Does Alternative Energy Threaten Canadian Culture? Probably Not.

Alternative energy strategies in this country are often viewed as impractical or even anti-Canadian because they suggest a departure from oil dependence. The oil industry insists that oil is an absolute necessity and that phrases like ‘global warming’ and ‘rising emissions’ are blowing things out of proportion.

But, perhaps the idea of oil as a necessity is blown out of proportion. While the real threat of climate change makes itself known around the world, some countries are taking it seriously enough to invest in more sustainable power sources.

This last Friday, a record-breaking level of CO2 was measured at the Mauna Loa research facility in Hawaii. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide reached 400 parts per million—the highest concentration in over 800,000 years. Scientists say that levels shouldn’t exceed 350 ppm in order to prevent a global temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius. Reaching the 400 ppm measurement shows things are changing faster than scientists had previously imagined.

Many countries have been attempting to reverse this increase by setting energy targets for themselves. The aim is to be oil-free in the not-to-distant future by utilizing things like geo-thermal heat, wind, solar, hydro and wave power. There is no relevant work being done in Canada to suggest that an oil-free goal is even being considered.

According to data collected by The Global Footprint Network, Canadians have the eighth largest ecological footprint in the world. We consume over three times as much per person than what is considered the maximum for earth’s capacity. These numbers suggest that change is imperative, if not inevitable.

It would be easy to use the tiny nation of Tokelau, a territory of New Zealand, as an example of radical change. Tokelau is entirely solar powered. But the conceptual comparison can’t be made—Tokelau is too different.

Sweden, Iceland, France and Germany are not so different from us. Citizens of these countries are familiar with modern comforts like smart phones, snowmobiles, and sandwiches. Yet each of these countries is doing much more to reduce its ecological and carbon footprint. 

With the goal of being oil-free by 2020, Sweden is doing everything it can to reduce the dependence on fossil fuels. In 2009 they began putting labels on food that indicate the carbon emissions associated with the production of that item. It is estimated that they “could cut… emissions from food production by 20 to 50 percent. An estimated 25 percent of the emissions produced by people in industrialized nations can be traced to the food they eat, according to recent research [conducted in the US].”

Iceland has been called “global warming’s front line." The effects of climate change are undeniable, as the ice melts will change the topography drastically. Iceland is pushing hard to become the first nation to break free from the constraints of fossil fuel.

Already, two-thirds of Iceland’s power comes from renewable sources such as hydro and geothermal heat. A few years ago, the first hydrogen-powered commercial vessel – a whale-watching boat – set sail from Reykjavik. Iceland hopes to convert its entire transport system to hydrogen by 2050.

France is a good example of a nation that isn’t suffering for want of culture. Yet they've been bold in their efforts to institute environmental principles at the highest political level. France has been working internationally to “give the environment issue a global institutional framework.”

In 2011 France even outlawed hydraulic fracking, making it "the first country to pass a law banning the technique for extracting natural gas and oil."

Germany is a champion of renewable energy and a wizard at implementing practical environmental policy that benefits both the environment and the economy. The government in Germany has done everything from implementing an eco-tax to discourage petroleum use to heating government buildings with biodiesel to subsidizing renewables like solar and wind. Germany is one of the few industrial nations to actually reduce its greenhouse gas emissions between 1990 and 2005 – by some 18 percent. Between 1990 and 2011 Canada's greenhouse gas emissions increased by a staggering 267 percent. 

Germany's bold move away from nuclear energy also showed the nation's ability to overcome a powerful industry lobby – one that insisted the German economy would crash, prices would soar and energy independence be lost – should a move away from nuclear occur. The story of Germany in this regard should give hope to a nation like Canada, with deep cultural and economic ties to the oil and gas sector. 

Yet Canada, as a country, is resistant to change. When it comes to energy consumption, we’re investing even more heavily in carbon-intensive fuel sources like unconventional oil and gas. And despite international pressure to limit dirty energy projects like the Alberta tar sands, Canada seems intent on digging in its heels.

So why are we such laggards?

The answer is culture. And that, in part, is a culture of convenience. Richard Wilk, Anthropologist and professor at Indiana University suggests in his paper, Culture and Energy Consumption, that North Americans fear a change in our energy infrastructure will greatly affect our level of comfort. He makes the correlation with how ideas of comfort become culture.

Wilk writes: “it took more than 30 years to convince Americans that air conditioning was not going to cause disease.” It would probably take even longer now to wean the Amerian populace off of air conditioning.

Cultural mindsets can be firm, but can also change when necessity dictates it. 

In a recent interview, former US vice president, Al Gore, used the recent legalization of gay marriage as an example of how suddenly shifts in mentality can occur. He said that he couldn’t have predicted such a “non-linear shift.” But he’s noticed that, when given a simple choice of what’s right and what’s wrong, change can be quick. “There is a bubble of illusion on carbon fuels, and the dawn of realization that we are destroying the climate envelope within which human civilization has flourished will change everything.”

But that realization has yet to prove its importance to Canada's oil and gas sector. Industry appears to abide by its own form of convenience – one heavily invested in fossil fuel production, no matter how unsustainable that production has become. Like Germany, Canada needs to make a bold transition away from the dominant energy paradigm. And like Germany, Canada needs both the general public and the government to push for that to occur.

A loss of culture—or convenience—doesn’t appear to be associated with a transition to carbon-free energy for any of these other countries. Canada's path to climate action won’t be the same—there are geographical, political and economical differences between us. But, on a conceptual level, perhaps the real threat to Canadian culture is the commitment to the status quo, rather than the idea of an oil-free Canada.

Image Credit: wiki