Investing in green energy will not only enhance Canada’s competitiveness on the global energy market, it will also help insulate us against spikes in global oil prices (Credit: Ethan Kan via Flickr).
Weak policies are keeping Canada out of a lucrative race for greener energy
In the English language leadership debate, we heard a lot of talk about the economy, but a deafening silence about the environment and where our energy policies are leading us. Half-way through the election, we need to hear political leaders clearly outline how they will help Canada become a global leader in the future economy — through investments in green energy. Failure to do this, or offer a vision for Canada to get back in the lucrative race to develop technology and harness more renewable sources of energy, will only leave our country further behind — and coughing in a cloud of emissions.
And we are behind. Data from a recent study shows that U.S. and China have spent the equivalent of about $360 and $187 per capita respectively in climate change-related infrastructure projects in 2009, while Canada only invested $87 per capita. Canada's failure to match U.S. clean energy investments in recent years has cost our country 66,000 jobs.
Our failure to harness opportunities to make Canada a leader in the green economy is endangering our economic future. Furthermore, this appears to be happening against the will of Canadians: 83 per cent of whom support investments in green jobs, according to recent polls.
Investing in green energy will not only enhance Canada's competitiveness on the global energy market, it will also help insulate us against spikes in global oil prices. Despite our large oil reserves, and regardless of how much oil we produce, we pay the global price of oil. Adopting policies that promote renewable energy sources — wind, solar, etc.— would diversify Canada's economy while increasing economic stability and domestic energy security. Norway is already benefiting from such policies — like us, it is a major oil exporter; unlike us, it aims to be carbon neutral by 2030.
The need to wean ourselves off fossil fuels is being recognized the world over. High oil prices are synonymous with sluggish economic growth, high inflation and high food prices. While the price of oil is still low enough to make many renewable sources uncompetitive, most people know that this price is going nowhere but up in the next 20 years, as reserves dwindle.
The almost single-minded interest of successive Canadian governments — Liberal and Conservative — in subsidizing the expansion of the Alberta's oil sands has caused our leaders to lose sight of the needs of citizens. They have failed to connect the green dots between environmental policies and the big benefits that will stem from them: most notably, protecting against high energy prices; creating green industries and jobs; increasing energy security; increasing Canada's competitiveness; fostering technological innovation; and reducing pollution and health-care costs.
The Stone Age didn't end because people ran out of stone. Similarly, Canada doesn't need to use every last drop of fossil fuels before shifting to a greener economy. Standing on the sidelines only leaves Canadian taxpayers and businesses at a loss.
If political leaders want to capture Canadians' hearts and minds during this election, they can start by connecting the green dots to prosperity.
This article was previously published on Canada.com
Post a comment
2 Comments
12:59 PM
Why do these articles always leave hydroelectric out of the picture? For example, this article reads: “Adopting policies that promote renewable energy sources — wind, solar, etc.— would diversify Canada’s economy while increasing economic..”. I am trying hard to support a micro hydro project in a NIMBY environment but I’m beginning to wonder if I am missing something as I keep seeing articles that only talk about wind and solar being ‘good’ alternatives. I know huge hydro projects are destructive to pristine wilderness, but small hydro projects near the grid? It would really help to have the Suzuki Foundation or others to point to when I try to support Green Energy. Is there some reason why the mainstream environmental movement doesn’t want to talk about hydro? I really need to understand and hope you will respond to me.
9:10 AM
I think we have to go after the root causes first e.g.the Chemical Industry, specially Plastics.Why can’t the Government give the Chemical Industry 10 years to come up with Biodegradable materials to replace Plastics. With all the recent technological advancements including Computers I am convinced it can be achieved. The most recent example of how we get used to new ideas without paying much attention to the consequences is the “Plastic Water Bottles”.There are Billions of empty bottles throughout the world that we do not know what to do with.I also think the benefits of Recycling are limited and does not address the core issue.
The David Suzuki Foundation does not necessarily endorse the comments or views posted within this forum. All contributors acknowledge DSF's right to refuse publication of comments deemed to be offensive or that contravene our operating principles as a charitable organization. Please note that all comments are pre-moderated. Privacy Policy »