Put people first in energy future
Bigland-Pritchard of Saskatoon is an independent consultant in sustainable energy.
Energy Policy Institute of Canada president Dan Gagnier’s op-ed Seize chances to meet energy demands (SP, July 5) is vague about many things and wrong about others, but on one thing he is absolutely right: Energy provision is fundamental to our society and economy.
Where Gagnier and his group are mistaken is in assuming that the bulk of that energy must come from fossil fuels. The clear message from climate scientists is that the world cannot afford this much longer.
In the past few years, several world-class teams of scientists have estimated the “carbon budget” to which the globe needs to limit itself in order to stay below the internationally accepted limit of 2 C warming. Based on this research, a major report last month from the Australian government’s Climate Commission stated: “From today until 2050, we can emit no more than 600 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide to have a good chance of staying within the 2 C limit.”
Even if we stay within that budget, there’s still a one-in-four chance of exceeding the limit, states Malte Meinshausen and his team at Germany’s Potsdam Institute.
Meanwhile, according to the Grantham Research Institute, based at the London School of Economics, known fossil fuel reserves amount to the equivalent of 2,860 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide — nearly five times our “safe” budget. Simple arithmetic shows that four-fifths of the reserves claimed by oil, coal and gas corporations must stay in the ground.
This is challenging. Fortunately, we still have a way out, although not one palatable to fossil fuel corporations and their lobby groups.
The International Energy Agency’s latest report predicted that, worldwide, renewables — wind, solar, hydro, tidal, biomass, deep geothermal, etc. — would overtake gas and would be providing twice as much electricity as nuclear within three years. These industries truly have come of age.
And they bring other benefits. They provide more jobs per unit of energy obtained. Because of their scale, they can be wealth generators for many communities, and don’t bring the intractable toxic waste disposal problems inherent to oilsands development and nuclear power.
Were it not for the generous subsidies to fossil fuel companies, the transition to renewables could happen much quicker. Indeed, the bias toward oil is a major reason why Canada lags behind its major competitors. At present, the oil and gas industry receives more than $1 billion a year from the federal government, and over $300 million from provincial governments.
Those figures don’t include medical and other costs resulting from fossil industry pollution, or the cleanup and insurance costs from the already significant impacts of climate change, let alone the rapidly escalating future costs if we persist in fossil dependency.
Gagnier attacks “special-interest groups” in a poorly veiled reference to opponents of oilsands expansion and diluted bitumen pipelines. He should read the IEA’s 2010 world energy outlook report, which identifies 3.3 million barrels per day as the maximum oilsands output consistent with achieving necessary climate goals. Current and under-construction facilities put us already at three million barrels, and, if all fully approved production proceeds, it will rise to five million-plus barrels daily. New pipelines merely enable that unsustainable expansion.
Maybe he also needs to spend a few weeks in Fort Chipewyan, Alta., with hunters and fishers and hear about the increasing numbers of tumours they find in their catches. He should spend some time listening to the human victims of rare cancers in that community, and perhaps Calhoun County, Mich., where nearly three years on, Enbridge has still not cleaned up its spill of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River.
When Gagnier savages opponents of oilsands expansion, he is arguing for his organization’s members to proceed along a path that threatens lives and livelihoods both locally and worldwide on an increasing scale. As a parent, I find that unacceptable. As an energy professional, I find it utterly unnecessary
If Denmark can, by parliamentary near-consensus, commit to obtain all of its energy from renewables by 2050, so can Canada.