Including 'fossil fuel communities' in Canada's clean energy transition - Conversation article

There was a very interesting article in the Conversation Canada today by authors Ekaterina Rhodes, Megan Egler, Rowan Hargreaves, Samuel Lloyd from the University of Victoria this morning.

Essentially, the authors are arguing that transitioning to less carbon-intensive energy strategies is only possible if fossil fuel companies are treated as the protagonists in a story of energy transition. This is an interesting perspective which they arrive at through 'large citizen surveys, focus groups with municipal leaders and analysis of disinformation' in BC and Alberta.

Points from the article that ring true with my research thus far:

1. Diversification efforts are built around (incorporated into) rather than 'beyond' oil and gas. In my work, the connection is often made that oil and gas companies have the existing infrastructure, the technical 'know-how', and the funds to realize alternative forms of energy.

2. Oil and gas - as an industry - is 'an economic engine'. I have also witnessed participants' express fear in not supporting oil and gas as it may stagnate what is already considered an under-performing local economy for the present day, but also future generation.

   1. They quote a local Albertan municipal official who stated:“If you took oil and gas out of our community, I would suggest that there would be no hospital. There would be no schools. There would be no town. The only reason our community exists is to service the oil and gas industry.” - Indeed, I've heard similar points from officials and business owners as well (both within and outside the industry)

3. The existance of what the authors are calling 'Climate Polarization' - defined as the emotional distance between those who supposedly support vs. deny climate policy which is often labelled by left- and right-leaning political views. In my own work, folks have described feeling 'anti-Albertan' if they so much as question future directions of oil and gas firms (such as the new Carbon Capture and Sequestration project slated for the Lakeland region).

   1. It is important to underline the importance of context when thinking of those with 'strong emotional attachment'. For example, the authors argue that linking climate policies with just transition measures - for example, where there is government support to re-train workers, support "community-owned energy, develop low-carbon incentives and public transit .. can boost support for carbon pricing among the less polarized". At the moment, only Cold Lake (compared to Bonnyville, the MD of Bonnyville, or St. Paul) has a consistent bus service - and this service is free on account of the former ID 349 agreement (and remains free now due to grants), which is a municipal property tax revenue generated by resource activity (machinery & equipment, power and pipelines, and property) on the Cold Lake Air Weapons Range. These funds are directly linked to the oil and gas industry, e.g., Imperial, Cenovus, etc. (check out link or link for more info).

4. The authors go on to write that municipalities 'battle structural voids' where federal and provincial 'clean growth plans' don't match up - all the while fossil fuel companies work to "intensify ... bad-faith arguments" that "suggest that climate policies and fossil-fuel communities are at odds" (link)

5. The authors end their article by highlighting the importance of engaged listening around energy transitions. Indeed, the authors begin their article with the following: "Fossil fuel-dependent communities in Western Canada sit at the centre of Canada’s energy decisions. A just and inclusive clean energy transition will depend on how well governments listen to these communities and how fast they deal with the forces working to slow down energy decarbonization." In my interviews with 'industry insiders' and those living in the community (outside the industry) - I ask participants who they think makes the decisions about energy futures? I can tell you that they do not feel as though they are in the driver's seat on these decisions - so given this recommendation, the government appears to have a lot of work to do to change the perceptions and experiences around consultation and collaboration.

   
   

So, what does this all mean for the future of energy in the Lakeland region? I think this article, and the research findings it discusses, highlight the importance of context and underlines the fact that this topic is top-of-mind for many Albertans.

I will continue to engage with news articles as a means to discuss my own findings. If you'd like to engage with these thoughts, please email me at longj34@macewan.ca