Endangering the Peace? Are Canada’s Energy Policies Contributing to World Instability?
Elizabeth May, Federal Leader, Green Party of Canada and Rick Hyndman, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
6 April, 2009
Toronto Branch, Canadian International Council
On April 6th, 2009 the CIC Toronto Branch and McMillan co-hosted a discussion entitled Endangering the Peace? Are Canada’s Energy Policies Contributing to World Instability? The speakers on this occasion were Mr. Rick Hyndman, Senior Policy Advisor, Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers and Ms. Elizabeth May, Federal Leader, Green Party of Canada.
Mr. Hyndman spoke first opening with a few comments on the top sources of energy worldwide, and continuing by discussing the current trends in the demand for natural resources. Oil, while still the world’s leading fuel, has seen a drop in its global market share over the past six consecutive years. In 2007 oil production fell by 0.2%, or 130,000 barrels per day. The demand for coal, the number one producer of CO2 gases globally, is fastest growing and has seen a gain over the past six years. Energy demand will increase by 45% over the next 10 years and 1/3 of that demand will be filled by oil & coal. The cost of finding and extracting these resources will mean the potential extinction of 40% of species, the decline of water stores/rain fed agriculture and an increase in the instances of natural disasters.
Mr. Hyndman went on to address of the regions from which we are currently sourcing our oil and projected where we may start looking in the future. The Middle East is currently the world’s main source, despite conflict, with significant growth in the Asia Pacific region and Russia. There was a decrease in oil production in Nigeria, Venuzuela, Mexico, and Saudi Arabia and increased production in Angola, Azerbajan, Iraq, Sudan and Canada (Russia and Asia/Pacific already mentioned). There are proven reserves of oil in the Middle East, Europe & Eurasia and Africa which means focus of oil searches will be redirected in the coming years.
A statement briefly addressed the issue of oil sands, while the industry does need to improve their environmental practices; oil collected from oil sands projects only account for 1% of the energy used globally. CO2 production from this method of extraction is minimal and Alberta is currently developing methods of CO2 capture that would stop the release of CO2 into the atmosphere.
In his closing statement Mr. Hyndman acknowledged that we cannot get rid of the world’s need for oil/gas and coal in the next 10 years but does agree that something needs to be done about consumption. He stated that the debate is confused and believes policies should be set to increase the costs of green house gas emissions. He believes that a "price signal" will drive change.
Ms. Elizabeth May opened her dialogue stating that the damage already done to the climate is dramatic. "lag times" now have to be taken into account when dealing with projections on environmental damage. If humans were to immediately reduce emissions by 80% it would take 100 years for the changing chemistry of the atmosphere to settle, global temperatures to find new "norms" and 1000 years for sea levels to settle to new normal levels.
Continuing she advised that Canada currently has no formal energy policy and we cannot expect to meet the current UN framework of climate change policies. Canada ratified Kyoto and then broke the agreement effectively breaking the law. Canada’s role and contribution to the global emissions problem is small, 2%, but as an international leader we are putting virtually no money towards resolving the climate issues. China is investing 600 billion dollars in green technology research; the US is investing 150 billion while Canada actually cut funding.
Ms. May linked climate change to assisting in this global economic crisis spotlighting Dupont as an example of a large company changing policies and saving money. Dupont has reduced their greenhouse gas emission by 65% and have already saved 2 billion dollars as a result. Ms. May commented that the economy is running to the tune of cheap and abundant energy, not the question of where do we get the energy? Addressing the latter would be a great way to stop waste and start real change.
In her closing statement Ms. May spoke to the US, due to international profile, is currently taking the lead on environmental issues globally by looking at renewable energies. Even while the Bush administration was in power a report was commissioned to project the effects of climate change. The report chose to look at the effects of the Gulf Stream stalling (hypothetically) in 2010 and the environmental fallout that would ensue. It was found that millions of people would be displaced "environmental refugees", Europe would become colder, Texas would "blow away" due to a wind speed increase of 10% and severe conflict would erupt at borders over natural resources. The melting of Arctic ice is slowing the Gulf Stream, the current is 30% slower then 30 years go.
The question and answer period began and the first question was focused on funding green initiatives. Ms. May suggested the World Bank could provide some of the funding or charge higher carbon taxes to pay clean carbon technology fees. Mr. Hyndman suggested that no one has taken on the challenge of finding a solution for the funding issue. No one seems willing to pay a higher cost for energy, and his proposition was the general public is opposed to raising taxes and prices for fuels citing the BC tax as an example. Federal politicians would have to be the ones to enforce the change needed.
The second question asked was about the feasibility of constructing a constrained energy policy. Both speakers suggested that the federal government needed to negotiate and rectify provincial differences over this issue and set clean air goals based on the negotiations. Neither speaker though this would be an easy process but the number one step, which is not being done, is to start the dialogue. Ms. May said that a motivated government and clear policies would make change easier for all.
The third discussion topic asked if Ontario succeeds with their administration of a green energy policy, could Canada have a national green energy act. Ms. May responded by asking how much energy would be provincial jurisdiction? She suggested that one way to make federal funding fair to all provinces could be to make federal monies conditional on upgrading building codes. First, standard building codes would need to be put in place. She feels that this would create employment, boosting the economy, as there would be jobs created to assist in retrofitting older buildings. Mr. Hyndman agreed that housing/building codes are substandard and there is room for improvement.
Tying the discussion back to global economy, there was a question about car manufacturers. What would the policy or law look like to keep car manufacturers in business? Mr. Hyndman said that there should be a push for manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient cars, plant standards should be looked at and that there should be a more significant cost of producing carbon, "the cost should rise as fast as possible". He also mentioned that Alberta currently has the highest taxes for carbon in the country. Mr. May agreed and added that "taxes are easier then trade" and if the government is bailing out the auto industry there should be an environmental standard given out along side the monies. She added that another idea is to provide government assistance to anyone who wants to buy a more fuel-efficient car.
The general sentiment of the speakers was that there is a lot of work that needs to be done to help reduce the effects of energy waste on the world. The outcome of governments, Canada included, ignoring the issues presents in the form of an unchanging standards on where and how we are getting our energy out of the ground, climate change continuing at a rapid rate and eventually, as the environment becomes less hospitable, displaced populations and conflict over natural resources.
