If a debate needs to occur in Rimbey over the proposed Aspen Bio-Energy ethanol fuel project, why launch a petition or advocate a plebiscite to initiate that debate?
Activist Joe Anglin, who says he will run for Rimbey town council in October, is proposing that the future of the renewable energy project be decided not by council, but by the citizens of the town. He claims that too little information is available about the proposal, despite public hearings on the project and the fact that the project has been in the public eye now for several years.
The opportunities to ask questions, seek answers, and wave flags when he sees problems, have come and gone several times. Yet a month short of the nomination day for the municipal election, Anglin has decided to wave a flag.
In part, Anglin is right: citizens should take part in the debate. But that’s what the municipal election campaign is for. Issues as significant as this should be front and centre as candidates appeal for votes in Rimbey. Jobs, taxes and future growth are at stake.
Turning discussion about this project into a civics lesson, in some sort of wrong-headed participatory exercise, slows the decision-making process but adds nothing of value in terms of the public’s role.
The project — for which the Calgary-based parent company drew $5 million in research money from the provincial government two and a half years ago — would draw feedstock not from the human food chain, but from cellulosic materials like straw and municipal waste. If it works, it is a significant departure from other feedstock proposals and would appear to be an immeasurably better solution.
It is one of several ethanol projects being proposed in Alberta as producers race to meet the province’s new renewable fuels standard, which takes effect next April. At that time, gasoline must contain five per cent renewable fuel.
Most other ethanol manufacturing proposals would use material that otherwise play a role in the food chain, either as food for livestock or humans. The impact of using such feedstock, on both the price of food commodities and their availability, is well documented: the cost of food goes up for the average consumer as the supply of grain diminishes, and there is no measurable gain for the average consumer in the price of fuel.
The petition Anglin and others hope to launch couldn’t possibly result in a plebiscite in conjunction with the municipal election this fall. The process required for a petition to be declared valid is arduous. And if the petition is finally declared valid, council still has another 12 months in which to act.
By then, Anglin and his group could well be past the point of influencing decision making. Participatory democracy of this sort moves at a snail’s pace, and is costly.
It would be far better if the Aspen Bio-Energy project became a significant part of the public conversation leading up to the Oct. 18 vote. That means that Anglin — should he decide to run — abandon posturing about petitions and plebiscites and be prepared to offer an opinion about the project.
That would be a good starting point for the debate about the worth of the Aspen Bio-Energy project.
John Stewart is the Advocate’s managing editor.