RSC symposium examines the impact of energy the environment and society

The future of Canadian energy policy and the dire state of the environment received a remarkable airing during the Royal Society of Canada’s first ever energy symposium and its relation to society and the environment. The gathering of a diverse range of Canadian experts produced no clear consensus, but it did serve to emphasize the need for increased and sustained research and more effective policies. It was also a clarion call to take immediate steps to slow the rapid degradation of the air, soil and water supply.

Data presented at the Ottawa event last week demonstrated that global production of oil and gas is about to peak, trailing the peak in exploration by 30 years. Consumption now outstrips new discoveries, creating renewed urgency for solutions to energy needs, conservation and the impact of rampant energy usage on the planet. If the data were agreed upon, little else drew unanimous consensus with opinion ranging from cautiously optimistic to unremittingly bleak.

The somber tone of many of the presentations only underscored the magnitude of problems surrounding energy and its impact on the planet and its inhabitants. The major source of negativity surrounding energy issues stems largely from business priorities, a reluctance to raise taxes and the widespread emphasis on consumerism.

“I call it scorpions in a bottle. … Everyone who is out to maximize their own take from the planet is a recipe for disaster,” said Dr Bill Rees, a professor at the Univ of British Columbia’s department of school and community regional planning who coined the phrase ‘ecological footprint’.

“Sustainability and achieving a reasonable energy good … has to be based as a collective enterprise and that’s called good governance, good policy and tax shifting if indeed not an increase in taxes,” said Rees. “I think it will require an increase because right now we’re taking a free ride on the planet and it’s about time we started paying for it.”

The federal government’s emphasis on Kyoto and the hydrogen economy received harsh criticism, particularly from Dr Heather Smith, assistant professor of international studies at the Univ of Northern British Columbia and an expert on Canada’s northern climate. Smith contends that the ratification of the Kyoto accord is marred by a narrow vision of cost and competitiveness, adding that Canada was part of the US-led coalition to undermine its original objectives.

In particular she cites Canadian lobbying for inclusion of mechanisms like carbon sinks and emissions credits and the selective use of science for political purposes. She said Paul Martin’s call for more consultation was little more than a new delaying tactic.

“Kyoto is not a cure all,” said Smith, adding that Kyoto’s targets won’t be met even if Russia ratifies. “We need to start with the environment, not the economy. Science should not be a tool of politics.”

Not surprisingly, the message from those closer to industry was more hopeful that change can be enacted, albeit not without a concerted, collaborative and sustained effort between industry and government. Allan Amey, president/ CEO of Calgary-based Climate Change Central, outlined the policy, technology and market innovations required to achieve both carbon emissions reduction and economic growth.

In the area of policy innovation, Amey argued that as we enter a carbon-constrained future, nations must recognize the economic imperatives involved and implement appropriate incentives, regulations, and/or taxes. Amey also outlined the technology challenges associated with climate change and asserted that technology advances must be an integral component of Canada’s strategy.

“It needs to be a key component of Canada’s climate change strategy and I’m not totally clear that it is yet. It’s being discussed but I don’t believe there’s been enough investment,” said Amey. “We actually need energy R&D and technology breakthroughs. They are the key to balancing economic growth. A price of carbon is needed. R&D and technology development require increased and sustained government and private sector investment. Partnerships between industry and government across countries will be important to make significant progress.”

The stand taken by Rees stands in stark contrast to Amey’ collaborationist approach. In his presentation, Rees outlined the historical impact of energy on human development and its acceleration with the widespread use of fossil fuels. The displacement of human and animal labour by fossil fuels and its impact on food production resulted in an explosion in human population, which has increased four-fold in the past 150 years. Now that fossil fuel discovery is being outstripped by consumption, mankind’s future prospects are about to experience a profound shock. Even the widespread adoption of renewable sources of energy will be inadequate in meeting rising demand.

Rees argues that the only real strategy for decreasing the impact of climate change is to allow the cost of fossil fuels to rise until they reach their “total social cost”. A strong advocate of taxation and subsidy elimination, he says the US energy bill about to receive passage into legislation goes in the opposite direction.

“It supports the status quo. If there are no new sources of energy, the complexity of our culture will drop dramatically,” he said, adding that Canadian leadership has also been sorely inadequate. “Jean Chrétien’s commitment to Alberta to never consider a carbon tax is the single most absurd thing he ever said.”

The potential for nuclear energy to ameliorate the difficulties in meeting future energy needs was outlined by Donald Johnson, former Trudeau Cabinet minister and secretary general of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Johnson said he believes that climate change and global warming are inevitable even with the ratification of Kyoto. He argued that the only reasonable approach is to try and slow the pace of both, to lessen the impact of catastrophic change and allow time for adaptation on a global scale. From that perspective, nuclear energy holds considerable potential but public opinion, he says, must change.

“When we look at nuclear energy, it’s not a matter of asking ‘Is there a risk?’ There will always be risks, but compared to what alternatives?” said Johnson. “What is the best form of energy without leading to an abnormal amount of violent weather abberations?”

R$