(1) 250.472.8528
andrew.weaver.mla@leg.bc.ca

With a recent Supreme Court decision in place, the year-round ski resort on Jumbo Glacier is one step closer to development. If built, the resort will be the first of its kind in North America. It will also likely be the last of its kind, ever, because at a fundamental level, it simply does not make sense.

If fully completed, the 20-year, billion-dollar development is expected to be the only resort in North America where patrons will be able to ski year-round. The project has been hotly contested since its inception 23 years ago. Throughout this period, it has faced significant local opposition from special interest groups, local communities, and First Nations. Most recently the Ktunaxa First Nations brought the resort before the BC Supreme Court, arguing that its development violated a sacred area for the Ktunaxa Nation. The court has now ruled in favour of the developer, removing one more barrier to the resort’s construction.

But does this development make sense?

Development happens, change happens, and there will always be proponents and opponents of specific projects. Yet, in the case of the Jumbo Glacier Resort, there are a few facts that appear to undermine the viability of the project.

First, the science is clear: The whole concept of a long-term, all-season ski resort is slowly but surely becoming a fantasy. Glaciers across BC are melting and Jumbo Glacier is no exception. It is expected that by 2100, Jumbo Glacier will be largely non-existent. In fact, just looking at the period between 1985 and 2005, the entire Southeastern BC glacial region lost, on average, roughly 15% of its mass. Yet while the science is forecasting increased melting, according to the developer’s own plan it will still take over 20 years to build the proposed resort. This means that by the time the resort is fully operational a further 20 years of melting will have also occurred. The fact is, climate change is eliminating the viability of year-round glacial skiing and as it does so, it is turning Jumbo Resort into an increasingly risky investment.

Second, the Jumbo Resort clearly lacks a social license to continue. Over the last decade, media, governing bodies and special interest groups have conducted several polls and surveys that serve to highlight the significant local opposition to this project. For example, in the 2004 Environmental Assessment over 90% of the thousands of comments received were in opposition to the project. There has been significant local opposition to the idea of the resort from its inception and there continues to be strong opposition from the Ktunaxa First Nation.

Finally, the fact that the provincial government has used $250,000 to create a municipality that has no residents and no infrastructure is troublesome, given the real needs that exist in our province. How this is a good use of taxpayer money or a sound investment decision are both good questions.

Until this week, Jumbo Resort had a deadline to begin construction by this fall, or it would have to undergo a new environmental assessment. Unfortunately, the provincial cabinet passed an order in council this week that may exempt Jumbo Resort from undergoing this assessment. This change is particularly troublesome given the advancements in climate science and in our knowledge of glacier melting, both of which have evolved significantly since Jumbo underwent its last environmental assessment in 2004.

The fact is, the more we learn about glacier science, the less a resort like Jumbo makes sense. Given this, it’s hard to understand why the provincial government is subsidizing and promoting the development of a project that faces significant local opposition and flies in the face of our best scientific understanding of climatic trends.

Twenty years ago we may have thought this project had a promising future. Now we know that future is bleak.

35 Comments

  1. Monroe-
    May 3, 2014 at 7:10 am

    As Ronald Reagan used to say, “There you go again”. Your crystal ball speaks to you but to bad the facts don’t stand up to your “bleak” predictions. Tornados down, hurricanes down, temperature steady for over a decade. Crop production up. Artic ice, up. Sure, it will change like the climate/weather has always done. But don’t we have a lot to be happy about? Isn’t the world a great place? The third world is feeding itself and living better. Humans live longer. Isn’t that good?

  2. Monroe-
    April 30, 2014 at 6:53 am

    Mr. Weaver

    Have you been up to the Jumbo glacier area? My bet is those glaciers will be there in 50 and 100 years. Computer models are one thing, jobs are another. Big Green will throw away economics for politics anyday.

    The Apocalypse should be kept for movies. There are real people out here who wouldn’t mind the work and their kids being able to stay in the valley with jobs.

    • April 30, 2014 at 1:07 pm

      Actually, as I pointed out, they are already down 15% by volume between 1985 and 2005. You may bet they’ll be there by the end of this century – that’s fine. But are you willing to stake a billion dollars on it? That is what an investor would do.

  3. Monroe-
    April 27, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    This year on the way south, I stopped by Mt Shasta. The locals there told me the glaciers have been growing. My question is: With sun activity down and possibly more snow and cold on the way and if glaciers worldwide start to increase, will that be because of “Global Warming”?

    • April 27, 2014 at 8:41 pm

      Glacier dynamics is governed by mass balance. Sorry, increased length of melting season + feedbacks preclude their increase. And the very small solar forcing reduction was occurring at precisely the time the warming was increasing.

  4. monroe-
    April 25, 2014 at 10:26 am

    I was hoping the “green”party was different. All the NDP and Mr. McDonald wants is to always poke the finger in the eye of small bussiness and that seems to be where you are at.

    Mr. Weaver, the number of small bussiness hours to build and maintain this resort is huge. When I way young, ski areas were touted as being a green industry.

    Do I have a crystal ball to tell me if a bussiness will fail or not. Or do I have a crystal ball telling me wat the climate will do in 20 years. NO!…..but neither do you.

    • April 26, 2014 at 9:47 am

      The BC Green Party believes that small business is the engine of our economy. I am questioning the use of public money to support a municipality with no people and no infrastructure especially in light of the uncertainty with respect to the future existence of Jumbo Glacier and hence the potential for year round skiing.

      Sure neither of us have Crystal Balls. But businesses make decisions based on risk assessment. Billion dollar investments are typically made when risk is minimized. Do you really think that investors are ignoring the overwhelming body of scientific evidence that has 1) already shown a >15% loss in ice volume in that area since the 1980s and 2) suggest ice volume will lead to the large scale demise of these BC glaciers this century. I don’t.

  5. monroe-
    April 22, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    So many things about the climate are up and down. Temperature down, alarmism up.
    Climate science credibility down, climate science grants and alarmism, up.
    General public’s interest down, desperate politicians claiming the science is settled, up.
    Arctic ice is up, press coverage of that fact, down.

    The last time I heard so many of the NDP this sure of their economic genius was …….lets see oh yes, it was the Fast Ferrys days. Nice!

    • April 23, 2014 at 3:28 pm

      I am not sure what this has to do with the NDP. Last I looked I was elected as a member of the BC Green Party.

  6. Dave-
    April 22, 2014 at 4:14 pm

    Good work James and Bogey! Great to see…thanks!

  7. James-
    April 20, 2014 at 10:02 am

    I am familiar with the IPCC reports and associated models.
    One has to ask, how can confidence in models that are incapable of accurately predicting climate trends, (as is now entirely clear, given comparisons to years of observations) increase over time?
    Isn’t that like doubling down on a bad bet?
    Would it not be better for climate scientists to say, “Listen, we were wrong – we don’t know how to re-create clouds in a computer (and admit they are most likely the most important player in the “Greenhouse Effect”), have no idea what the actual number is for C02 forcing, and will go back to the drawing board because our models suck.”
    Instead, they ramp up the fear and increase their confidence in tools that get results further from reality year after year.
    I might suggest that people look at an alternative (scientific) view, which can be found here.
    http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

    • April 20, 2014 at 4:00 pm

      Actually James, and with respect, your comment suggests to me you are not familiar with the science reviewed in the IPCC reports.

      • James-
        April 21, 2014 at 3:50 pm

        If that is the case Andrew, with respect, are you saying that the models used generally match current observations?
        Are you saying that clouds are well understood and accounted for in projecting future climate trends?
        Are you confident that the value plugged into the models, which accounts for the effects of additional c02, is correct?
        It seems to me that climate science suffers quite significant gaps in relation to some of the fundamentals it relies so heavily upon.
        Those would be some breakthrough’s in climate science I would really love to see.

        • April 21, 2014 at 3:57 pm

          Hello James, There are no values “plugged in” for CO2. Climate models are well tested. They are driven by estimates of emissions; clouds are indeed parameterized. Please go to the library and read “Keeping Our Cool”. The estimate of climate sensitivity is unchanged since the Charney report of 1979.

          • James-
            April 22, 2014 at 11:32 am

            If the models are so well tested – how do they fail so badly at aligning with observations (reality)?
            Do you still claim that they accurately represent what has happened since the Charney report of 1979?
            I think Lewis and Krok, with help from Professors Dyson, McKitrick, Plimer, Tol, Curry, Lindzen, and Dr. Ridley might be able to explain a little better about the issue of climate sensitivity to C02 (as I may have erred in calling forcing)
            http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/oversensitive-final.pdf
            Correct me if I am wrong, but a model would have to have a value entered in order for it to calculate the effect of additional C02 in the atmoshpere. – no?
            As far as I know there is also considerable doubt that the models used by the IPCC have “parameterized” clouds accurately, and some would suggest that, “the cooling effect of clouds far outweighs the long-wave or “greenhouse” warming effect.”
            http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/met.285/abstract
            I find it very hard to share your faith in hypotheses and models which fail when challenged by empirical evidence; and which are shown to lack a robust understanding of global climate systems in relation to the world-wide shift in energy policy and weath being proposed by those who “believe”.
            In my opinion “climate science” has been politicized since shortly after its inception, once people found it could be used to change others behaviour, and given your recent move to the political arena I now feel even more strongly so.

          • April 23, 2014 at 3:27 pm

            Hello James, I am not sure why you sent the link to the the Lewis and Crok piece. It is entirely consistent with what I said re: 1.5-4.5 C climate sensitivity. I agree that cloud microphysics is uncertain. But that is encompassed in the uncertainty range in climate sensitivity. As noted in IPCC AR5 report, cloud feedback from all cloud types to be +0.6 (−0.2 to +2.0) W m–2 °C–1. That is, it is likely positive.

            A model would not have to have a number entered to calculate the additional effect of CO2. Please see Ray Pierrehumbert’s superb description of radiative transfer theory and its representation in climate models. He shows the very impressive comparison between theory and observations in Figure 3.

            http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

            I recognize that I will not change your opinion, but the reason why I gave up a very well-paying job with great security to run for political office with a party that never elected a seat before is precisely because I believe that global warming is a critical issue facing the world. Too many politicians are thinking only about the short term consequences of their decisions and ignore the impacts of their decisions on the next generation. If people don’t want to deal with global warming, so be it, but I don’t want to look my kids in the face and say I knew about this and stood by and did nothing. Most climate scientists would be absolutely thrilled if climate sensitivity turned out to be 0.5C. Unfortunately, there is no evidence to suggest that is so, and the range remains our best estimate of climate sensitivity. We can squabble about where it falls in the range, but the range is the range.

          • James-
            April 23, 2014 at 9:30 pm

            Thank you for your response Andrew, I was worried we may have lost you post Earth Day celebrations…
            I suppose my question is, given what could easily be considered a significant uncertainty about the actual response of the Earth’s climate to additional C02 being added by mankind, how can we be certain that the drastic and incredibly significant changes proposed are warranted?
            Thus far it seems that there is a consensus among models used showing a distinct departure from observations.
            I, for one, am not willing to subject millions of people to energy poverty based on (what appear to be) flawed and simplistic computer projections created by those granted funds to identify man’s impact – I would much rather see a balanced effort at understanding the entire system before making demands which seemingly fall solidly along the lines of what I would consider questionable agendas.
            I appreciate the link to Ray Pierrehumbert’s description of radiative transfer, and can understand its significance (as a layman) when calculating the energy absorption of atmospheric C02, but wanted to note that the two other planets referenced did not have plants on their surface.

          • April 26, 2014 at 10:05 am

            Hello James, I have surfaced from this week and now have time to respond (as promised). First, I do not think you will find that there is as much uncertainty as you think there is. The climate science community has a fairly robust understanding that global warming will lead to melting glaciers, increased extreme precipitation, loss of summer Arctic sea ice, widespread species extinction (especially in the oceans as a consequence of ocean acidity changes), increased likelihood of summer drought etc.

            Where there is a good (and I believe necessary) vigourous public debate is whether the costs of action are more or less than the deferred costs of inaction. People will quibble about discount rates etc. But often these analyses do not include the co-benefits of action. Nor do they effectively take into account the value of ecosystems (how much is a frog worth?). In addition, because the atmosphere is shared, and global warning is just that –> global, the costs of inaction are distributed amongst 7 billion people and the costs of action are borne by the individual (the mother of all tragedy of the commons). It is in every person’s best interest to do nothing from a simplistic individual cost benefit point of view. Internalizing externalities through carbon pricing is the only effective means of fixing this market failure.

            An analogy can be used with a pond full of fish. It is in every fisher’s best interest to catch as many fish as they can as they reap 100% of the benefits and the costs of overfishing are distributed amongst all fishers. If every fisher thinks the same way the only inevitable solution is a collapse of the fish stock in the pond.

            No one is suggesting we submit anyone to energy poverty. Its quite the opposite. This is an exciting age of innovation in the energy industry as the clean tech sector begins to flourish (clean tech = generation + transportation + storage end use of renewable energy). There is ample energy around and in many jurisdictions, solar can now compete without subsidy and wind is cheaper than existing systems. Distributed production with smart grids, HVDV transmission systems, innovative storage systems and more efficient end uses will provide an economic boost and prosperity not poverty. Of course there will be some businesses that may have to change. And of course there will be vested interests that will resist change.

            Think about it. Why do we still drive cars powered by the internal combustion engine which is largely unchanged since the first cars were invented 100 years ago. We’ve developed computers, cell phones, wireless systems. We’ve put men on the moon (we could put women on the moon but we haven’t). Yet our transportation systems still are driven by enclosed explosions firing pistons up and down. Is this really because we dont have the technology to do otherwise?

          • James-
            April 26, 2014 at 6:58 pm

            Thanks for getting back to me Andrew, I appreciate you voicing your
            view of a “robust understanding” existing regarding current climate
            science and projections – but I am still unconvinced your position is
            fully supported by reality (in the form of empirical evidence).
            The basis of the ‘alarmist’ argument is that C02 is a greenhouse gas,
            and that by the use of fossil fuels mankind is creating a dangerous
            situation for the planet by upsetting the natural balance, thereby
            risking elevating the planets temperature (above and beyond any
            natural fluctuations) and thereby negatively impacting both natural
            and artificial systems.
            There are a few (notable, but not limited to) things that seem to cast
            this scenario into serious doubt:
            – Variations in temperature have always occurred, with ice ages and
            periods warmer than today, prior to additional C02 being introduced by
            mankind, and seemingly independent of C02 concentrations in the
            atmosphere – with levels down to less than 200ppm (plants die off at a
            little less than that) and up to over 7000ppm, meaning that we are
            actually closer to the lower level of a successfully operating C02/02
            exchange necessary for life on Earth as we know it.
            – Focussing more on the role of C02 as a greenhouse gas, its inherent
            logarithmic nature in the atmosphere (as a GHG) means once it reaches
            a certain level, its efficacy is reduced – like pulling a curtain
            across a window, and then adding 87 behind it. (The first one had the
            majority of the effect, which certainly lends itself to the fact that
            a concentration of about 4000ppm existed during an ice age in the
            Ordovician era 450m years ago)
            – Looking closer to todays time, as C02 levels reach about 400ppm, and
            continue to climb, there is no correlation to temperature, which has
            ceased to rise for nearly 2 decades.
            (This would be an interesting tidbit for those youth voters being
            targeted, who haven’t seen a rise in temperature since they were in
            diapers…)
            – There is also, and I’m sure you must be aware, no correlation
            between rising C02 emissions/concentrations and “extreme” weather
            events. Droughts, rain, tornados, hurricanes, floods – you name it.
            So, considering only a few of the numerous “inconvenient truths” out
            there which appear to sink the theory of C02 acting as a control knob
            for global climate (without even mentioning the role of the sun, and
            things like the PDO, ElNino ect…) I find it very hard to believe
            that the presumed global crisis (which doesn’t appear to happen
            globally) is one which has actually earned the scientific respect some
            so emphatically claim.
            In a world currently enjoying the societal benefits of abundant and
            comparably cheap energy, an argument brought forward claiming massive
            shifts are required based on projected worldwide environmental
            catastrophe would need to be far less riddled with holes, and far more
            corroborated by observations to be truly accepted.
            The world has seen countless, “Change your evil ways” claims, calling
            for apocalyptic ends unless tithes, taxes and (convenient and
            beneficial to some) penalties are paid – this current scenario looks
            to fit the bill perfectly.
            On that note, I find it a little rich (scientific uncertainty aside)
            that you can object to the usage of about $200,000 a year in the
            development of a project which will directly benefit many people in
            the vicinity of Jumbo, and provide enjoyment to countless others
            looking to experience the incredible natural beauty of the valley –
            when you have been a participant and proponent of one of the largest
            (mis?)allocations of global wealth the world has ever seen (fighting
            climate change) , running into the hundreds of billions of dollars?

          • April 27, 2014 at 8:43 pm

            Well I guess we can disagree. Please read my book “Keeping our cool” it is in the public library. It will answer the questions you pose. Climate science is not about “correlation”. Climate is a dynamical system with prognostic equations. And yes, the increase in extreme precipitation world wide can be attributed to human activity.

    • Bogey-
      April 21, 2014 at 10:35 am

      Well said James!

  8. Andrew-
    April 18, 2014 at 3:58 pm

    1. A year round ski resort is not viable due to the low volume of skiers during the summertime. Ask any ski resort that is still open in the East Kootenays. Whether the glacier is there in 30 years is immaterial. Skiing in the summer is a novelty, at the very least, a training platform for alpine athletes. In either case, the volumes are too low to justify being open outside of traditional winter months. Furthermore, the Farnham Glacier represents a fraction of the total acreage of JGR’s Controlled Recreation Area. However, as any local knows, it snows in Jumbo…a lot. The skiing and riding at JGR will be epic, in the winter, glacier or no glacier.

    2. Public opinion appears to be against Jumbo only because the opponents are the only voice. The rest of us are either indifferent (i.e. if it happens, great; if it doesn’t, there’s plenty of skiing elsewhere), or afraid to put a pro-Jumbo bumper sticker on our cars or trucks, for fear it will be vandalized. So there you have it, you either are vocally against, or indifferently, for.

    3. Yes, the tax payers’ money could be better spent. However, as a ski resort employee, I’m happy to see that the provincial government supports the tourism economy in BC, in particular winter recreation. Thank you.

    My question is; why is the MLA from Oak Bay concerned about an issue on the other side of the province?

    • April 19, 2014 at 2:14 pm

      Hello Andrew, as I mentioned earlier, my concern is that there are no investors yet and the government is earmarking several hundred thousand dollars a year to run a municipality with no people. Those monies are desperately needed in other areas. Also, I have been contacted by a number in the area who are very concerned… so I looked into it.

      PS If you go to the Jumbo web site you will see this: “Jumbo Glacier Resort is a unique sightseeing destination and is the only year round ski resort in North America.”

  9. Bogey-
    April 18, 2014 at 11:03 am

    Typical socialist, anti progress dribble…let’s all live in the dark ages. You have to love and appreciate all those how have a firm belief and opinion against the progress on this project, most of these folks have an income from questionable environmental groups, so they have a pay cheque, yet the silent majority who are living and working in the the Columbia Valley, who want their kids to stay in the valley, are in favor of this moving forward for the economic progress of these communities…you note I stated the “silent majority”…as these folks don’t believe in waving a banner, disrupting traffic and the lives of other folks and they are demonized for their stance by the left wing, socialist elitist. Just look at the Deer Cull stance by the same socialistic crazies.

    • April 18, 2014 at 2:28 pm

      Hello there, if you read the article there is nothing socialist about it. It is based on the obvious reality that Jumbo Glacier is on its way out so betting on year round skiing is a risky business. My concern is that there are no investors yet and the government is earmarking several hundred thousand dollars a year to run a municipality with no people. Those monies are desperately needed in other areas.

      • Bogey-
        April 18, 2014 at 10:41 pm

        Your worry is the flavor of the last few months. I’m sure the government and Glacier Resort is so appreciative of your concern that there are no investors. So “fellow man” of you to be concerned for them. Do you really really think that Glacier Resort would put all the money these last 20 some years, yes, their own money fighting narrow minded, tunnel vision people such as yourself, if there was no opportunity there?…really? When Whistler was being touted at its various stages, over the last century, or for that matter, Sun Peaks, Fernie, Panorama, Kicking Horse do you really think there was no opportunity that these initial pioneers saw? Hum…I see what you are saying, look what a financial disaster Fernie, Kimberley, Panorama, Kicking Horse, Sun Peaks and Whistler were, right? In fact many of the communities where these resorts are located were saved when the local industries collapsed and left, mining, forestry to name a couple.

        You as well as me know that the “science” is not settled on this subject, on the environmental impact, whether there are 2 Grizzles or 200 in the area as various reports have contradicted the other. Then you have the Ktunaxa First Nations conveniently bringing forth their sacred ground argument, yet when the same lands were being mined and forested, where was their concern then?…wait, many of them were working the mines and in the forests, that’s where their concern was at the time…your arguments are hollow, empty and very anti progress.

        There are world environmental and economic travesties taking place at greater pace in so many places around the world, yet you anti progress types would never set foot in those countries as you know you would be jailed, beaten or would disappear, then beg the Canadian government to save you at my tax payer cost, take for example the two Canadian’s that went to Egypt, who got themselves jailed for doing illegal activity then begged our government to work for their release…my point is there are worse areas that need more concentrated effort in saving their people from themselves then our corner of the earth that requires this shot in the economic arm.

        Just saying…

        • April 19, 2014 at 2:16 pm

          Actually Bogey, it’s all about risk analysis. You may argue that the science is not settled; the reality is investors out there appear not to be taking the risk.

          PS Mount Washington on Vancouver Island is for sale last I looked.

          • Bogey-
            April 21, 2014 at 11:21 am

            Andrew Weaver, It’s not me that is suggesting the science is not settled but the UN IPCC and numerous credible climate scientist who have studied the models out there and have written their own recognized papers on the issue. (I am not referring to the “respected” scientists who fraudulently misrepresented climate data in the UK to show how “bad” our world really is.)

            The fact that Mt. Washington is for sale, well, not sure what that has to do with the discussion?…As you are the MLA of Oak Bay, I’m sure you are well aware that it rains on the Island…Might I add that there are several other resorts that are for sale in Utah, Nevada, Colorado, etc…there are also many other businesses for sale in Canada and the USA, bakeries, motels, hotels, manufacturing facilities, storage facilities, restaurants, car dealerships and some MLA’s, MP, Presidents, Congressman, Senators, etc.

            Did you know (I suspect you did) that Whistler went into bankruptcy, more factly the company that owned Whistler, around the timeline of the 2010 Olympics?…Is Whistler still for sale Mr. Weaver?

            Did you know that Panorama was for sale and that 40 local investors purchased the resort and have been working hard, committed to bringing the resort to profitability (this doesn’t happen in a year or two if you know business at all) and keeping the resort thriving and bringing in economic stimulus to the region?

            Yes Mr. Weaver, I’m sure Mt. Washington will be sold at some point to some investor…perhaps a green company can purchase it and turn it into a shrine to prove their point of what does not work in a rainy climate?

            Businesses fail, survive and flurrish every single day I might add.

            Do you really believe that JGR (a private company) would be so naive to release to the public where all their eggs (investors) are or who they are? What so a private company or individual can be harassed and badgered by Wild Sight, Jumbo Wild or some other radical, clueless environmental group, as happened after the trip some MLA’s and business types took to France a couple years ago?…
            That is not how business is done Mr. Weaver…again I ask you Would the proponent, JGR spend millions of their own money over the course of the last 20 some years, if this opportunity would not have been or will be viable? How many people do you know, that spend their own money, and 20 some years to jump through the hopes that the radical environmental lobby continues to through up?

            Now to your point on whether the BC gov’t money, designated to the JG municipality is well spent. How many municipalities receive funds from this program year after year and can be said that the moneys were well spent? How many municipalities receive money from the provincial government yearly to support their existence otherwise they could not survive? Is this money well spent? Throwing good money after bad to these municipalities that should have been abandoned long ago? How about the municipalities that hit hard times through the eighties and needed more provincial cash, was this money well spent?

            You see Mr. Weaver everyone can justify or come up with arguments whether money is better spent elsewhere, only time will tell whether it was money well spent or not.

            Certainly on a global perspective, all the millions, hundreds of millions that were spent on the UK climate scientists that fraudulently misrepresented their climate data and bullied fellow scientists who challenged them on it, was money, that was NOT well spent! These scientists should have faced jail but instead they are still there, BSing their way through whatever they are doing…I again digress…

  10. James-
    April 16, 2014 at 4:40 pm

    Soooo, how are those models working out for you?

    Have any “advancements in climate science” you could share with the rest of us?

    Nailed down that pesky “forcing” issue yet?

  11. Grant-
    April 16, 2014 at 2:38 pm

    How are models working for you Andrew ?

  12. Patrick Miller-
    April 16, 2014 at 2:31 pm

    I have only been following this story for a short while – has the developer been identified? Who will benefit the most from the building of this resort – clearly there will be no long-term profit from its operation, unless they find another use for it once the glacier is gone.

    The way this flies in the face of the science you have outlined makes it sound like something Stephen Harper and his anti-science Conservatives would be behind!

  13. Heather MacKenzie-
    April 16, 2014 at 10:43 am

    Well said. So rational and logical.
    Too bad it is so difficult to legislate on Stupidity!

  14. dan moe-
    April 16, 2014 at 8:38 am

    Cheers! Mr. Andrew Weaver, for bringing this news to an audience on the other side of the province. With the ludicrous, blatantly skewed, greedy political agenda at work the Jumbo project becomes a flagship for misrepresentation of the needs of the people, and Earth. We, the people, must stand in solidarity against corruption and malpractice. We must unite for betterment; it is possible, it is happening. Betterment for ourselves, family, friends and global community.

    The Kootenays won’t back down from what’s right!

    Peace and Strength

  15. Jacqueline Hohmann-
    April 15, 2014 at 10:13 pm

    Very disappointing to hear, but no surprise since business is government’s favourite bed partner.