last piece of "pristine" boreal forest east of Lake Winnipeg need to be protected. A) the forest east of Lake Winnipeg is not pristine. There are mines and communities and roads and other things. B) Even if it were "pristine", there are thousands of square KMs of pristine forest elsewhere, from Labrador to the Northwest Territories, in the vast Boreal forest. C) Even if it were the last piece of pristine forest in Canada, the government has already promised to damage it even more than a HVDC line would by zigzagging a new road right through it. D) There are scarce aspen parklands to the west of the lakes. I don't know to what extent the preferred route impacts them, but I know it was a concern in the routing study. E) The west side route plows through as much forest as the east side route. In terms of the quantity of lumber produced, it's a saw-off. (haha, get it? "saw off". Anyways ...)
LINE LOSSES: The amount of electricity burned off in transmission depends on the how close to capacity the lines are running, but whatever the amount, it will be much greater for the west side lines. The cost in lost exports will be in the tens of millions of dollars each year. These lost exports have another cost too: pollution. The wasted 'clean' hydro energy will not displace 'dirty' fossil fuel energy in the US, resulting in thousands of tonnes of additional green-house gas pollution each year. How green is that?
CARIBOU: Yes, there is a threatened caribou herd on the east side of the lake. Based on the 2005 Caribou survey, there are also four or so caribou herds that might be impacted by the west-side line, at least three of which are threatened. Furthermore, these herds have less territory to maneuver than the east-side herd, who's territory extends right into Northern Ontario.
UNESCO: A) A UNESCO official is on record as saying that the east side route will not preclude UNESCO designation. B) the government hasn't even applied for UNESCO designation. C) the east side line would only graze one corner of the proposed UNESCO site, and D) In what way is a UNESCO designation worth $1 billion anyhow?
LAND USE: Aside from forest, there is agricultural land to consider, and to this point, the west side route involves huge compromises. Land owners will need to be compensated; route adjustments will probably be required to avoid owners who refuse to be bought out (since Hydro will not expropriate), further increasing the cost; aerial spraying will be difficult or impossible to do safely along the route, impacting farm productivity; etc ...
EXPORTS: The argument that an east side line will somehow risk exports to the US is laughable. Environmental groups can't stop the US from buying every drop of oil sands petroleum that we can give them. On what grounds could they prevent the US from buying clean power? There are parties who are associated with power producers in the US who want the exports blocked because Hydro is a competitor, but they don't give a shit what side of the lake the route goes down. Honestly. It's preposterous. In fact, this Hydro report suggests that export sales could be compromised by the west side route, because it can't supply reliable power.
RELIABILITY: The west side route would be much less reliable because A) it is in an area of the province that is more prone to tornados and other weather-related disasters, and B) it's a longer route and therefore has more potential to be damaged.
ENERGY SECURITY: Should the Interlake lines go down, the west route would NOT be able to support our energy commitments, whereas the east-side route could carry the load.
TECHNICAL: Lastly, there are other technical aspects of the Bipole line that I can't begin to explain because I don't understand them, but what I understand is this: Hydro engineers prefer the east route. In fact, the east route is not just preferable ... it is the only route that makes sense from a technical perspective. In addition, the west route could require us to build another bipole line 25 years sooner. (source)
In the televised debate, Greg Selinger berated Hugh McFadyen for his "reckless" plan to move the bipole line to the east side. Only Greg would call accepting the advice of engineers, reducing pollution, protecting our energy security and saving $1 billion reckless. The venom and conviction with which Greg lied about the east side route was almost shocking. This isn't a matter of opinion. This isn't a case where each side has equivalent pros and cons that have to be weighed. This is a case where the east side route is superior in every tangible respect, and the costs of going the other way are enormous and long-lasting.
So if there is one issue in this election that should turn your vote, make it this one.
*edit*
here are a couple of other related blogs
stumbling
TTNTBS
dobbin
ice & grain with a good post
Monday, 26 September 2011
MANITOBA ELECTION: STILL UNDECIDED?
Posted by cherenkov 13 comments
Labels: Greg Selinger, Hugh McFadyen, I hate elections, James Beddome, Jon Gerrard, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro
Saturday, 24 September 2011
Brain Dump for Saturday, September 24
Posted by cherenkov 5 comments
Labels: blogs, just sayin'..., little birdie, Obamarama, politics
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
The NEW Winnipeg Jets!
Posted by cherenkov 3 comments
Labels: NHL, sports, Winnipeg Jets, wish list
Monday, 19 September 2011
The leaders go downtown. (Most of them).
Two blocks down from where two people got shot half a day earlier, the Provincial leadership candidates got together for a debate on downtown issues. Most of then anyhow. Greg Selinger sent one of his ministers, just as he did with the Bipole debate earlier.
Posted by cherenkov 11 comments
Labels: Hugh McFadyen, I hate elections, James Beddome, Jon Gerrard, Manitoba
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Manitoba election checkpoint
Well, the election campaign has been underway for a couple of weeks or something by now, and the election day is only, um, a couple weeks or something away, so now is a good time to review how each of the parties are doing:
PC
See Brian's blog for more on the missed opportunities by the Conservatives.
them.
Posted by cherenkov 0 comments
Labels: I hate elections, Manitoba
Friday, 16 September 2011
Update on Longboat development
The big downtown development announcement this summer was an impressive new 20-story hotel/office/retail building across from the MTS Centre at Portage & Donald. (OMC / Me) In the comments of my post on that, fellow blogger Bryan Scott wondered about the future of the Alabama Building and the tenants within. Well, now we know ...
I picked up some information today as I was ordering my clubhouse sandwich at the Wagon Wheel restaurant. The owners of the Wagon Wheel were informed yesterday that their building on Hargrave would be torn down. The Alabama Building containing Bryan's favorite Ethiopean restaurant on Ellice and Hargrave will disappear as well, to make way for a parkade.
But fear not my hungry friends. Arrangements are being made to revive at least the Wagon Wheel. I don't know about the other tenants, but I am sure they have all been made offers of some kind as well. The new location is up in the air at the moment. It could be in a storefront on Donald in the primary building, or in a retail location on the main floor of the parkade. In anycase, the lady at the Wagon Wheel seemed pretty confident that the diner would continue on, which is good news for anybody who likes clubhouse sandwiches. Perhaps they can add a few more booths and a washroom.
Posted by cherenkov 3 comments
Labels: food, PSA., Winnipeg, wrecking ball
Sunday, 11 September 2011
Waterfront hotel experiencing development hostility
What a glorious day it was yesterday. I stood outside as the sweet warm breeze ruffled my hair, and airplane vapor trails hung in the blue sky like scattered chopsticks. Yet here I was thinking about Gordon Sinclair. Damn you, Sinclair.
Now, apparently, a former premier of our province, and our mayor and city council are going to finish the job.Play the pipes loudly, today boys.And bang the drums slowly.
- If this area deserved to be reclaimed as green space, the city should have acted long ago. The time to decide that an area should be a park is not at the 11th hour after a RFPs have been solicited, proposals submitted, and designs approved by a city hall committee. The Upper Fort Garry debacle was damaging, not just because a critical development had been stopped, but because it was stopped at the last minute after the developer had gone through all the hoops, had a contractual agreement to build and made additional compromises to appease opponents. Continual behaviour like this will drive developers away.
- There is already a building on-site: the old brick Harbourmaster Building. We can either tear it down, leave it sitting vacant and deteriorating, or re-purpose it as part of a new development. Which option do you think is best?
- The Sunstone development will link the greenspace on either side: "The plan also calls for pedestrian walkways to link up with existing riverfront pathways" -fp-
- The development of the east Exchange is tenuous. Additional development is required to reach that critical mass that will turn it into a thriving community. A hotel and restaurant will help.
Posted by cherenkov 10 comments
Labels: Complete loss of perspective, mainstream media, Upper Fort Garry
Tuesday, 6 September 2011
New Winnipeg Jets jerseys
Hey there. Here is a quickie post to let you know that I'm still alive. Due to a recent career change the posting has been a little sparse lately, but I can't let something as important as the Jets uniforms to go uncommented.
Much like the logo, the jerseys are not bad but not quite right either. The colours are sharp in jersey format and the logo has found it's home right in the middle of the chest like a bullseye. I think where the uniforms go wrong is with the arms, and in particular the stripes on the sleeves.
The horizontal strips are low down on the sleeves and give the appearance of the uniform being bottom heavy because they create visual width below the mid-point of the uniform, while there is nothing up top to balance that. This is more pronounced on the white uniform, but the dark one also has that width down low.
If you are a pear-shaped Jets fan, this is bad news for you. Fortunately, other than the Dustin Byfuglien, none of the Jets are currently pear-shaped. Furthermore, the jerseys should appear more balanced when the players are all geared up with the shoulder pads. If I buy one -- and I probably will -- it will probably be blue.
For my analysis of the logo, click here.
For my original jersey concept, click here.
Posted by cherenkov 2 comments
Labels: NHL, Winnipeg Jets