Various publications including: La Voix de l’Est, Cyberpresse and Le Nouvelliste

4 October 2006

Talking green ... for the sake of talking

Hydro-Quebec recently launched an advertising campaign aiming to present themselves in an ecologically responsible light  - “Our choice is clear.  Our choice is green.”   The scale of this campaign leads us to question the amount of money our public company has invested in this.  How many thousands of dollars has it cost?  How many rivers could have been protected and drawn attention to with that budget?  We would prefer to see them act green rather than talk green.

The name of Hydro-Quebec is already on information posters throughout Quebec, in Montreal and in the regions.  Couldn’t we also see this name associated with river protection?  Would it not be better to use this money to develop parks in the regions and to invest in energy efficiency, in order to protect rivers and create employment? 

One of the adverts which appeared in a daily paper shows, in the background, a waterfall in its natural state; in the foreground is a teenage musician, electric guitar strapped on, holding its plug aloft; down in the left hand corner there’s a power point on a rock in front of the waterfall.  The TV version of this ad shows the waterfall springing into life when the guitar is plugged in.

However, Hydro-Quebec referred to hydro-electric “development”.  So where is the dam?  Electricity isn’t produced with a waterfall, but with a dam – a cement wall – which would have been built in place of the waterfall, causing it to disappear. 

Is the teenager in front of this pastoral waterfall there only to wait patiently for someone to exploit this wild river?  Is he too focussed on his art to ask himself about his energy choices?  He doesn’t belong to the generation of Quebeckers afflicted with beaver syndrome who, on hearing a river, get a sudden craving to pour concrete!  Rather, we are led to believe that this young person, as representative of his generation, is someone who will take a lead in changing the vision of development on behalf of those who have already done too much harnessing of rivers.

We believe in the economic development of Quebec and we believe that Quebec could make money selling its energy at a top price on external markets.  But we don’t want this to be done by promoting hydroelectric projects whose social and environmental impact are covered up.

It is irresponsible for a state-owned company to spend public funds on a “we are lovely, we are nice” advertising campaign when we should be examining the impact of our methods of energy production and our consumption habits.  As long as no-one is concentrating on saving energy by investing real financial incentives in it, the state-owned Hydro-Quebec will not be able to sell the energy savings created by the people of Quebec at a top price on external markets.

As for the wind power part of the publicity campaign, one understands the needs of Hydro and the government to give themselves a new image, but it’s not Hydro-Quebec who is exploiting this niche, it’s currently in private hands, developed any old how, and what’s more will create profits for the private sector.  So Hydro-Quebec’s generosity in offering free publicity to the producers of wind power seems inappropriate when you know all that could be done, with this budget, to protect the environment.

To what extent are these ads lies or half-truths?  It’s for you to decide.

Roy Dupuis
Paul Piché
Yann Perreau