By Ian H. Rowlands
Last week, a Canadian Energy Strategy (PDF) was released. Agreed by the country’s 10 premiers and three territorial leaders, this document aims to ‘[chart] a path for shaping the sustainable development of Canada’s energy future’ (p. 4). For anyone interested in national and continental energy policy developments, it is certainly noteworthy: every single Canadian across the country has an elected official who endorsed this plan. At the same time, however, it is not supported by the federal government (another set of elected officials who represent the entirety of the population), and the federal government’s priorities may well be different. While Canada’s federal government does not have a single articulated energy strategy, it does have ‘a series of principles, agreements and accords’ it has published; it also has presented a series of positions and decisions on key energy issues. From that, one can piece together its priorities.
Returning, however, to the new Strategy, reaction to its publication has been widespread and varied. Many have focused upon what it did and did not say. The Financial Post, for instance, bemoaned its lack of attention to oil and the oilsands, instead maintaining that it puts ‘climate change and the environment front and centre, renewable energy on a pedestal’. Others, however, appeared to find the emphasis on this country’s petroleum resources to be appropriate: the President from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was reported as saying that, ‘Ultimately this is a document that is going to enable us as a country to move important projects forward’.
Environmentalists also had mixed reactions. One report, which was picked up by numerous media outlets across the country, sampled the range of views. On the one hand, there was disappointment, with Dale Marshall of Environmental Defence referenced as noting ‘the document’s vague language around climate change, … it’s likely to encourage more of the status quo’. On the other hand, there was a more positive take: ‘… carbon pricing and “market-based” mechanisms to deal with [greenhouse gas] emissions was “a step in the right direction” …’, cautiously noted Erin Flanagan from the Pembina Institute.
Given that this is Canada, the notion of (constitutional) jurisdictional responsibility is bound to arise, and in subsequent analyses of the Strategy, it did. Andrew Coyne highlights the fact that this is a nationally-focused document produced by provincial and territorial leaders who -- given they are primarily responsible for energy actions within their respective borders – cede authority to the federal government once an energy issue crosses provincial/territorial lines. He notes on the National Post that, ‘it’s difficult to see what there is in all this for the premiers to negotiate‘. An editorial in The Toronto Star also highlighted the significance of governmental responsibilities, with its choice of headline being suggestive: ‘Premiers need Ottawa’s leadership on the big issues’.
Of course, multiple readings should not be particularly surprising when 13 leaders holding different interests and having diverse political stripes come together. An editorial in the Montreal Gazette, for instance, labelled the document, ‘a case study in careful compromise’.
What most commentators failed to acknowledge as they reviewed the Strategy, however, was the uninspiring nature of its vision. Granted, the document is to be applauded for sheer inclusion of a vision, along with objectives and principles (pp. 11-12). Indeed, the presence of these multiple tiers would appear to open the door to upfront ‘blue-skying’, which could then be accompanied by detailed ‘nitty-grittying’! However, with a vision as it is articulated (see below), that sky seems pretty cloudy!
CANADIAN ENERGY STRATEGY, VISION: Canada is a global leader in providing a secure, sustainable and reliable supply of energy that is delivered with a high standard of environmental and social responsibility, consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and contributes to continued economic growth and prosperity for all Canadians.
A more sophisticated vision – one that would recognize the importance of ‘systems approaches’ across multiple dimensions (temporal, sectoral, etc.) – would direct attention to the services that energy resources help to provide to people and communities, rather than to the supply-side. In other words, it would emphasize – first and foremost – the desired outcomes: comfort, mobility, sustenance, etc. Discussion could then follow about what kinds of energy systems would serve to get us closer to those goals.
This may seem relatively nuanced – prioritizing, in the vision, what we want, rather than how we get there. But words matter – not only which ones are chosen, but also how they are positioned. In Canada, nationally-agreed documents help to catalyze conversations about desired energy futures, and we hope that those conversations then lead to constructive action. Given this, let’s talk about what energy services we want, and how we might best get there. We can all aim for better as the Strategy moves forward.