PAGE 10 - WEYBURN THIS WEEK
FRIDAY, AUGUST 23, 2019
» Editorial
Canada’s Polarized Energy Debate
By Monica Gattinger, Daily Oil Bulletin
W
hat is Canada’s energy future in an age of climate change? This is a fundamental question, but it’s one that Canada has yet to answer definitively. Two different visions are on offer. Unfortunately, they mostly talk past each another. Why? Because they’re anchored in different starting points. The first, which can be called ‘Canada’s low carbon transition,’ takes climate science and the Paris GHG emissions reduction targets as its point of departure. The low carbon vision is grounded in the existential threat posed by climate change: countries must meet the Paris targets to avert temperature increases that models say would be disastrous for the planet. For Canada, this approach advocates for a rapid low carbon transition away from oil and gas. How? By phasing out oil and gas production (especially the oilsands), ramping up renewable energy (especially wind and solar), rapidly electrifying energy systems (especially adopting electric vehicles), and putting a price on carbon (especially one that applies across the country). The low carbon vision is primarily domestic- and upstream supply-focused. According to this view, Canada must reduce its emissions and eliminate the oil and gas sector to meet its Paris targets. Globally, the view maintains that the country has a moral responsibility to demonstrate leadership on the international stage. If Canada — a western industrialized democracy whose development contributed to anthropocentric climate change — doesn’t take action, why would other countries? The second vision can be called ‘Canadian energy in the world.’ It takes energy economics and global energy demand as its starting point. International Energy Agency (IEA) reports documenting oil and gas demand growth over time and into the future anchor the view. So do IEA and other scenarios projecting fossil fuels will continue to account for the majority of global energy demand — even under the Paris targets. The actual and potential benefits of the oil and gas sector to the Canadian economy, economic reconciliation with Indigenous peoples and government revenues also ground the approach. ‘Canadian energy in the world’ is an opportunity-based vision. With global demand for oil and gas remaining strong — even under ambitious climate policy — there are significant export opportunities for the country’s vast energy resources. In this view, shutting down Canadian oil and gas production will do nothing to reduce global demand, as other producers — the U.S., OPEC, Norway, Australia, Russia — will gladly step in to fill the breach. The vision is global-, technology- and emissions performance-focused: if Canadian oil and gas can be produced with lower GHG emissions than the global average — an emerging reality given recent years’ innovations — then why shouldn’t it be sold in international markets? And if Canadian energy exports can reduce global emissions by displacing higher emitting energy sources elsewhere, why shut them in? But in the absence of emissions credits to recognize Canadian exports’ contributions to global emissions reductions, this approach will always collide with the low carbon vision’s focus on domestic targets. And therein lies the rub. As an energy producer and major reserve holder — Canada possesses the largest oil reserves of any western industrialized democracy on the planet — charting the country’s energy future in an age of climate change is especially fraught. No government has yet found an effective path to pursue meaningful action — much less results — on climate change while capitalizing on the country’s vast energy resources. Other western producers like Norway have managed to align energy and climate policies to pursue oil exports while taking action domestically to reduce emissions. Meanwhile, Canada seems forever stuck in a polarized debate with two visions talking — often shouting — past one another. How to get out of this mess? The first step in solving a problem is recognizing you have one. Decision-makers in energy and climate circles aren’t always aware they disagree because their views are grounded in different starting points. A second step deals with language and information. People talk past one another when they don’t share a common language or trusted information base. Fostering a productive assessment of both views requires a sharp focus on emissions across the entire Canadian economy, well beyond just upstream oil and gas. It also requires credible trusted information and performance metrics, whether it be on emissions improvements in the oilsands, the potential for global emissions reductions from Canadian LNG exports, or the economic, social and technical realities of electrification.
Editorial:
A change of leadership is needed
T
he voters of Canada will need to make a serious choice this fall, as election time looms on the horizon for the federal government. In a real sense, this is judgement time for the ruling administration, which for now are the Liberals under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. To borrow a Biblical phrase, he has been measured and weighed, and has been found wanting. He has been walking a razor’s edge, trying to sound like he knows and understands what Canada’s oil and gas sector needs and wants, but on the other hand he’s trying to appease the environmental lobby, which for all intents and purposes wants to shut down the oil and gas industry and put it out of business. You can’t play both sides against each other, you have to pick one side or the other. Or, as in most political situations, you compromise and both parties come part-way so there can be a meeting of the minds, so to speak. In this instance, those who oppose the oil and gas sector will not bend or com-
promise in any way, while on the other side, the energy sector has been hurting badly for a long time now, ever since the oil prices tanked a few years ago. Meanwhile, Trudeau keeps saying the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion will happen, but there is still little to nothing occurring. The oil and gas sector in the West, particularly Saskatchewan and Alberta, are land-locked, and need a viable way to get crude petroleum to tidewater and out to international customers. Currently they can only send their product south of the border to the United States, who are taking advantage of the situation and are vastly under-pricing crude oil, because they have the monopoly, and Canadian producers don’t have much of a choice. It comes down to having a government who have the will and ability to get pipelines built, to help out the oil and gas sector and in turn the Canadian economy. This won’t happen until there is a change in government leadership, and this is at the core of what needs to happen this October. Volume 2
Issue 4
Andrea Corrigan, Publisher/ Advertising Sales Manager Black Gold is published by the Weyburn Review and issued at the office of publication, 904 East Avenue, Weyburn, Saskatchewan. Mailing address: Box 400, Weyburn, SK S4H 2K4. The Weyburn Review is owned and operated by Prairie Newspaper Group LP, a subsidiary of Glacier Ventures International Corp. The Weyburn Review is a member of the Canadian Community Newspapers Association, the Saskatchewan Weekly Newspapers Association and Canadian Media Circulation Audit.
Greg Nikkel, Editor NEWS DEPARTMENT Phone 306-842-6955 Email: editor@weyburnreview.com ADVERTISING DEPARTMENT Phone 306-842-7487 Email: production@weyburnreview.com