Churchill River mega-dam bad for Canada

The announcement today by the Harper Government today that it will provide a loan guarantee for the Lower Churchill River mega-dam is troubling for a number of reasons, including:

1)    the electricity is not needed as claimed and the scheme is based on flawed economics;
2)    alternatives were not seriously evaluated or considered, including a wind project proposed by the Metis Nation to produce 1000 megawatts of power;
3)    it’s bad for the aquatic ecosystem, the environment and climate change;
4)    it’s bad for the livelihoods of those who will be displaced, including the Innu and NunatuKavut nations;
5)    it undermines the federal environmental assessment process - which has not yet been completed - sending a clear message that the Harper government won't let laws that protect Canada's environment get in the way of business; and
6)    by picking winners and losers, the Harper government not only unfairly rewards some provinces with huge investments while ignoring others, it distorts the marketplace for truly sustainable energy technologies and potential alternatives.

Background Information:

The Churchill River, which is known to the Innu community as the Mishta Shipu (Grand River), is the largest river in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The river runs through 4 eco-regions and provides habitat for a rich community of species. The river also holds a long heritage with the Innu and NunatuKavut nations. Archeological sites dating back 3000 years have been located along the coast of the river. If the proposed hydroelectric project is built, the river, and the livelihood the river provides, will be lost forever.

Large-scale hydroelectric projects do not provide green energy. Elevated levels of greenhouse gas emissions are produced by vegetation that rots as a result of being submerged during the creation of reservoirs. The Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Generation Project will result in water levels rising 300 feet and the flooding of 121 square-km.

Methyl mercury, also produced from rotting vegetation and turbine aeration, is another lethal by-product of mega dams. Methyl mercury is easily absorbed by fish and as a result quickly works its way up the food chain. If the Lower Churchill project is built the local communities will no longer be able to consume the river’s fish due to risks of toxic bioaccumulation. However, other species cannot know to abstain from eating toxic fish. As a result the entire ecosystem will feel the impacts of the toxins.

Lastly, it is often argued, as it is being done in this case, that building mega dams will benefit local communities. Building a dam does not last forever, however the destruction of a river does. There is no guarantee that the local community will receive construction jobs from this project, and for those who do, the jobs will be temporary. Additionally, the community will not be receiving any of the energy produced from the project. What real benefits will the community receive in return for the everlasting transformation of their home and heritage?

Other longstanding opportunities could be had for the surrounding communities if the river is spared. Not only would the people of Happy Valley Goose-Bay be able to continue to celebrate and practice a way of life which is dependent on the river, less damaging activities, such as ecotourism, would have the opportunity to emerge and provide longstanding, not short-term, economic benefits.

RELATED:

Lower Churchill Hydro: Green Power or Greenwash?

World Commission on Dams and Development: A New Framework for Decision-Making

Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency - Lower Churchill Hydroelectric Project

John Bennett, Executive Director
Sierra Club Canada
(613) 291-6888
jb@sierraclub.ca