On targets

I'll deal later with the less-than-surprising results of the Sask Party's attempt to push nuclear development on the province. But let's note that Dwain Lingenfelter's policy statement on the environment also came out yesterday - and while it doesn't figure to get as much public attention as the UDP report, it may have some interesting effects in both the NDP leadership race and the broader political scene:

Unfortunately, with per capita greenhouse gas emissions that are three times higher than the Canadian average and the highest of any Canadian province, we are not fulfilling our responsibility to protect our environment and show public policy leadership in embracing the green economy. I believe it doesn’t have to be this way. I believe there are public policy solutions that can make Saskatchewan a green economy leader.

In 2007, the NDP government moved to remedy this situation by introducing a comprehensive plan to secure our long-term economic prosperity through the setting of aggressive targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. While the Sask Party committed to adhere to these targets during the last provincial election campaign, the Wall government scrapped the NDP’s climate change plan, and then refused to release a plan of its own. In a recent report, the David Suzuki Foundation congratulated the NDP for having put in place a “reasonably ambitious target for greenhouse gas emissions” but slammed the Sask Party for adopting the NDP’s target with “no plan or strategy to get there.”

Elsewhere too, the Wall government is moving our province backward on the environment. Brad Wall:

• Abolished the NDP’s $320 million Green Future Fund that provided funding for projects to fight climate change

• Eliminated the Saskatchewan Office of Energy Conservation

• Scrapped the Climate Change Secretariat

• Gutted renewable energy programs

• Bought his Cabinet Ministers brand new, gas-guzzling SUVs

Brad Wall’s Minister of the Environment has mused about not only backing away from the NDP government’s targets, but adopting targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases that are even “less stringent” than the extremely minimal targets set by the Harper government.

Due to Brad Wall’s lack of leadership, Saskatchewan will fail to meet the NDP government’s target of stabilizing its greenhouse gas emissions by 2010, and we will waste valuable time as other jurisdictions work to build their green economies and create green jobs...

Electrical generation is a major contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Saskatchewan and the decisions we make in this area will be key for our future economic prosperity as well as environmental sustainability. Instead of recognizing the important role that renewable energy plays in a vibrant green economy, the Wall government has halted the progress on renewable energy that had been made under the NDP. In doing so, Brad Wall is out of step with the rest of the world. All of the member countries of the European Union recently agreed that 20% of their energy consumption would come from renewable sources by 2020. Similarly, sixteen American states now have legislated a ‘renewable energy portfolio standard’ that requires a certain percentage of their future electrical generation to come from renewable sources.

Consistent with Peter Prebble’s 2006 report on Renewable Energy Development and Conservation, I believe Saskatchewan should legislate a renewable energy and conservation portfolio standard that will require at least 50% of our electrical generation to come from conservation measures and renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and hydro electricity by 2025. In order to reach this target, the provincial government should provide financial incentives to Saskatchewan communities to build small-scale renewable energy projects such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass projects. These projects could sell their excess production to the SaskPower grid.

At the same time as Saskatchewan gets serious about building its renewable energy capacity, we should strengthen our energy conservation efforts. I believe we should introduce energy efficient building codes, provide larger grants and tax incentives to retrofit homes and businesses, and require the provincial government and municipalities to lead the way by improving their energy conservation practices. This should include a commitment to install solar panels or other renewable energy sources on all new public buildings and in all planned renovations of existing public buildings.

The first point worth noting about Lingenfelter's policy position is the angle it takes toward the Calvert government's efforts. I've mentioned a few times that to my mind, Deb Higgins figured to be the leadership candidate best positioned to take credit for (and stand up for) the legacy of the outgoing NDP leader. But with her campaign apparently placing the focus elsewhere, it looks like Lingenfelter is making a play for that position on the environment file at least.

In the absence of anybody else taking on the continuation of Calvert's legacy as part of their leadership message, it wouldn't be at all surprising if Lingenfelter tries to take on that role on more issues as the campaign progresses. While that type of move might seem to be counterintuitive, an effort to bring Calvert's more devoted supporters under Lingenfelter's tent (however unlikely that may have seemed at the start of the campaign) could well be as significant an incremental gain as Lingenfelter can expect to make now that his head start is over with. And that boost might in turn offer the best chance for Lingenfelter to try to get back toward a message of inevitability even in the face of three strong opponents.

Meanwhile, considering that it represents the most nuclear-friendly take among any of the NDP leadership candidates, Lingenfelter's policy position also figures to be an interesting one in response to the UDP's report. In particular, his endorsement of Peter Prebble's recommendations for Saskatchewan's power mix would seem to make Lingenfelter's stance incompatible with the UDP's recommendations. And with the Sask Party likely looking to hide behind the UDP rather than sticking out its neck with a separate suggestion as to what percentage of power it wants to hand to the nuclear industry, a firm commitment to that position could go a long way toward ensuring that the NDP ends up on the right side of the nuclear issue next time it gets debated in the Legislature.