Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Suzuki

GET UPDATES FROM David Suzuki
 

Where Christy Clark Went Wrong

Posted: 08/08/2012 11:55 am

B.C.'s Christy Clark was right to walk away from a national energy strategy promoted by Alberta's Alison Redford at a provincial premiers' meeting in Halifax in late July. She just did it for the wrong reasons.

Clark said she won't sign on unless B.C. is guaranteed a bigger share of benefits from the proposed Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline project. But all the money in China, Alberta, and Enbridge's bank accounts won't be enough to undo the damage from a major leak near one of the thousand waterways the dual pipeline would cross, or from a supertanker spill along the B.C. coast.

B.C.'s premier should have renounced the proposal because it's focused more on tar sands, pipelines, and markets than on getting Canada's greenhouse gas emissions under control by shifting from fossil fuel dependency to a more efficient system based on conservation and renewable energy.

Canadians want and need an energy strategy. We need it to combat the ever-increasing damage from global warming, to make better use of our resources, to ensure energy security for all Canadians, to respect the rights of aboriginal people, and to create long-term jobs and economic prosperity. That calls for a better plan than quickly digging up all our bitumen and coal and selling it to China and fracking the hell out of every piece of ground that might have some gas in it.

Oil, gas, and coal are valuable and finite resources. All represent energy from the sun that has been stored through photosynthesis and concentrated over millions of years. We waste a lot of it, especially when we burn it in private automobiles that use only about 15 per cent of the energy to move the car. Because a car typically weighs 10 to 20 times more than the passengers it carries, we're only getting about one per cent efficiency from the fuel.

Instead of wasting 99 per cent of this complex and useful non-renewable chemical mix, we could use more of it to make everything from bicycle tires and computer keyboards to heart valves and artificial limbs. And surely we can even find more efficient and less polluting ways to use it for fuel.

A rational energy strategy -- one that benefits Canadians more than multinational corporations and the repressive regime in China -- would recognize the value of our limited resources not just for fuel and products but as a way to generate steady revenue to help us shift to renewable energy.

What would such a strategy look like? It's already too late to stop global warming, but we can contribute to making it less severe. That means shifting away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. Canada would have to reduce its emissions by 80 per cent from 1990 levels by 2050 to do its part to avoid dangerous warming over 2° C. Instead of doubling oil sands production, we need to reduce the energy we get from fossil fuels by more than 70 per cent.

The target is possible if we transform our energy system over the next 40 years, according to the Trottier Energy Futures Project, a joint effort between the David Suzuki Foundation and the Canadian Academy of Engineering. Renewable energy use would have to double. Energy production from non-hydro renewables such as wind, solar, and biomass would have to increase 150 times from today's levels. We would also have to make our country 50 per cent more energy efficient. This could be accomplished by building only net-zero buildings by 2050 and retrofitting existing buildings to the highest efficiency standards.

It would take vision and commitment, including unlocking financing to enable energy efficient retrofits and renewable energy development, training workers to retrofit homes and install local renewable generation, building a flexible electricity grid, and converting refineries to biofuel production from biomass byproducts.

Although the 2007 plan Premier Redford and her fellow leaders hope to build on mentions renewable energy and climate change, it doesn't offer the bold vision needed to realize the many benefits -- and the necessity -- of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels. We need a broad and comprehensive strategy. Had Premier Clark embraced and articulated such a vision, she would have been seen as a real leader.


Written with contributions from David Suzuki Foundation Editorial and Communications Specialist Ian Hanington.

Learn more at www.davidsuzuki.org.

For more insights from David Suzuki, please read Everything Under the Sun (Greystone Books/David Suzuki Foundation), by David Suzuki and Ian Hanington, now available in bookstores and online.

 
 
 
FOLLOW CANADA POLITICS
B.C.'s Christy Clark was right to walk away from a national energy strategy promoted by Alberta's Alison Redford at a provincial premiers' meeting in Halifax in late July. She just did it for the wron...
B.C.'s Christy Clark was right to walk away from a national energy strategy promoted by Alberta's Alison Redford at a provincial premiers' meeting in Halifax in late July. She just did it for the wron...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 12
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
Gnomish
ego doctus ignarus
07:29 PM on 08/20/2012
Christy Clark went wrong at the first signal she passed she took the entire track with her!

Environmentally she just isn't there at all!
06:05 PM on 08/10/2012
Suzuki's legacy will be that his home province adopts a strong fossil fuel economy in order to pay for the costly environmental programs he wants - the ultimate irony.

A resource country like Canada cannot reduce its fossil fuel dependency by 70% and maintain its standard of living. This is what is missing from the environmental throne speeches. Let's have an honest discussion about a Canada with access to only one third of the fossil fuels it currently uses. And lets talk about the developing countries like China, India and Brazil that press on without us.
10:34 PM on 08/08/2012
Why is it we spend so much time and energy fighting those we elected to represent us?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DirkNeptune
I love raspberry pie, damn it.
01:38 PM on 08/11/2012
Yeah you're right. We should just accept bad policies from people we didn't vote for. Crush dissent - it's the new Canadian way.
12:37 AM on 08/12/2012
I'm not completely certain, but I think we're on the same side.
photo
Gnomish
ego doctus ignarus
07:32 PM on 08/20/2012
Because Canadians didn't look at what was in front of them.
Nor did they listen.
09:36 PM on 08/08/2012
I elect David Suzuki to lead the way and live in a well insulated 600 sq. ft. apartment as a way to conserve fuels. After ten to fifteen years we can see if he has any followers.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DebbyM
08:03 PM on 08/09/2012
He would probably advocate 'sensible' living with homes oriented towards the sun, most or all windows on the south side for taking advantage of the free heat and light, solar water heaters, houses that are better insulated, homes that are a reasonable size as opposed to the badly designed and poor insulated and incorrectly sited on the lot. He would advocate shade on those south windows to cut back on how much air conditioning must be used, and housing developments that are group heated geothermally. Man there are so many little adjustments to the way that we do things that add up to a greater good! But we don't do them because we're used to wasting energy and polluting the environment.

We have to change our perception and see this planet as the life support system it is and start treating it like we actually do respect it.
photo
Gnomish
ego doctus ignarus
07:31 PM on 08/20/2012
Bring it on I'll go for it in a second. 600 sq ft a double the BC standard.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
djelimon17
what's this thing for?
08:36 PM on 08/08/2012
Sounds to me like Mulcair has the right idea. If we can survive until the next election
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
07:53 AM on 08/09/2012
Mulcair has waffled on the development of the tar sands. He says he is against it, then says he would like it developed differently. The only party that has been consistent in their opposition to tar sands extraction is the Green Party.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:58 PM on 08/08/2012
The fact that about 15% of the energy goes to move the car and approximately 1% to move the occupants, you would expect the car manufacturers to be embarrassed to talk fuel efficiency; but they know that most people have not made a conscious connection with that reality yet.

The insane inefficiencies of this antiquated technology needs to made a poster child for the environmental movement.