There's no question that we need to get all alternative non-conventional energy sources examined and analyzed and the consequences evaluated.
Governments seek multiple objectives. We really need to see every particular program in terms of the criteria we put in. For example, if you want to reduce emissions but increase employment at the same time, then I would like to really see what a particular program and a particular expenditure would do in terms of employment and in terms of reduction. It's only within this general picture that you could lay out where the commonality is and where the trade-offs are so that you can come to a complete assessment of what's going on.
But if you take each one on its own and say, all right, we want to have unconventional energy, this could really bring about major, massive unemployment or a reduction in employment possibilities. It could raise the cost of energy to industry, which might compromise further manufacturing. We really need to see how these multiple criteria would fare in terms of any particular expenditures. We would really like to see all these expenditures lined up against these criteria, whether that's jobs, a clean environment, emissions, or integrated energy reduction in urban cores.
These are issues that you cannot deal with separately or independently in a truncated way. You really need to bunch them up and see to what extent they satisfy these multiple criteria and where are the trade-offs.