NANAIMO ---- NANAI NO

 

ONLY IN NANAI  NO


🎙️ VOICE of NANAIMO
▶️ Click Play to listen

Nanaimo has a long history of shooting itself in the foot on infrastructure. Whether it was additional hydro capacity, the Duke Point waste-to-energy proposal, or now the data-centre debate, the same pattern keeps repeating: a loud activist voice frames the project as an environmental threat, emotion takes over, and the long-term practical benefits are pushed aside.

The Duke Point waste-to-energy proposal is a good example. It was not some wild experiment. Similar technology was already operating elsewhere, including Metro Vancouver’s own Burnaby facility, which turns waste into electricity and sells that power to BC Hydro. The Duke Point proposal would have diverted waste from landfill and generated electricity, yet the public discussion became dominated by fear, politics, and institutional self-interest.

Now the same kind of argument is appearing around the data centre. Concerns about water, power, and public oversight deserve to be examined seriously. But Nanaimo also needs to ask whether it is once again allowing emotion to override evidence. If every major project is rejected before the trade-offs are honestly weighed, the city should not be surprised when it later faces shortages, missed investment, and fewer options.

While two Nanaimo Councillors debate whether to allow a data storage centre to proceed, senior governments are now backing major data-centre and AI infrastructure elsewhere in B.C. Telus is moving ahead with a federally supported sovereign AI/data-centre cluster in Kamloops and Vancouver, with significant electricity demand attached. So the broader economy is clearly moving in this direction. The question is whether Nanaimo will participate in that future or once again let a loud opposition movement turn a manageable infrastructure issue into a political panic.

The issue is not that every green concern is wrong. The issue is that Nanaimo too often treats opposition as proof, and volume as wisdom. That is not science. That is politics dressed up as environmental protection.

Comments