Thinking about Mel Rothenburger's Stance on ACC Gasification Proposal

A couple of days ago, I had an interesting chat with one of the key organizers of the opposition to the ACC gasification proposal. This person was spitting mad at Daily News Editor Mel Rothenburger because of what was perceived to be Mel's attempt to cloak rabid support for the proposal in high minded appeals for fairness and rational decision making. That's what I took from the chat, in any case.

This is so interesting to me.

I should state up front that I have a huge respect for Mel. I think he was a great Mayor and that he is still one of the top 3 most influential people in Kamloops. When Mel writes, people are so used to reading and, more importantly, absorbing what he has to say. A negative review in the "armchair Mayor", and I've been associated and even the subject of a couple, is something to fear.

(By the way, Mel's column this week is on the upcoming Chamber sponsored public meeting on the ACC proposal.)   

Mel's columns on ACC have made me believe that he does strongly support the project. To me, that's fair ball; as a columnist, you are supposed to be opinionated. I also feel, however, that he hasn't really come out and stated his support outright. This is likely just a style issue - also completely fair ball. But, I can understand why people think Mel is trying to be a little clever. They know how much influence Mel has but may also feel that an indirect writing style might be employed to get past people's questioning and skepticism muscles. If someone just states something outright, people perhaps tend to question it and engage with it more fully. 

But, ultimately, who is responsible for questioning and engaging?

I personally think that we all need to read whatever we read with a questioning and skeptical eye. Mel's columns always make me think and question and that is hugely helpful.

Comments

[Bevin]

Hi Arjun,

I agree that we all need to pay attention to the facts and make up our own minds. I still don't know where I stand on the issue, but I'm leaning towards "who cares?" The scientific evidence I've seen so far has me less than concerned. That doesn't make me a supporter of the project, I just don't want to make up my mind based on scare tactics. I'd rather wait until I can see some scientific evidence from both sides before making up my mind.

I also think Mel might be a supporter of the ACC project. If he was still a politician I'd say I wish he'd be more transparent but as a newspaper editor I'm going to come down on the "who cares" side of things again.

Hmm. On re-reading what I wrote I am interested to note that I am one helluva lot less passionate about politics than I used to be. I think a few years ago I would have jumped on the Save Kamloops bandwagon without looking to see where it was headed.

[Arjun Singh]

Hi Bevin - I so appreciate your example of not blindly taking a stance. I think waiting until you can have a look at scientific information or at least information based on science is really wise. I suspect both pro and con have respectable points to make on this plant. I think you are actually exhibiting what politics should be. There should be passion, but reason as well.

[Mel Rothenburger]

The reason I haven't come out clearly on one side or the other is that I figure my opinion should be based on something other than uninformed assumptions. I will say that the more I learn — and I learn something new about this project and this technology every day — the more I lean toward supporting it.

As of today, I'm of the opinion that the technology works. And if the science is sound, ACC has a right to be here. That's just fair, and I believe Kamloops is a fair city. I hear a lot of people now saying, "I don't care about the science." That sounds very much like someone who jumped to a hasty conclusion and now doesn't want to admit it.

[Arjun Singh]

Mel, be interested in your thoughts about the presentations from scientists who have expressed doubts about ACC's proposal - particularly Douw Steyn from UBC.