23 Nov In defence of Baillie

Earlier today I voiced my own misgivings, and reported those of the Pictou Bee, about Conservative Leader Jamie Baillie’s campaign to slow the replacement of coal fired generation with renewable electricity. Ballie’s chief of staff, Rob McCleave, defends his boss:

Jamie’s position is far less about politics and much more about good public policy than your blog (or the Bee) suggests.

The Environmental Goals & Sustainable Prosperity Act reflected an all-party consensus, only a few short years ago, but before the NDP formed government. It balanced environmental needs with economic needs. It set fairly aggressive and world class targets for the greening of our energy use. The NDP, not to be outdone in front of many of their partisans, who understandably want us to get to green as quickly as possible, abandoned consensus. They reset the environmental side of the goals, which allowed them to claim having bigger goals than other states and provinces. This sounds like a good thing, but the very sustainability of the march to green power got lost in the equation. Having lofty goals isn’t any good if people can’t afford them, and seasoned environmentalists know, no matter how good an idea is, that developing and maintaining a consensus is critical. People must be part of the solution. If you lose touch with the parade behind you, go home.

Get to green as quickly as possible? Absolutely, but couple that with the very real  needs of the people you ask to pay for that greenness – and several other things at the same time – or the consensus will be lost.

Jamie Baillie would not go back on the EGSPA consensus, with which he agrees. And he would take the time to see if a new one could be built. What he opposes is jacking the targets, hell-bent for glory, without considering the impact on people.

Of course, reasonable people can disagree about the pace, but politicians should avoid pandering to the public impression that we can keep power down by sticking with carbon-intensive fuels. We might for a year or two, or even five, but we would be courting medium- and long-term economic disaster.