Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Shawna Ritchie

Developing a national vision for energy can seem like a daunting task. After all, there are so many different ideas, opinions, perspectives and factors that come into play. Should Canada continue to develop the oil sands? Should we be trying to sell more oil and gas to Asian countries or to the United States? Or, should we not be selling it at all? Is reducing our emissions profile the most important issue going forward? Or is protecting Canadian jobs?

These were the kinds of questions that Sheila O’Brien (my co-author) and I were exploring during the first few months of 2011 when we set out to interview 50 of the leading experts in western Canada on energy and the environment. We had an incredibly diverse and thoughtful group of interviewees and heard many different visions for Canada’s energy future.

Throughout the course of these interviews, an interesting trend started to emerge. It became clear that a person’s perspective on the potential for renewable energy has a dramatic impact on their vision for the future. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that what someone believes about the potential of renewable energy shapes their vision for energy in Canada. And, broadly, there are three different groups of people when it comes to the potential of renewable energy: the optimists, the hybrids and the skeptics.

Those who have unbridled optimism for the future of renewable energy have a vision for Canada that we would fuel our energy and economic needs almost entirely with renewable energies.

They would accomplish this vision by stopping the production of conventional energy and therefore eliminating the need to build new pipelines or LNG terminals. They see a future where governments, individuals and companies would all turn their time, creativity and—importantly—money towards fostering and developing renewable energy solutions. This collective commitment toward renewable energies would enable us to overcome the current technical challenges around renewables like the lack of an efficient storage system and the high materials cost.

These optimists point out that Canada has one of the most expansive renewable energy portfolios in the world with good wind corridors, sunny skies, innumerable rivers, extensive bio feedstock and much, much more. They argue that if we diverted money away from conventional energy subsidies, technologies and investments and into renewables the future would be unrecognizably changed and that would become the bedrock of our economic success.

By contrast, those who believe renewables have potential, but maybe not enough to take the place of conventional energy sources, advocate for a cautious approach. These are the hybrids. Loosely, their vision is that we should continue to develop and sell fossil fuels, but we should strive to sell them around the world while we simultaneously wean ourselves off those carbon-intensive goods by using more renewable energy here at home.

Their vision for the future is one where Canada remains one of the leading suppliers of conventional energy to the world and then uses the wealth generated from that economic export to transform our domestic energy system. The underlying hope of this vision is that in the process of transforming our own system we will develop the skills and expertise in renewable energy technology that with time will become one of our main exports to the world.

At the furthest end of the spectrum are the renewable skeptics who believe that renewable energies have limited use and application in Canada. These skeptics note that if we are going to continue to consume energy in the same way as today, then the only solution is to expand our conventional energy system by building pipelines, developing the oil sands, coordinating government regulations and establishing global energy trade networks and not significantly investing in renewables energies.

For most skeptics, renewable energy may be appropriate for some smaller, remote communities that do not have easy access to the energy grid—such as those on islands—but it is not a viable option for the vast majority of Canadians. They argue that even if we do increase the development of wind and solar energies, for example, they will always have to be backstopped with a conventional energy like natural gas because of the intermittent nature of the sun and wind and our insatiable demand for energy.

This central role of renewables in the energy vision is interesting for two reasons. First, because where a person falls on this renewable energy spectrum can’t be determined by their occupation or their industry. There are environmentalists who are renewable skeptics and oil and gas executives who are renewable optimists. Second, because this trend indicates a possible first step in creating a national vision for energy. If we as a country can come to a fact-based and informed understanding of what the potential for renewable energy is in Canada, it could make the path forward much more visible for us as a country.

Where people stand on the potential for renewables is pivotal in their vision for our energy future. This issue has the ability to cut through many of the other debates and questions that surround our energy future and can restructure the conversation.

So, where do you fall on the spectrum? Are you an optimist, a hybrid or a skeptic? Why?

A vision for Canada’s energy future, based on one-on-one conversations with some of western Canada’s leading energy and environmental experts, is explored in a forthcoming Canada West Foundation publication entitled “Catching a Rising Tide: A Western Energy Vision for Canada,” which will be released on October 12, 2011.

The latest research released by the Canada West Foundation delves into the world of natural gas, explaining its economic benefits for Canada over the past 50 years, and its value as a foundational fuel for our energy systems going forward. Sound policy decisions will ensure that natural gas continues to be a cost effective and stable energy alternative as we move toward a carbon reduced future. 

Seismic Shifts: The Changing World of Natural Gas by Michael Cleland, Nexen Executive-in-Residence, examines the future of natural gas from the perspective of both consumers and producers. Natural Gas accounts for about one-quarter of Canadian energy end use as well as a growing share of fuel for power generation. Seismic Shifts concludes that natural gas is not a “bridging” fuel, but rather a stable foundational fuel that will remain a part of the energy mix in the future.

“Although the energy landscape in Canada is shifting with new technologies and resources, the future of natural gas is extremely positive for consumers. Lower costs underpin the competiveness of the Canadian economy, and in addition to being affordable, natural gas is abundant and reliable and can significantly reduce the environmental impact of the energy system,” author Michael Cleland explains. “While the producer’s perspective is less optimistic, Canada needs to look at both internal policies and Asian export opportunities to remain in the game.”

The Seismic Shifts paper outlines several policy directions that need to be discussed when outlining future policies that deal with this resource.

“Natural gas is abundant, has relatively low emissions and may be the only part of the energy system not facing increasing commodity costs in the coming decade,” said Cleland. “It is a natural foundation fuel in an increasingly carbon constrained world.”

Since the policy foundations for natural gas were laid in the mid-1980s, supply sources, markets, environmental imperatives and technologies have changed. Up to this point, Canada has benefited from a successful natural gas industry, and with some refining and additions to existing policies, has the ability to succeed in the future.

This report is part of the Canada West Foundation’s Powering Up for the Future Project, which focuses on public policy challenges at the interface of the economy, the environment and energy.

To download Seismic Shifts: The Changing World of Natural Gas, click here.