Last week, a number of the members of 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.
Follow Keith Brooks on Twitter: www.twitter.com/keithdbrooks
Second, "the petrodollar" old song and dance. Yes, the dollar does fluctuate with oil, but many economists including Bank of Canada Governor John Carney have stated numerous times, currency valuations are absolutely affected by many variables not just oil or other commodities. Not stating this in your article just shows your bias.
Third, if the only competitive edge for Canadian manufacturers is a low dollar, the sector is in trouble. Again, it's a well known fact Canada needs to expand its customer base, make more quality products people want to buy and increase productivity to compete on a global scale. If all we're after is a low valued currency while ignoring the facts, we might as well be China.
People like you will never get my respect unless you are honest about the issues we face and present real solutions instead of just writing we just simply need to switch to alternate forms of energy.
I don't agree with you about these so called "well known issues" for which there are no solutions. Wind is price competitive with new gas-fired plants, renewables scale incredibly well and are quite reliable when connected to the grid.
To the petrodollar, I didn't suggest that oil is the only factor, but that it is a factor. And this is supported by countless reports, including a recent report by the OECD.
I also did not say that the low dollar is the only competitive edge. The point is that our industries grew up during a period when the Canadian dollar was valued lower than the American. With the dollar at or near parity, this is fundamentally different, and it contributes to job losses in export-oriented sectors.
We need to have a reasoned debate instead of polarizing issues, making straw men and then attacking them.
Total levelized cost kw/hr provided by US Department of Energy is much higher for wind, biomass and solar. Combined the Feed In Tarriffs, renewable is by far the most expensive sources of electricity in the world.
Regarding petro dollar, you didn't state there was other factors which determine currency valuations. Not including other variables you imply to your readers oil is the only cause.
Curious, you mention the oilsands and not any of the biggest CO2 emitters in Canada: transport, coal and electricity generation. As Im sure you are aware, oilsands are a very small part of overall CO2 emissions in Canada so why only single them out?
Im attacking yuor substance. Your article is full of half truths, left out facts and offer little to nothing in terms of solutions.
Scaleability: obviously large or medium size cities are not powered exclusively by wind or solar. This would require thousands of wind turbines or millions of solar panels. Of course this would not be cost effective or possible with current infrastructure. How is this not a scaleability barrier?
Reliability: do a simple google search on solar winter blackouts in Germany or wind turbines generating 1.4% of capacity in Ontario or Denmark. Only two examples of many documented issues. Consecutive days without sun or wind obviously create unreliable power generation.
Petrodollar: you did not write about any other variable that affects currency value. You only referenced dependence of oil in your article so you are deliberately providing misleading and incomplete information. Also the recent report by OECD certainly references many other variables besides oil which affect currency valuations. Guess you forgot to write about those.
You know what else contributes to job losses in manufacturing? Lack of customer base, lack of investment, poor productivity, and lack of products with global appeal.
Your article is full of biased half truths, misleading and incomplete information which gives the article zero credibility. Anyone with basic knowledge or able to do menial research on the given topic can easily dispute your entire article.
Had you presented the theme that it is time to PIVOT away from The Carbon Economy and let the Hydrogen Economy emerge, then you would have given the audience a clear path to abandon environmental and health pollution caused by the now century old Carbon Economy, as laid down by John Rockefeller's Standard Oil 95% monopoly on oil refining.
Had you put forth the theme and challenged the Nation's students to duplicate the first stage of photosynthesis in a tree leaf where a solar particle breaks the bond of the water molecule and to capture the FREE hydrogen gas produced, then the direction is clear.
Someone loaded this text into the teleprompter from which George Bush read his 2003 State of the Union address.
--
“With a new national commitment, our scientists and engineers will overcome obstacles to taking these (hydrogen fuel cell) cars from laboratory to showroom, so that the first car driven by a child born today could be powered by hydrogen, and pollution-free.”
--
Well, this women wants to drive her pollution-free Mercedes Hydrogen Fuel Cell SUV; http://bit.ly/Jk5oCG , all around America but there are no hydrogen gas pumps on the service station lots.
Yet, this Oil Giant can manufacture them; http://bit.ly/NWFSsf .
And Rockefeller's Exxon has figured out the Hydrogen math; http://bit.ly/MbSiuq .