Remember Lingenfelter's effort to find a position which can oppose the Sask Party's full-speed-ahead view while still leaving the door wide open for future nuclear development:
I do not support the construction of a nuclear reactor to generate power within Saskatchewan’s borders unless a public, transparent study has been conducted by a blue ribbon panel of independent experts, showing the people of Saskatchewan that such a project could be sustainable, from both the financial and environmental perspective. This blue ribbon panel would hold public hearings around the province so that every citizen could have their say on the future of electrical generation in Saskatchewan. The panel would explore the costs and benefits of nuclear power compared to both renewable energy options and conventional electrical generation sources such as coal, natural gas and hydro. The energy options we choose for the next twenty years will impact everything from our provincial finances to our economic growth, from our population’s health to our quality of life. These decisions cannot be made without full, public input and understanding.On its face, Lingenfelter's carefully-hedged position allows him a clear line of distinction from the Wall government while still leaving the door wide open for expansion of the nuclear industry. But the current plan leaves significant questions which would seem to demand an answer during the course of the leadership race.
Namely, does Lingenfelter see a panel merely as a precondition to nuclear development alone? Or does he think that no new energy development should take place without it? And how will that affect how a Lingenfelter government would in fact approach the decision of whether or not to convene a panel?
Taken at its least broad interpretation, Lingenfelter's statement could plausibly be taken to say only that in the case of nuclear development in particular, a public consultation process should be a precondition to any final decision. Which would mean that the Sask Party's plans are wrong for the moment, while suggesting nothing to the effect that he'd actually put in place a process designed to facilitate nuclear power in the future. Indeed, one could make the case that at this level, Lingenfelter's position would hint against nuclear power as the only energy source which would be subject to a need for a panel.
But Lingenfelter seems to hint that he would indeed convene a panel due to the potential importance of the type of power sources chosen, and that its decisions would determine the province's future energy mix. That sounds reasonable enough on its face, but might raise a host of additional issues - ranging from the risks associated with delaying any type of development during the time required to hold the type of hearings suggested, to an inference that he doesn't see any particular difference between nuclear power and the other types of sources which he sees as possible candidates for discussion within that process.
Beyond those dangers, there's also a risk in basing one's position on procedural grounds rather than substantive ones as Lingenfelter has done. It would surely be a simple enough matter for the Wall government to set up a process which looks enough like Lingenfelter's proposal to severely undercut his argument, and all without actually doing anything to substantially change course from the Sask Party's plan to make nuclear development its first priority.
As a result, there's a serious need for Lingenfelter to clarify just what he means with his policy proposal in order to determine whether he can effectively oppose the Wall government, and what he'd do given a chance in government. And while he never figures to be a favourite of anybody who's particularly opposed to nuclear development, the answer could make a significant difference as to how much opposition he'll face during the leadership campaign.
No comments:
Post a Comment