Keith Brooks2013-05-22T22:38:56-04:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.ca/author/index.php?author=keith-brooksCopyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc.HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Keith BrooksGood old fashioned elbow grease.The Carbon Bubble: Another Flaw With the All-Oil Strategytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.31475362013-04-24T17:00:00-04:002013-04-25T12:03:36-04:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/
According to a report released last week, we could be headed for another financial crisis as a result of over-valued energy stocks that are giving rise to a growing "carbon bubble."
The problem is that investors have been buying stocks in energy companies with oil and gas reserves at prices that assume demand for oil and gas will remain strong for the foreseeable future. But if we are to head off climate change and limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius, some two thirds of the world's known stores of oil, gas and coal must not be burned, and these reserves would be practically worthless.
The report, and most of its media coverage, have focused on the risk to investors. And investors would be wise to heed this warning. But the risk extends well beyond financial markets, especially in Canada where energy, and the oilsands in particular, have become such a large part of our economy.
Now, I don't want to overstate things. Some folks would have us believe that oil and gas are the engine of our economy, but this is not true. Oil and gas are important, and energy stocks account for over 25 per cent of the value of the Toronto Stock Exchange. But oil and gas contribute less than 4 per cent of our GDP and only 1.8 per cent of the county's employment. In comparison, manufacturing contributes about 11 per cent of our national GDP and 25 times more jobs than oil and gas extraction. Furthermore, as I've pointed out before, oil doesn't contribute that much to our Federal government's bottom line, despite what you may have been led to believe.
That said, a collapse of the oil industry would be very damaging to Canada's economy. It's not just wealthy investors that hold energy stocks, but practically every pension plan. In addition, thanks to energy's prominence in our stock exchange, a collapse in energy markets would send shock waves through the rest of the economy. Remember that the sub-prime mortgage crisis started in the housing sector, but had repercussions across the world.
Most importantly, there are over 250,000 people directly employed in Canada's energy sector. And our energy sector is particularly vulnerable to this carbon bubble because the oilsands are some of the most expensive and most carbon-intensive oil plays in the world. If the world takes action on climate change, the oilsands would be among the first and worst hit, and many of these people would lose their jobs.
Clearly this would be devastating. Last time oil prices collapsed unemployment in Alberta rose from four to 10 per cent in the span of two years and the province led the nation in housing foreclosures, bankruptcies and suicides. Obviously, we don't want this to happen again.
This means that we should be breaking with our economic reliance on oil, rather than increasing it.
Jobs often serve as the justification for continued oilsands development, but given the risks associated with the carbon bubble, we need to reduce the number of people whose livelihoods are tied to this volatile commodity that is at odds with our commitments to combat climate change.
We need to reduce our pension plans' exposure to oil as well, and we should ensure that governments do not become dependent on energy revenues because - as we've seen before - one day, perhaps abruptly and without warning, those revenues could dry up and the party will be over.
The carbon bubble is one of the many risks to Ottawa's "energy superpower" aspirations. And while it may be tempting to try and mitigate these risks, it's wiser to recognize they are beyond our control, and work to reduce our exposure to them.
Instead of pinning our hopes to energy as the engine of our economy, we need to develop a plan to get off of oil sooner rather than later - for the sake of workers, investors, and our economy on the whole, not to mention the environment.
]]>It's Time to Wean the Economy Off Oiltag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.23478722012-12-24T17:29:38-05:002013-02-23T05:12:01-05:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/
The conventional wisdom has held that the world needs our oil and that it would be foolish to leave such wealth in the ground. Forget the downsides of the rampant development of the oil sands -- the Loonie's transformation into a petro-dollar and the resulting loss of manufacturing jobs, Canada's withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol and our tarnished international reputation, the displacement of and disruption to First Nations, and the environmental impacts to land, air and water. It's a small price to pay for an economic boon.
What the oil lobby glosses over, though, is that this boom, like every other boom, could go bust.
The U.S. has discovered some massive oil reserves of their own. So much so that America's hopes for "energy independence" look like they will be realized. And this will have a massive impact on the viability of our oil industry. America is practically the only buyer of oil sands crude. If they don't want it, there is a big issue.
In addition, America's oil is driving down prices, and threatening the profitability of Canadian producers. Many of Alberta's oil sands projects are among the most expensive sources of oil in the world. By some estimates, new projects need $80 per barrel in order to break even. Others believe that the average project needs $113 per barrel if they hope to be profitable.
But prices are currently well below these levels. North American oil sells for less than the global price. Canadian oil is even more discounted and is currently selling for less than $50 per barrel, or $40 less than Texan oil. Given these economics, it's very likely that many projects are currently losing money -- and will continue to.
Canadian projects "are particularly susceptible to delay and cancellation" and that's exactly what's happening. In addition, governments are scaling back their plans to balance budgets, pointing to depressed oil prices as the main culprit.
This price pinch is expected to last for some time. And it could get even worse. According to a recent study from Harvard University, it's quite possible that oil prices will collapse sometime around 2015.
If this seems shocking, it's because the oil industry and their cheerleaders skipped history class. Because we've been here before.
In the 1970s, oil prices rose to unprecedented levels which fueled a boom in Alberta. There was a massive migration, as 4,000 people arrived in the province each month to get a piece of the action. Fortunes were made and, for a while, it seemed as if the boom would know no end.
But, in 1982, prices collapsed. And as unpredictably as it began, the Alberta oil boom was over. Ultimately oil prices did recover. But the bust was incredibly painful. In the span of two years, unemployment in Alberta rose from 4 to 10 per cent. The province led the nation in housing foreclosures, bankruptcies and suicides.
How, you ask, can we avoid this tragic situation from repeating? We should learn from history. Instead of putting all our eggs in the oil sands basket, instead of digging up Alberta at a break-neck pace, we should be more balanced and strategic in our approach. And we should develop a plan to wean our economy off oil.
The changing economics of the oil sands should be the wake-up call we need. To be sure, this situation will intensify the calls for new pipelines to alleviate the pinch. But this would only provide temporary relief.
What we really need is a more fundamental change. If we don't, I think we're headed for trouble. As Mark Twain said, history doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.
]]>The Key to Creating 18,000 New Canadian Jobstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21743622012-11-23T12:06:34-05:002013-01-23T05:12:01-05:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/
As a report released today shows, that argument simply is not true. We don't need to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment. And doubling down on the oil sands isn't the best way to approach either.
The oil sands are an economically risky endeavour and, in addition to the environmental impacts, there are a number of downsides to relying so heavily on a volatile commodity. Moreover, investing our money in renewable energy and energy efficiency would create many more jobs, and reduce pollution.
For a concrete example, we looked at the $1.3 billion in taxpayer money our federal government currently hands to the oil industry in the form of subsidies. We asked: what if, instead of subsidizing polluters, the money was invested in industries that cut pollution?
We crunched the numbers and found that $1.3 billion invested in renewable energy or energy efficiency could create between 18,000-20,000 jobs. In comparison, that same amount of money invested in oil and gas would yield less than 3,000 jobs. That's a difference of 17,000 jobs!
Our conclusion: Clean energy investments yield more bang for our buck (which is why we called the report that.)
If this seems surprising, it may be that the oil industry's PR strategy is working.
But these numbers are in keeping with international trends, as countries around the world are weaning themselves off fossil fuels and moving towards clean, renewable energy. In 2011, $280 billion was invested in renewables around the world. Globally, over a trillion dollars have been invested in green energy since 2004. Last year also marked a major milestone as investments in electricity from renewable sources topped similar investments in coal, oil and natural gas for the first time.
Thanks to all this, employment in renewable energy is booming. Some 5-million people are now employed in renewables globally, more than double the number employed in 2006. This growth occurred through the recession, and continues today, even as other industries struggle in the wake of the global economic crisis.
The prospects for renewables look bright, too. According to the International Energy Agency, renewable energy will top coal as a primary source of electricity by 2035.
Canada can and should work to capture a larger share of this market. The National Roundtable on the Environment and Economy estimates Canada could have a $60 billion domestic market in low-carbon goods and services, which would create 400,000 jobs. But that's not where we're headed at present.
Our fevered commitment to oil is leading Canada in the wrong direction. In an effort to pave the way for oil sands expansion we rolled back environmental legislation at home. And our zeal for oil is also behind our performance at international climate talks, where Canada has repeatedly been singled out as a bad actor.
BLOG CONTINUES AFTER SLIDESHOW
If Canada's tarnished reputation isn't enough to provoke our country to change tacks, hopefully understanding the economics will.
Increasing our dependence on the oil sands isn't a smart economic strategy. And if we carry on down this road, we could be left high and dry. Oil sands need high prices to be profitable, but high prices are not a sure thing. Oil is a volatile commodity, and prices swing up and down and all around.
Just last week, reports of America's newfound oil provoked questions about whether the U.S. -- traditionally the largest buyer of Canadian oil -- would have any future demand for our product. It also raised questions about continued high prices for North American oil, and a drop in prices would threaten the entire oil sands undertaking.
The good news is that there is an alternative, one that is better for our economy and our environment. And the better news is that Canadians have a history of making good choices when faced with tough decisions. We'll make the right choice this time, and looking back, we'll be glad we did, and glad that Canada is on the right side of history.]]>Can Canada Really Be an "Energy Superpower"tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.21325262012-11-15T12:27:50-05:002013-01-15T05:12:01-05:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/a bomb-shell report with some pretty serious implications for Canada.
The most stunning projection is that according to the IEA's analysis, the U.S. is set to top Saudi Arabia in oil production and achieve energy self sufficiency by 2035.
Here in Canada, this projection raises some serious questions about the federal government's mission to become an "energy superpower" through the rapid development of the oil sands. At present, the U.S. is practically the only buyer of oil sands oil. So, if they aren't interested in it, we have a problem.
In fact, in response to the report, Natural Resources Minster Joe Oliver said that the United States' new found oil could mean that Canada's "resources will be left in the ground and the legacy will be lost."
For Oliver, this strengthens the case for new pipelines, like the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline, which could help gain access to Asian markets.
But Oliver's admission that the oil could be left in the ground is huge. For many Canadians, it is assumed that the oil sands will be developed. There's just too much money to be had there. But this report, and Oliver's comments, shows that it's not a done deal.
And good thing too: According to the IEA, in order to limit climate change to the generally agreed safe threshold of two degrees of warming, no more than one third of the proven reserves of fossil fuels can be burned before 2050.
This alone should prompt a more thoughtful approach to the oil sands. Canada has to do its part to limit climate change, and that means keeping some of the oil sands undeveloped. In fact, for many people, the main argument against the oil sands has to do with climate change and the extremely damaging environmental impacts of oil sands projects themselves and the pipelines needed to get that oil to market. But this report really draws our attention to the risks of an oil-based economic strategy.
America's new-found oil will almost certainly affect the global price of oil, and it could have an even larger impact here. Alberta's oil is already discounted from the world price, and a glut of North American oil would further depress prices. Which is a real problem for the oil sands, because they are more costly to develop and need a higher price in order to break even.
By some counts, new projects need an $80-barrel in order to be viable. Others find that the average project needs a $113-barrel to turn a profit. And it's worth noting that the oil sands are responsible for all the growth in production, and are expected to be the source of 80 per cent of Canadian oil by 2025.
The point is, Canada's entire "energy superpower" strategy hinges on high-priced oil, and the IEA report demonstrates that betting on high prices is risky.
So what, then, should be done? That brings me to another of the IEA's findings: in the coming decades, renewable energy will experience phenomenal growth. In their words, renewables have become "an indispensable part of the global energy mix." By 2035, they will "approach coal as the primary source of global electricity." And all of this growth is projected based on existing policies.
As the impacts of climate change hit home, I have no doubt that we'll be prompted to action, meaning the renewable energy sector will grow a lot faster.
And, although Canadians may not know it, we are in a position to realize some serious gains as a result of a transition to renewable energy. Thanks to policies like Ontario's Green Energy Act, and its local content requirements, we are ahead of most of the rest of North America. We have the manufacturing plants here to build windmills and solar panels and thousands of Canadians are already working in our newest industry. Moreover, these jobs are good jobs. Take it from the people who have them: hear how much they like their new jobs, and how proud they are to be part of the solution to climate change.
Canada should recognize this trend, and pin our future prosperity to the burgeoning renewables market, rather than doubling down on oil. It's the only choice we have for the sake of our environment. And it's the best path forward for our economy, too.
]]>Canada's Energy Strategy Should Not Be Oil-Soakedtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.18978732012-09-20T15:13:32-04:002012-11-20T05:12:01-05:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/Blue Green Canada were in Charlottetown P.E.I.
No, we weren't there for the lobster, but to make sure green jobs and climate change stay on the agenda for a Canadian energy strategy when energy ministers from across the country got together.
In late July, Canada's premiers (with the exception of B.C. Premier, Christy Clark) promised to work together on an energy strategy that reduces emissions, spurs renewable energy and energy efficiency and the transition to a low carbon economy. We went to Charlottetown to remind them of that promise.
Blue Green -- a unique alliance of labour and environmentalists -- wanted to throw our support behind the creation of a Canadian energy strategy. Energy powers our economy and impacts our environment. The decisions we make in the next few years will have a significant impact on both, especially given the urgent need to tackle climate change. Now is the time to start making the right decisions.
However, that energy strategy can't be based on the narrow interests of the oil industry. That would lead to too many emissions and too few jobs. Furthermore, increasing our dependence on oil drives up the Canadian dollar which in turn hurts export-oriented sectors like manufacturing and forestry. The petro-dollar also makes our economy vulnerable to the boom and bust cycles typical of oil. In short, it's unwise to put all our eggs in an oily basket.
And we have to put to rest the notion that we need to choose between the environment and the economy, between jobs and our planet's health. There are so many ways to create jobs and cut emissions. In fact, investment in renewable energy creates about three times more jobs compared against similar investments in fossil fuels.
Finally, we wanted to reinforce that energy is not an East-vs.-West issue. Blue Green Canada has members from across the country and we are aligned in our vision for an energy strategy. Canadians from coast to coast to coast support an energy strategy that cuts emissions and creates jobs.
To help make our point to the energy ministers, we took out two ads in the Charlottetown Guardian. One features Roland Lefort, a CEP member working in Alberta's oil sands, who says:
"I work in Alberta's Oil Sands. Like many others, I am concerned with the long-term environmental impact of the uncontrolled development of this vast resource. It's time to reduce emissions, focus on renewables and create jobs to provide energy security to all Canadians."
The other features a steelworker from Sault Ste Marie: "Renewable energy is creating good jobs. I'm proof. The premiers promised to cut emissions that cause global warming. It's time to keep that promise, and create more good jobs like mine," says Eddie Briglio.
The ads were quite popular, and their message was well received.
The energy ministers' meeting itself was a bit of a bust. While a Canadian energy strategy was on the lips of those present, it didn't find its way onto the formal agenda and the formal communiqué is devoid of much substance. Instead, oil interests dominated the meeting as if that's the only type of energy that matters to Canadians. Thankfully, this isn't the case as several provinces forge ahead with clean, renewable energy, greater energy efficiency and in other areas like transit.
It's worth mentioning that Blue Green Canada's members include the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers union who represent thousands of people working in Alberta's oil sands. The United Steelworkers also have members who depend on the resource sector. We fully appreciate that the oil sands provides jobs and benefits for many Canadians. But we need to talk about how we transition away from fossil fuels, which is exactly what we said in this piece in the Charlottetown Guardian.
It's unfortunate that the meeting didn't do more to advance the discussions around a Canadian energy strategy. But, based on their promises and actions, many provinces understand what's at stake.
The provinces can take the lead and craft a plan to create good new jobs, cut emissions and spur renewable energy. And, in fact, they have committed to do just this. We look forward to contributing to this conversation as it goes forward.]]>We Need a Canadian -- Not an Albertan -- Energy Strategytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16995822012-07-25T08:11:03-04:002012-09-24T05:12:25-04:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/this ad in the Halifax Chronicle Herald.
Canada's premiers are meeting this week at the Council of the Federation and a Canadian energy strategy will be on the agenda. It's about time we have this conversation.
Energy is crucially important to our environment and our economy. And we need a strategy to ensure that we manage it responsibly.
Where we may differ from Premier Redford, of course, is on the specifics of such a strategy. But even here, that really depends on the day of the week.
On the one hand, Redford has said a lot of the right things about an energy strategy. She recognizes climate change and the need to address it. She says she is concerned about other environmental impacts to land, air and water that result from oilsands development. And PremierRedford has said that energy efficiency and renewable energy need to be part of any Canadian energy strategy.
But, on the other hand, she recently implied that the strategy she favours is really about getting more oil to market, and the other provinces should facilitate this by welcoming more pipelines while asking for nothing in return. Instead, they should be content with Ottawa receiving more tax revenue which is, in turn, meted out to the provinces via equalization payments and the like.
Given these contrary statements, it's difficult to know exactly what the energy strategy she is proposing would consist of. But it is time we had this discussion.
It's clear to us that a Canadian energy strategy cannot be based on the oil industry alone. A strategy based solely on the oil industry would yield too few jobs and too many emissions.
Yes, too few jobs. Although pundits and politicians have been arguing that we have to make a choice between the environment and the economy, between creating jobs and curbing climate change, this is simply not the case.
A sensible energy strategy would hasten our transition away from fossil fuels and drive us towards renewable energy and increased energy efficiency while creating green jobs along the way. A sensible strategy would be one that works for all Canadians, both present and future.
And if we wanted to see what such a strategy might look like, we can look to Germany, Europe's strongest economy, the country who recently met nearly 50 per cent of their energy demand from solar power, and who now employs over 380,000 people in the renewable energy sector. Or we might follow the lead of Denmark, another leader in this field. We could even look to China, who were second only to the U.S. on spending on renewable energy last year and whose most recent five year plan had a distinctly green hue.
But, in truth, we don't even need to look to outside our borders because many of the provinces are already heading in the right direction.
Ontario is stimulating its manufacturing sector by embracing renewable energy, which is also allowing the province to phase out coal fired generation. Nova Scotia is following a similar path. Quebec is taking on transportation, and creating jobs along the way. And Manitoba is showing us how provinces can drive greater energy efficiency at no cost to taxpayers.
To be clear, we know we're going to use oil for some time to come. And we understand oil's importance to our economy. Indeed, CEP, a union that represents thousands of oilsands workers, is a member of Blue Green Canada. And the Alberta Federation of Labour has also joined us on the ad.
As these organizations understand, we need to plan for the transition that lies ahead, not only to protect our environment but also in the interests of our economy. As a report commissioned by the Alberta Government concluded, we need to plan for a time when the appetite for high-cost, high-emissions oil has dried up. Otherwise, in the authors' words, "we may have heavy oil to sell, but few or no profitable markets wishing to buy."
The world's energy systems are undergoing an unparalleled transformation, and it is imperative that we be strategic about how we produce and use energy.
Our choice is not whether to act, but when to act. And sooner would be better. The costs of inaction rise with every passing day, while at the same time, the opportunity to show leadership is closing.
The world is changing. Canadians are ready. We need a strategy to accelerate that change, not delay it.]]>Canada: Environmental Loser at Home and Abroadtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.16102692012-06-20T12:43:46-04:002012-08-20T05:12:05-04:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/
The conference, dubbed Rio+20 because it comes on the 20th anniversary of the historic Earth Summit held in Rio in 1992, hasn't exactly received a great deal of attention here in Canada. And for good reason: Canadian environmentalists have been consumed in a all-out struggle to halt, alter, or at the very least draw attention to the largest rollback in environmental legislation in over 20 years.
At the time of writing, a federal budget bill which contains over a hundred pages dedicated to weakening environmental legislation and oversight has been passed by parliament.
Among other things, the omnibus bill has gutted the federal Environmental Assessment Act, placed strict timelines on environmental reviews, and stripped the national energy board of its power to stop energy projects that are not in the national interest, regardless of their impacts.
In light of all this, it's understandable that Canadians haven't paid a lot of attention to the upcoming summit in Rio. We're fighting a ground war here and, to be honest, these international fora have not exactly yielded great results in recent years. Foremost, they have been unable to draft a successor to the Kyoto Protocol.
But I would argue that the failure of these talks actually means we should pay them more attention, not less, because Canada has been instrumental in their failure.
We are the only country to ratify Kyoto and then withdraw, as our government formally did late last year. And we have been obstructing efforts to craft a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. For our efforts, Canada has been awarded the "Fossil of the year award" five years running -- and it's not only climate change. We have also blocked other global initiatives, such the efforts to ban or restrict asbestos, a known carcinogen.
Sadly, the Canadian delegation will attend Rio+20 in this same spirit. According to a leaked document, Canada plans to block attempts to phase out fossil fuel subsidies, rather than joining with others, such as the European Union, who are calling for a firm commitment to a full phase-out.
Yes, Canada isn't only rolling back environmental protections here at home, but we are peddling our anti-environmental ways across the world.
Even though we are consumed with challenges here at home, we must remember that, although unwieldy, these international talks are an important part of any effort to deal with global environmental issues.
They may be largely stalled at present, but these international summits have led to important outcomes in the past. In fact, the Earth Summit held in Rio 20 years ago was one of the most significant events for the global environmental movement. It gave rise to The Rio Declaration on Environment and Development; spawned the Convention on Biological Diversity; and led to The Framework Convention on Climate Change which, in turn, gave rise to the Kyoto Protocol.
Once, Canada was a leader in this area. For example, we played a key role in winning support for the Montreal Protocol, which has gone a long way toward protecting the ozone layer.
We can be a leader again, rather than an obstacle to global progress. And if our government were to heed the will of the Canadian public, success in Rio would be that much more likely.
Unfortunately, this week, it's unlikely to go down that way.
While the world's leaders gather to chart a path towards the future we want, here in Canada we're busy turning back the clock by 20 years and undoing the progress we have made.
There is reason for hope though. Things will change. The pendulum always swings back.
Rest assured that we'll keep pushing our leaders in an effort to see that backswing happen sooner rather than later.
]]>It's the Green Economy, Stupidtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.12316652012-01-25T14:46:14-05:002012-03-26T05:12:01-04:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/
It's an interesting question, I think. And it's a question we should be asking ourselves right now.
When the economy is going through a rough patch, it tends to become the focus of our attention, often at the expense of other issues. In large degree, this is understandable. And it's not surprising that respondents to a recent poll cited the economy as the most pressing concern facing Canada.
To be sure, we haven't entirely forgotten about other issues, but I suspect that for many people, when asked what they believe is the most important issue, the prevailing sentiment could well be summed up as: It's the economy, stupid, and we want it to grow.
However, as we work on fixing the economy, on getting it back up to speed, I believe we should give equal if not even greater attention to the shape and direction of our economy. Rather than being entirely consumed with getting things back on track, we should also ask ourselves where that track was taking us and whether we were headed in the right direction.
For me, the answer is no.
My chief concern is that our current economic system has failed to protect the environment, which we are entirely dependent upon. In fact, when it comes to environmental protection, the shortcomings of the current economic system are so great that we've come to believe that the economy and the environment are opposing forces: If we want to save the environment, it will hurt the economy, and conversely, if we wish to generate new jobs and wealth, we must accept some environmental consequences. As I've argued before, this is preposterous. We cannot choose between the environment and the economy. We need both. And with smart public policy, we can create the conditions such that both can thrive.
And there are other issues, too, including that our current economic system has led to the concentration of wealth and to an unacceptable gap between rich and poor. The trend line is unmistakable.
To me, these and other shortcomings of our current economic system suggest that our challenge is not simply to restart things. To me, it's obvious that we need to make some substantial changes. And I also believe that now, with the economy receiving such great attention, is the time to do so.
I'm obviously not the first one to make this argument, and in fact the type of economy that I would advocate for already has a name: it's called a green economy, and it has been defined as an economy that results in "improved human well-being and social equity, while significantly reducing environmental risks and ecological scarcities." Simply put, a green economy is low-carbon, resource efficient, and socially inclusive.
And not only would a green economy address the shortcomings mentioned above, but there is mounting evidence that a green economy would deliver greater economic growth and more jobs compared with continuing with business as usual. The point is, a green economy isn't just more equitable and better for the environment; it's a better economy.
Allow me to provide some examples. Sir Nicholas Stern, an esteemed economist, was tasked with calculating the costs of climate change for the U.K. back in 2006. His key finding: if one per cent of GDP were spent to combat climate change, it would be sufficient to stem the worst impacts, but failing to invest that much would result in a five to 20 per cent reduction in GDP.
A similar finding was recently reported by the International Energy Agency in their World Energy Outlook. In their words, "Delaying action is a false economy: for every $1 of investment avoided in the power sector before 2020 an additional $4.3 would need to be spent after 2020 to compensate for the increased emissions." And a report commissioned by our federal government found the same: the costs of ignoring climate change exceed the costs of dealing with it.
An ounce of prevention, after all, is worth a pound of cure.
Another, related issue, is that our current system doesn't value nature's services, or natural capital. Yet the natural environment serves a number of crucial functions such as climate regulation, carbon sequestration, pollination, and flood protection. Indeed, by one estimate Canada's boreal forest provides about $700 billion worth of these services every year. And Ontario's greenbelt is similar, estimated to contribute $2.6 billion in non-market services annually.
But when we don't appreciate the value of these services, we degrade the ecosystems which supply them, and ultimately we're forced to go out of pocket to build waste-water treatment plants, or flood mitigation, or other expensive infrastructure, which is almost always less effective than the wetland, forest, or green space which it is meant to replace.
But aside from these and other shortcomings, other market failures, there is also the flipside: the fact that the shift to a green economy is opening up entirely new opportunities and new markets. And these markets are proving to be very robust. The authors of a report out of the U.S. described the rate of growth in the green economy as "torrid." And even during these tough economic times, investment in renewable energy has continued to climb, reaching $260 billion in 2011, with analysts projecting it will double again by 2020. And renewable energy is just one piece of the green economy.
I could go on and add more to the case for the green economy, but in truth it's pretty well established, which is why I asked the question: How do we pursue a green economy? Why is easy, and why is largely answered. How is more difficult. But now is the time to ask.
As we continue to struggle through these tough economic times, we should resist the temptation to resuscitate our economy as is, and take this opportunity to make it better. As has often been said, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
]]>Why We Don't Need to Choose Between the Environment and the Economytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.11106142011-11-26T08:20:31-05:002012-01-26T05:12:02-05:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/
When I was younger, I subscribed to the view that the economy and environment were opposing forces, and if you wanted to preserve the environment, that meant curbing economic growth. I no longer believe this to be necessarily true, and nor do large swaths of the environmental movement. Similarly, more and more businesses are coming to realize that better environmental performance does not come at the expense of profits. In fact, in many cases, quite the opposite is true.
Today, many people realize that it's not about the environment versus the economy, not a tradeoff between unemployment and pollution. It's not about picking one or the other. In short, we cannot choose between the environment and the economy. We need both. And this is our challenge: to create the conditions so that both can thrive.
This realization is at the heart of an emerging school of environmentalism often encapsulated by the term "green economy." It reflects a growing recognition that, on the one hand, the challenge of sustainability rests almost entirely in getting the economy right. Putting a price on carbon, valuing natural capital and ending perverse subsidies, among other things, are all vital to meaningful environmental reform.
And, on the other hand, if we wish to create a sustainable economy, we must pay more attention to the environment. Against a backdrop of climate change, resource scarcity, the massive loss of biodiversity and a variety of other environmental issues, business as usual is increasingly risky.
The notion of the green economy also differs from some other schools of thought by focusing on the opportunity presented by change, rather than the burden. To be sure, transitioning to a green economy will come at a cost. You have to slow down to turn a corner. But it is also the key to unlocking new opportunities for economic growth and jobs. At least, so says the OECD, among others.
The green economy will be one of the two themes at the upcoming conference on sustainable development, known as Rioრ, to be held in Rio de Janeiro in 2012, 20 years after the historic Earth Summit.
It is also the subject of a report officially released last week by the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) in preparation for the RIO+20 Summit, titled "Towards a Green Economy: Pathways to Sustainable Development and Poverty Eradication."
"With smart public policies, governments can grow their economies, generate decent employment and accelerate social progress in a way that keeps humanity's ecological footprint within the planet's carrying capacity."
Like I said, it's not about choosing one or the other, but about creating the conditions to support both the economy and the environment. It's also about finding ways to ensure a more equitable distribution of the spoils of progress.
UNEP's report acknowledges that this transition comes at a cost and, in the short term, some jobs will be lost. But in the medium to long term, we'll be much better off.
We can illustrate with an example from a recent report on China which concluded that 800,000 workers in small coal power plants in China will likely to lose their jobs due to climate mitigation actions, however, some 2.5 million jobs could be created by 2020 in the wind energy sector alone.
And this isn't just theory. Although they may be far from a green economy, according to recent accounts, China already counts over half a million renewable energy jobs. Germany has about 370,000 people employed in renewable energy manufacturing. The U.S. solar industry now employs over 100,000 people. And renewable energy is just one facet of the green economy. Nearly every major economy is pursuing some manner of green economic strategy because they see the opportunity therein.
I'm very excited by the emergence of the green economy and inspired by the global progress made toward it. As a concept, it has bridged the chasm between the environment and the economy, and created a space where people of diverse interests can come together and articulate a common vision. And as a practice, it is showing us that we can do things better.
We don't need to choose between our environment and economy. We need to choose both. And work toward bringing them into balance.
]]>Green Jobs Are Not a Hoaxtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9969482011-10-11T08:47:11-04:002011-12-11T05:12:01-05:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/
When U.S. solar darling Solyndra was forced to declare bankruptcy, detractors of green jobs seized upon it and made hay. Thankfully, some pundits have rallied to the defence of green jobs in the U.S. Most recently perhaps is James Surowiecki, who in the current New Yorker points out that government subsidies have played a key role in the energy industry since the 19th century, and although Solyndra's story is a cautionary tale, all in all, the U.S. program has been characterized by success. Surowiecki argues that one failure is not an indictment of industrial policy.
The attacks have been equally heated here in Ontario, despite the fact that Ontario-based businesses have not gone bankrupt. To be sure, there have been some hiccups in the province's bid to green the grid and create tens of thousands of jobs, but international experts continue to hold Ontario up as the gold standard, and prescribe patience.
A lot has been said on this issue, yet as the Program Manger of Blue Green Canada, I think I can offer an interesting perspective.
First, if you haven't heard of Blue Green Canada, we are a strategic alliance between Environmental Defence and the United Steelworkers (USW), and the Canadian affiliate of the U.S.-based Blue Green Alliance. We came together around the shared notion that we cannot choose between good jobs and a clean environment. We need both.
I think the environmental case for renewable energy is pretty well established. If you're not up on it though, visit Environmental Defence's website. So instead of reiterating what most people already know, I'm going to focus on the case made by labour, the other half of the alliance.
The Steelworkers are among those unions that see their role extending far beyond putting money in their members' pockets, with an emphasis on advancing a broader social agenda in the interests of all working families. The USW sees that there's a lot of work to be done to retool our economy and deal with climate change. Done right, this will lead to more jobs, not just in manufacturing, but in construction and an array of support services.
Also, greening our economy and attracting green manufacturing sets us up to supply goods that will almost certainly be in demand in the future. Solar and wind power and other clean tech sectors are growing at a furious rate. Even the OECD says nations must look to the green economy for new jobs and growth. Furthermore, greening existing businesses helps them align with the tastes of increasingly eco-savvy consumers and helps these businesses with their bottom line, saving on energy and materials costs and reducing waste. The short story is, greening our economy is key to future competitiveness, which is key to job creation and retention.
Another key function of unions is to advocate for good jobs, meaning decent wages and safe work conditions. Green jobs are both of these. They pay better than other jobs requiring comparable levels of education. And clean tech workplaces are also very often clean themselves, and that level of cleanliness is one of the things that workers highlight when talking about their jobs.
A further point is that unions understand the environmental crisis in a very concrete way. Many of our members have worked in coal mines, or smelters or in other polluted environments. They have suffered health impacts or known someone who has, and they have seen entire communities suffer too. For many, the environmental crisis is a lived experience.
For decades, people have argued that we must choose between good work and a clean environment. But that argument just doesn't hold up anymore. We need a functioning economy with good jobs, and a clean environment, which is what is meant by the term green economy.
The green economy strives to align our economy with the environment. It is a global push that is well underway, and gaining momentum by the day. For example, according to a recent report, 3.5 million people are now employed in renewable energy worldwide. China's renewable energy industries employ over half a million people, and Germany, the country Ontario's feed-in tariff is modeled after, now boasts over 370,000 renewable energy jobs.
The green economy is getting off the ground here in Ontario too. In the last two years, some 40 firms have announced their intention to build green manufacturing facilities in the province, and many are already in production, creating thousands of jobs.
All of this is to say, green jobs are not a hoax, and they're not just good PR. They are real, and they are in existence here in Ontario.
]]>Green Jobs Are Under Attacktag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9402062011-08-29T23:27:19-04:002011-10-29T05:12:02-04:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/Globe and Mail no doubt noticed Margaret Wente's column of last week which argued that most green job schemes are failures. To be sure, she has cobbled together a list of facts and examples that support her position. However, these facts are not representative of the bigger picture. Rather, they are the exceptions to the rule and, contrary to Ms. Wente's assertion, green jobs have been created the world over.
For example, according to a recent study from the Renewable Energy Policy Network, over 3.5 million people are now employed in renewable energy worldwide. China's renewable energy industries employ over half a million people, and Germany, the country our feed-in tariff is modeled after, now boasts over 370,000 renewable energy jobs.
And green energy isn't the only success story. The non-partisan Brookings Institution recently reported that the U.S. clean economy, which encompasses more than just renewable energy, employs some 2.7 million people, and it far outperformed the rest of the economy during the recession. Indeed, the report's author described the pace of growth as "torrid."
Ontario's program has also successfully created green jobs. Thanks to the Feed-in Tariff, and its domestic content requirements that stipulate that a percentage of any wind or solar project must be sourced from Ontario, 40 or so firms have announced their intention to set up manufacturing facilities in the province. Many are already in production. Plus, there are thousands of people busily installing solar panels and erecting wind turbine across the province, and many more in related businesses such as sales, engineering, and permitting.
In the face of this evidence, it seems odd that green jobs continue to come under attack. But we're nearing an election and, unfortunately, it appears that green energy and the associated green jobs have become a wedge issue.
Despite reports which show that green energy is not the reason hydro bills have increased, and others that demonstrate that embracing renewable energy will save ratepayers money over the medium to long term, despite reports from firms such as Ernst and Young and Deutsche Bank which find that Feed-in Tariffs deliver renewable energy at lower costs than other schemes, the Conservative Party of Ontario has vowed to cancel the province's program.
In Europe, renewable energy and the green economy are not partisan issues. Instead, they are embraced by right- and left-wing alike, even during these times of financial restraint. Why? Because renewable energy is a win-win proposition -- good for our environment and our economy.
Ontario should look more closely at Europe, and continue to follow the lead of the world's manufacturing economies, such as Germany and China, who understand that this environmental imperative is also an economic opportunity. And we should be wary of those who would have us embrace the status quo- or worse, go backward.
]]>Electric Vehicles Charging Forward in Ontariotag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9232832011-08-11T16:41:03-04:002011-10-11T05:12:01-04:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/an announcement that the government will provide $80 million to spur development and investment in electric car charging stations.
Have no doubt; electric vehicles (EVs) are the way of the future. From an environmental perspective, they are more energy efficient and dovetail well with the province's push to build out renewable energy. And as oil becomes more and more expensive, they are looking increasingly attractive from an economic perspective, too. It's just a matter of time before EVs become a common sight on our roads, and with respect to time, sooner would be better than later. The faster we transition, the sooner our air will benefit and the sooner costs will come down.
And in Ontario, there's a further reason to support the adoption of EVs: Jobs. Automotive manufacturing fueled a generation of economic growth, but that sector has been hit hard in recent years. Green manufacturing is the most promising way to reverse this decline and secure high quality jobs for the future. And good policy is important here. Since the Green Energy Act was passed in 2009, more than 30 businesses have announced they are setting up or expanding plants in Ontario to manufacture parts for the solar and wind industries. And we are beginning to attract EV manufacturing already. Just last week, Toyota announced that they will make their RAV4 EV here in Ontario. And it's not just about attracting new firms. Existing firms, like Mississauga-based battery maker, Electrovaya, will benefit too.
To be sure, there are those who think the government should stay out of these things. The truth is, Ontario's move will keep us in step with the world's leading economies.
For example, there are already about 1,000 EV charging points in the UK, and there are plans to install 4000 more by the end of 2012, thanks to government support. And there are also plans in place to install 20 battery switch stations across Denmark. And it's not just Europe. Israel too has an ambitious plan which will allow drivers to travel anywhere in the country in an electric car, even though its range may be only 160 km, and China aims to put more than a million electric vehicles onto the road each year by 2015. In fact, Ontario isn't even alone in Canada. The Quebec government recently announced plans put 300,000 electric cars on the road within the next decade.
So, it's good news that our government is supporting this transition to EVs. Our environment, pocket books and our economy will all be better off. EVs allow Ontario to stop sending our dollars away to import expensive and dirty oil, and instead create jobs at home by powering our cars with local, green electricity.]]>Green Jobs: Difficult to Assess, but a Pathway to Successtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/theblog//3.9175192011-08-05T09:27:22-04:002011-10-05T05:12:01-04:00Keith Brookshttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/keith-brooks/Blue Green Canada, we spend a lot of our time monitoring the growth of the green economy and tracking green jobs. One of the things we've realized is that it's not a simple task.
For one, the green economy is growing at an incredible rate and staying on top of it is a huge job. For example, our monthly roundup of global green jobs developments, which is far from exhaustive, is usually five or six pages long, and links to more than fifty stories.
But the larger challenge with tracking the green economy and associated green jobs stems from the fact that this sector is, well, not a sector. There are no occupational classifications dedicated to green jobs, and no industry codes either. Instead, green jobs can be found dispersed throughout various sectors and industries, and in all manner of occupations. Welders, crane operators, architects, concrete formers, machine operators, engineers, garbage collectors, and bus drivers, to name a few, comprise the green economy.
At least some of them do, some of the time. Not every welder has a green job, and those that do may not do "green work" all the time. So, it's challenging to count and assess how many green jobs there are.
This really shouldn't come as a surprise. The green economy is in its nascence, and we haven't yet developed good analytics with which to track it. But the desire to count green jobs is understandable, too: as we work to green our economy and create green jobs, how else can we tell whether or to what extent we have been successful?
One approach is to look at the jobs associated with a particular policy, as we've been doing with Ontario's Green Energy Act. But even here, we've had to limit ourselves to tracking the manufacturing starts because the jobs up and down the supply chain and those in related fields such as sales, installation, and permitting aren't often heralded by press releases.
All the same, by following the manufacturing starts, we've been able to show that a green economy is indeed blossoming here in Ontario, and that the Green Energy Act has successfully created thousands of green jobs. Moreover, by visiting these facilities and meeting with workers there, we have been able to show that these jobs are good jobs, jobs that workers are passionate about and proud of.
But we'd like to be able to say more about the green economy, and to extend our analysis beyond renewable energy, because we're really interested both in tracking and assessing the growth of the green economy, and in uncovering the enabling conditions which allow it to flourish. Which is why a recent study from the Brookings Institute is so important.
I'm not going to summarize the whole report. If you're interested, I suggest you start with their executive summary. But I do want to draw our attention to three findings because they are relevant to Canada, and especially to Ontario where our manufacturing sector has been hard hit in recent years.
1. The clean economy is manufacturing and export intensive. Roughly 26 per cent of all clean economy jobs lie in manufacturing establishments, compared to just nine per cent in the broader economy. On a per job basis, establishments in the clean economy export roughly twice the value of a typical U.S. job ($20,000 versus $10,000).
2. The clean economy offers more opportunities and better pay for low- and middle-skilled workers than the national economy as a whole. Median wages in the clean economy--meaning those in the middle of the distribution--are 13 per cent higher than median U.S. wages. Yet a disproportionate percentage of jobs in the clean economy are staffed by workers with relatively little formal education in moderately well-paying "green collar" occupations.
3. Strong industry clusters boost metros' growth performance in the clean economy. Clustering entails proximity to businesses in similar or related industries. Establishments located in counties containing a significant number of jobs from other establishments in the same segment grew much faster than more isolated establishments from 2003 to 2010. Overall, clustered establishments grew at a rate that was 1.4 percentage points faster each year than non-clustered (more isolated) establishments.
To me, this is good news for Ontario, and it confirms that we're on the right track. The green economy can revitalize our manufacturing sector, and create good jobs. And our bid to become a green manufacturing hub has merit, given that clusters boost growth.
It would be nice to get Brookings' level of analysis here in Canada so we can better understand our green economy at the national and regional levels. But, for now, this report is really telling us that the green economy works, and if we want to be players in this competition for new jobs and growth, we would be well advised to do more, not less, to support it.
]]>