Canada West Foundation Blog

By: Dr. Roslyn Kunin

Over the years, I have spoken with many people who were planning on starting their own business. They told me about the great product or service they would offer. They described how they would set up the business. They all told me how much money they hoped to be making once the business got rolling.

What they never mentioned, until they were prompted, were customers. That basic business need, someone willing and able to pay for the good or service provided was, if not totally missing from the mental image of the new business, certainly not in the foreground.

We should not be too hard on these aspiring entrepreneurs for not thinking about who was going to buy their output. For a very long time, governments, policymakers, planners and others interested in economic development did the same thing. Some still do so.

Take western Canada as an example. When we think about advancing our economy, we think about inputs. These include our resources and how we can access and develop them. They include infrastructure; transportation, communication, etc. They definitely include human capital—a workforce with both hard and soft skills and, ideally, some relevant experience.

We think about what we might produce. In the past, the focus has been around the question of how the West can move up the food chain beyond its traditional, resource-based industries and into manufacturing and the newer technologies.

What we have not been thinking about is customers. Who is going to want whatever it is we are or might be producing? For too long, we have had an “if you build it, they will come” attitude. But that only happens in the movies.

Relative to much of the rest of the world, western Canada is blessed with various essential resources, an educated labour force, decent infrastructure and political stability. But we are seriously limited by our lack of customers. We have been, and still are, far too dependent on one customer—the United States.

If you have only one customer, the US is a good one to have. It is close, big, speaks English and has similar laws and customs. But it exposes you to the risk of having all your eggs in one basket. We learned this to our sorrow in the last downturn.

To advance western Canada, we need more customers, and those potential customers are sitting across the Pacific and beginning to creep into our awareness. They want, need and can afford the resources and high level services that we can provide.

So let us adjust our focus to look west as well as south. Let us develop the pipelines and other infrastructure needed to serve new markets. Let us develop and add to our customer base. That is how businesses and economies grow.

By: Shawna Ritchie

Developing a national vision for energy can seem like a daunting task. After all, there are so many different ideas, opinions, perspectives and factors that come into play. Should Canada continue to develop the oil sands? Should we be trying to sell more oil and gas to Asian countries or to the United States? Or, should we not be selling it at all? Is reducing our emissions profile the most important issue going forward? Or is protecting Canadian jobs?

These were the kinds of questions that Sheila O’Brien (my co-author) and I were exploring during the first few months of 2011 when we set out to interview 50 of the leading experts in western Canada on energy and the environment. We had an incredibly diverse and thoughtful group of interviewees and heard many different visions for Canada’s energy future.

Throughout the course of these interviews, an interesting trend started to emerge. It became clear that a person’s perspective on the potential for renewable energy has a dramatic impact on their vision for the future. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that what someone believes about the potential of renewable energy shapes their vision for energy in Canada. And, broadly, there are three different groups of people when it comes to the potential of renewable energy: the optimists, the hybrids and the skeptics.

Those who have unbridled optimism for the future of renewable energy have a vision for Canada that we would fuel our energy and economic needs almost entirely with renewable energies.

They would accomplish this vision by stopping the production of conventional energy and therefore eliminating the need to build new pipelines or LNG terminals. They see a future where governments, individuals and companies would all turn their time, creativity and—importantly—money towards fostering and developing renewable energy solutions. This collective commitment toward renewable energies would enable us to overcome the current technical challenges around renewables like the lack of an efficient storage system and the high materials cost.

These optimists point out that Canada has one of the most expansive renewable energy portfolios in the world with good wind corridors, sunny skies, innumerable rivers, extensive bio feedstock and much, much more. They argue that if we diverted money away from conventional energy subsidies, technologies and investments and into renewables the future would be unrecognizably changed and that would become the bedrock of our economic success.

By contrast, those who believe renewables have potential, but maybe not enough to take the place of conventional energy sources, advocate for a cautious approach. These are the hybrids. Loosely, their vision is that we should continue to develop and sell fossil fuels, but we should strive to sell them around the world while we simultaneously wean ourselves off those carbon-intensive goods by using more renewable energy here at home.

Their vision for the future is one where Canada remains one of the leading suppliers of conventional energy to the world and then uses the wealth generated from that economic export to transform our domestic energy system. The underlying hope of this vision is that in the process of transforming our own system we will develop the skills and expertise in renewable energy technology that with time will become one of our main exports to the world.

At the furthest end of the spectrum are the renewable skeptics who believe that renewable energies have limited use and application in Canada. These skeptics note that if we are going to continue to consume energy in the same way as today, then the only solution is to expand our conventional energy system by building pipelines, developing the oil sands, coordinating government regulations and establishing global energy trade networks and not significantly investing in renewables energies.

For most skeptics, renewable energy may be appropriate for some smaller, remote communities that do not have easy access to the energy grid—such as those on islands—but it is not a viable option for the vast majority of Canadians. They argue that even if we do increase the development of wind and solar energies, for example, they will always have to be backstopped with a conventional energy like natural gas because of the intermittent nature of the sun and wind and our insatiable demand for energy.

This central role of renewables in the energy vision is interesting for two reasons. First, because where a person falls on this renewable energy spectrum can’t be determined by their occupation or their industry. There are environmentalists who are renewable skeptics and oil and gas executives who are renewable optimists. Second, because this trend indicates a possible first step in creating a national vision for energy. If we as a country can come to a fact-based and informed understanding of what the potential for renewable energy is in Canada, it could make the path forward much more visible for us as a country.

Where people stand on the potential for renewables is pivotal in their vision for our energy future. This issue has the ability to cut through many of the other debates and questions that surround our energy future and can restructure the conversation.

So, where do you fall on the spectrum? Are you an optimist, a hybrid or a skeptic? Why?

A vision for Canada’s energy future, based on one-on-one conversations with some of western Canada’s leading energy and environmental experts, is explored in a forthcoming Canada West Foundation publication entitled “Catching a Rising Tide: A Western Energy Vision for Canada,” which will be released on October 12, 2011.

Three new publications from the Canada West Foundation highlight the variety of views western Canadians have about environmental, energy and water issues. The results from a survey commissioned by the foundation are compiled in three separate reports under the Attitudes to Energy and the Environment Initiative.

Reading the Meter: Western Canadian Opinions on Energy Issues outlines the variety of views western Canadians have about energy issues including the economic importance of the energy sector, support for green energy, and the future of the oil sands.

Green Expectations: Western Canadian Opinions on Environmental Issues highlights a fundamental tension in the public mindset: Canadians need and want energy but worry that energy production and consumption are damaging the environment.

Water Worries: Western Canadian Opinions Toward Paying More for Water shows that western Canadians are worried about the long-term supply of fresh water and that they are willing to pay more for water if doing so results in more conservation.

“As westerners, we know that the energy sector helps butter our economic bread by providing jobs, stimulating investment and generating government revenue,” notes the survey’s principle investigator Robert Roach. “At the same time, there is a strong degree of apprehension about one of the country’s (indeed the world’s) largest natural resource assets—the Alberta oil sands. While outright opposition to the oil sands is quite low in the West, large numbers of westerners would like to see better environmental results, even if this means slowing the pace of development,” adds Roach.

The results examined in these three publications are drawn from a survey conducted by Environics Research Group Limited. The survey was conducted by telephone in late 2010 with 1,202 western Canadians (300 per province) 18 years and older. The results are accurate +/-2.8 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

Attitudes to Energy and the Environment is part of the Canada West Foundation’s Powering Up for the Future Project, which focuses on public policy challenges at the interface of the economy, the environment and energy.

To download the Attitudes to Energy and Environment publications, click here.

Latest research conducted by Canada West Foundation has identified broad agreement that a well designed Canadian energy strategy would contribute to a secure and prosperous future for Canada.

Finding Common Ground: The Next Step in Developing a Canadian Energy Strategy by authors William Kimber, Vice President, Research and Dr. Roger Gibbins, President & CEO, was released today as part of the Canada West Foundation’s Powering Up Project.

Between 2009 and now, a wide range of stakeholder groups including: the energy industry, environmental organizations, leaders of Canada’s top enterprises and policy experts in academia and think tanks have released papers and statements calling for reform of Canada’s energy policy framework.

The Common Ground paper is the first to provide a synthesis of these various initiatives and points of view, and identifies eight interconnected themes from this impressive body of work. These common themes are:

• embrace Canada’s energy diversity as a strength;
• ensure robust environmental stewardship;
• set a price for carbon;
• transform the demand side of the energy system;
• strengthen Canada’s position in the world;
• promote energy security in the North American context;
• drive innovation and technological development; and
• understand that strategy is a dialogue.

“The research shows that there is much that diverse stakeholders across Canada can agree on.” Co-author Will Kimber commented. “The common view is that we need an energy strategy for Canada, and we need it now.”

While impressive progress has already been made, there is much more work to be done. The report therefore proposes three next steps to ensure that momentum for policy reform is not lost.

To download Finding Common Ground: The Next Step in Developing a Canadian Energy Strategy, click here.

On Monday, January 17th 2011 in Calgary, Corporate Knights Magazine teamed with the Energy Policy Institute of Canada (EPIC) to invite key thought leaders to discuss the significant challenges facing the economy, energy, and the environment. They focused on the following question: Most Canadians expect that we all will eventually transition from carbon-based to low carbon energy. Given that the transition will take years, how can we best manage it?

While initiating change is one of the focuses of a Canadian energy strategy, decision makers must be cautious to ensure that proposed changes are attainable and sustainable. Dr. Roger Gibbins, President and CEO of the Canada West Foundation, is in favour of improving methods for handling our resources. “The prescription going forward is very simple, alarmingly simple. That is we have to continue doing what we do best only do it better, and much better, going forward." (Paul Wells, Daily Oil Bulletin January 17, 2011.)

In addition to building attainable goals, measuring environmental consequences should be considered when discussing an energy strategy. Preston Manning feels that, “The first principle should be proper measurement of the environmental impacts of all our major energy sources, not just oilsands within the petroleum sector. There's an old saying: 'If it matters, measure it.' I don't think we measure the environmental impact right across the board to the degree that we need to." (Wells) By measuring environmental impact in all aspects of energy, not only the oilsands, we will be able to obtain a more comprehensive look at our energy environment.

Marlo Raynolds, senior advisor to the Pembina Institute expressed the importance of reviewing our consumption, "I do think it has to focus and hit the greenhouse gas emission head on ... I don't see why we would move into strategy discussions around energy without really addressing the need for deep reductions." (Wells) While a greater understanding of more efficient processes and better tools to measure their impact will help us become more efficient, we must also focus on how we can reduce our reliance on carbon-based energy to ensure long-term success.

Regardless of the main driver behind a Canadian energy strategy, Dr. Gibbins supports the notion that a Canadian energy policy must focus on Canada’s strengths, one of which is Canada’s ability to make improvements on existing technology, "We will be the solar power panel installers," he said. "We won't design them. We won't build them." (Dan Healing, Calgary Herald January 18th 2011.)

"Our role going forward is not to figure out how to transition away from hydrocarbons—the world will be working on that. What we have to do is figure out how to get better—much better—at the green production of hydrocarbons." Gibbins said. (Wells)

The suggestions from the roundtables in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and Vancouver will be taken into consideration as EPIC creates a proposal to the federal and provincial governments for a Canadian energy strategy.

The Canada West Foundation has multiple initiatives focused on driving constructive discussion about energy policy and Canada’s energy future under the Powering Up for the Future Project. In November 2010, the Canada West Foundation published Western Leadership for a Canadian Energy Strategy, which outlined the need for reform of current Canadian energy policy, along with the principles upon which western leadership for a Canadian energy strategy should rest.

A new project, Let’s Talk Energy, is built around a series of short articles authored by Nexen Executive-in-Residence, Michael Cleland. The purpose is to get people talking about whether Canada needs an energy strategy, and if so, why and what ideas should inform such a strategy. The discussion and debate on this website may also serve to be relevant to Canada’s energy ministers when they meet in Kananaskis, Alberta in July 2011. For more details see letstalkenergy.ca.

Articles referenced:
“Debate on National Energy Strategy Wide-Ranging” Paul Wells, Daily Oil Bulletin (January 17, 2011)
“Don’t count on officials for coherent energy policy: experts” Dan Healing, Calgary Herald (January 18, 2011)

By Robert Roach, Senior Researcher

In his speech in Calgary January 25, 2011, former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger argued that America must wean itself off fossil fuels to break its dependence on foreign oil, to eliminate the harmful health effects of fossil fuel pollution, to take advantage of the potential efficiencies of renewable energy sources, and to address climate change. Note that climate change is just one reason and, at present, not even the most important one.

What this signals is that the rationale for a sea change in energy use in the US is not tied exclusively to the global warming horse. As a province full to the brim with fossil fuel resources, this is not the best news for Alberta. However, the Governator also suggested that the transition will take time. Americans are not all going to be driving electric cars by next year. As many analysts have observed, fossil fuels are likely to be part of the energy mix for some time to come. We have some breathing room to adjust.

Nonetheless, the message to take away from Mr. Schwarzenegger’s comments is the value of rethinking through how to make the necessary changes before it is too late. If the US, China and other big users of fossil fuel move faster than expected toward renewable energy sources, Alberta may be caught with its pants down in terms of its key industry.

America is a democracy and will be slower to act as it debates the issues, but China is a dictatorship that could make huge investments in infrastructure designed to wean itself off fossil fuel in a time frame that would make our heads spin. If this happens, the global energy game could change overnight. We need a plan B, a plan C, and a much bigger Alberta Heritage Fund to help us through the transition that is coming sooner or later.

One potential boon for Alberta is America’s desire to reduce its dependency on oil from the Middle East. When the Twin Towers fell, something changed in the American mentality. This change is summed up by the following question posed by Mr. Schwarzenegger: “Why are we sending trillions of dollars [for oil] to people that want to blow us up?” This anger has not yet had a major influence on actual imports of oil from the Middle East, but it is a slow burning fuse that could ignite major changes in US policy. In anticipation of this, Alberta has worked hard to position itself as a friendly and effectively “non-foreign” fossil fuel supplier. It is in our best interest to keep hammering home this point.

This will buy us time, but eventually, if Schwarzenegger is even only half right, a much smaller number of future generations of Albertan’s will be working in the oil patch because demand for oil will be much lower than it is today. Prudence dictates that we do not just put our collective head in the sand and enjoy the next boom (if and when it comes). We need to plan for the coming changes and get much more aggressive about diversifying our economy.

This does not have to mean less oil and gas activity in the province. It does not have to be a zero-sum game in which we walk away from what has been, and still is, a bread and butter industry for Alberta. There is no need to say hasta la vista, baby to our energy sector.

What we need to do is continue the slow, but critically important, process of economic diversification. There will be failures. There will be missteps. But if we work hard (a key message of Mr. Schwarzenegger’s speech) and forget the limitations and naysayers, we can make Alberta not only an energy capital, but a high-tech, an education, a knowledge sector, a green tech, a you-name-it capital, too.

We have a lot to lose if we dismiss Mr. Schwarzenegger’s green pronouncements as unrealistic. The world will change (as it always does) dramatically in the next decade or two. The question is, will we be ready or will we be wondering what to do with all those pump jacks and giant trucks?

By Will Kimber, Vice President Research

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a global icon; a mammoth of sports, entertainment, and public life. After achieving the title of Mr. Universe at age 20, he went on to become a legend of Hollywood and then Governor of California, marrying a Kennedy in the process.

Schwarzenegger’s story is inspirational and embodies the American dream. He was an Austrian immigrant with few resources, except those that really mattered: a vision, a fire in the belly, and a huge charisma. So what did the Governator mean when he famously described California Legislators as “Girlyman?” It’s not someone who has failed at a worthwhile endeavor, but someone who has failed to try—failed to take a risk.

Schwarzenegger set out four principles that have underpinned his success: have a vision and trust it; break the rules; don’t be afraid to fail; and work hard—there are no shortcuts. Growing up in Austria, the stereotype was that Arnold was expected to marry a girl called Heidi and live a Sound of Music lifestyle in the hills. Instead, he adorned his bedroom walls with pictures of half naked, muscle bound and oiled up men and he harbored burning ambitions to take America by storm. Arnold came up against obstacles, but instead of letting them defeat him, he used them to his advantage. Casting agents first said his monstrous body and machine like accent didn’t work—they said “you can be a Nazi officer or a bouncer but not a leading man,” yet he proved them wrong.

On energy policy, Schwarzenegger was somehow less inspiring. He got most of the big rocks on energy policy reform in place. He noted the need to shift the debate on energy from a singular focus on carbon emission reduction and instead urgently develop an American energy strategy. He identified what needed to be focused on: energy supply and security; the US’s overreliance on foreign oil; the need to address pollution more generally; and the importance of green jobs and technological innovation as the primary objectives of such an energy strategy. That said, Schwarzenegger’s legacy is a California that is a world leader in renewable energy innovation, technology development and deployment—the so-called new energy economy.

However, in contrast to the rapturous applause for most other parts of his performance, the Calgary audience at his first public speaking engagement on January 25 was far more subdued in its reaction to Schwarzenegger’s comment that “we showed in California that you can create green jobs in the midst of a major economic downturn.” This likely suggests a suspicion in regards to heavy government intervention in the energy economy.

Although his term as the governor of California has come to a close, Schwarzenegger is well positioned as a leading US political leader to assist the Obama administration as an “energy Czar,” and use his political experience as a focal point for development of an American energy strategy. This could provide the political jolt needed to push forward stagnated US action on an American Energy Strategy, which is critically important for Canada-US relations, North American energy security, and the interests of western Canada in particular. For Canada, having Schwarzenegger’s muscle and charisma turned to American national policy reform on energy has to be a good thing.

by Michael Holden, Senior Economist

Resource royalties are a valuable source of revenue for provincial governments in western Canada. In fact, they have been rising steadily in importance since the early 1990s and are nearly as important to provincial government revenues today as they were at the tail end of the 1979 energy crisis . While royalties are a boon to governments’ bottom lines, they present considerable challenges when it comes to long-term planning and fiscal management.

I began examining trends in royalty income as part of my preliminary work on the Canada West Foundation’s "Powering Up" Project. My colleagues and I have been working on creating a detailed and comprehensive snapshot of the existing energy system in the four western provinces, including the impact of resource extraction on government revenues.

In 1981, resource royalties accounted for 23.8% of all provincial government revenues in western Canada. There was a considerable range from province to province: in Alberta, royalties were as high as 43.2% of revenues, while the corresponding figures for Saskatchewan (21.0%), BC (5.6%) and Manitoba (1.4%) were much lower.

After tumbling in the 1980s and early 1990s, a surge in oil and other commodity prices in the mid to late 2000s have meant that royalties are once again a major source of income in the region, particularly in the three western most provinces. For western Canada as a whole, royalties made up 20.6% of government revenues in 2008 (the most recent year for which Statistics Canada data are available). Alberta still leads the pack at 33% of provincial revenues, but Saskatchewan and BC have seen the importance of resource royalties grow considerably since the early 1980s. In Saskatchewan, royalties grew to 24.1% of provincial revenues in 2008, while BC saw the share of income from royalties double to 11.2%.

Is this increasing reliance on royalty revenues a good thing for the western provinces? It really depends on your perspective. On one hand, royalties provide governments with more available funds to spend on goods and services—like health care, education, and infrastructure—or to put towards deficit elimination or debt reduction. This, in turn, eases the burden on provincial taxpayers; the more government revenues that come from resource rents, the less taxpayers have to pay out of our own pockets. By reducing the fiscal burden on taxpayers, royalties also contribute to creating a more competitive tax environment which could help attract businesses, investments and skilled workers to western Canada.

However, overreliance on resource royalties comes with its own set of problems. For one, royalties and royalty rates are closely linked to commodity prices which are notoriously volatile and completely beyond our control. While all government revenue sources are prone to fluctuations, royalty income is far more erratic than most. Responsible fiscal planning is an extraordinary challenge when a major source of revenue can fluctuate so dramatically, and unexpectedly, from one year to the next. How do governments make stable, predicable and long-term spending commitments in such an environment? How do they resist the pressure to increase spending when royalty income rises? And how do they maintain that spending level in the face of a negative price shock?

Additionally, the resources in question are non-renewable. To be sure, some of our resource deposits—like the oil sands—are vast, and some like shale gas are only beginning to be developed, but even these won’t last forever. Moreover, environmental concerns and development of alternative energy sources could change future market conditions in unforeseeable ways.

Should we be concerned about the long-term sustainability of our royalty revenues? Should some of this resource wealth be saved for future generations? Are Albertans missing out on the opportunity to add to the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund and convert part of their present wealth into a form that could provide interest revenue in perpetuity? Should Saskatchewan re-introduce its Heritage Fund? Should BC consider starting up such a fund? These questions are further explored in the Canada West Foundation’s "Investing Wisely" Project.

These questions all require careful study and debate in the community, but two things are immediately clear. First, as resource royalties grow in importance for provincial governments in western Canada, steps need to be taken to minimize the impact of resource price volatility on government revenues. Secondly, better public policy is needed to ensure that both current and future generations benefit from present-day extraction of non-renewable resources. 

Michael Holden is Senior Economist and is currently working on creating a detailed and comprehensive snapshot of the existing energy system in the West as part of the Powering Up Project.

By Anna Columbos

James Cameron’s visit to the oil sands this week caused quite a splash of publicity and media frenzy. He came at a perfect time, given the results of a recent poll conducted by Ipsos Reid for the CBC, which indicated that 30% of Canadians have not heard of the oil sands, including an unbelievable 14% of Albertans. Based on these data, even if all the high-profile visit accomplished was to get more people talking about and raising awareness of the oil sands, then I am all for these visits.

What the same poll also found was that Canadians are evenly split over the debate to develop the oil sands because of environmental and economic risks. This makes sense as Canadians have good reason to be divided. A decrease in provincial government revenue from the oil sands not only impacts every Albertan (because it helps pay for things like health care and education) but a reduction in oil sands development would affect people all across Canada.  Alberta currently contributes over $20 billion a year in transfer payments to other provinces. Oil sands development supports jobs, profits and investments in all parts of the country.

At the same time there is a growing environmental imperative and if oil sands producers are not able, or willing, to clean up their environmental act there will be increasing domestic and international pressure to use alternative energy resources. It is imperative that the oil sands industry takes appropriate steps to address problem areas.  As Cameron described it, the oil sands are a “curse” or “gift” depending on how they are managed.

If visits like the Cameron trip (apparently he arrived with an Oprah Winfrey camera crew in tow!) can engage more in people in conversation regarding the oil sands, then the public will be able to influence the public policy process in a positive way. In the Calgary Herald, Syncrude Chairman Marcel Coutu recently acknowledged that for a long time the oil sands industry has not communicated well with Canadians but there has been a stronger initiative to engage the public.  Understanding the importance of reputation and public perceptions will help contribute to better management of the oil sands.  

If the purpose of Cameron’s visit was to engage public discussion, promote global awareness and encourage oil sands producers to take environmental responsibility, then mission accomplished. One day after Cameron’s visit, federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice announced the appointment of a six-person advisory panel to look into the water-testing regime in the Athabasca River, an issue Cameron mentioned as a major concern.  Was this a coincidence in timing or a strategic media plan by Prentice who knew he would get the most press following Cameron’s visit? It’s hard to say, but if celebrity-status brings more public attention to this important policy issue, I say, roll out the red carpet. But, let’s just make sure we are ready for the party that follows.  

This past month I have had the opportunity to attend various panel discussions and participated in numerous dinner conversations regarding environmental policy. It never fails that there are questions raised about the science of climate change:

Is global warming really happening? And even if it is, are human emissions contributing to the problem or is it a natural development?

The implication of asking such question seems to be that if you are unconvinced by the science behind climate change, then environmental policies or green trends are somehow less relevant, but I do not think that’s the case.

Why? Because the public perceptions on climate change are having profound impacts individual behaviours, regardless of existing science and statistics. You do not need to look far to see plenty of evidence of this.

For example, this week the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), along with nine other industry associations, launched a PR blitz dubbed “Alberta is Energy” to promote the role of oil and gas in the province’s economy. This is in response to the recent heat the industry has received over concerns regarding its environmental impact, and is an obvious proactive move to try to influence public perceptions and attitudes towards oil and gas.

There are numerous other examples of how the ‘green movement’ has shifted our economic and political agendas.

In the Economy…

Entire new industries have been built around environmental products, which economists now refer to as the ‘green collar’ sector of the economy. Additionally, existing companies are increasingly ‘greening’ their products (or at least the marketing of their products).

According to Statistics Canada, Canadian industries earned approximately $18.5 billion in revenue from sales of environmental goods and services in 2004. The World Watch Institute estimates that globally, the market for environmental goods and services is around US $1,370 billion per year and will double that by 2020.

In Politics…

The fact that there is a Green Party in Canadian politics is telling. AND, the party held enough clout to deserve a spot at the table in the last election’s leadership debate.

Federal and provincial governments have also allocated increasingly large portions of their budgets to green initiatives.

Over the past year, worldwide green investments were estimated to be about 15% of the $3.1 trillion in global economic stimulus investments.

Some may wonder why people have chosen to go green despite continued questions about the science of climate change. We may do so to err on the side of caution, or in response to a green marketing gimmick or just to simply feel good to be doing something for the environment and our children’s future.

Regardless, the future is going green—that is the reality forged by these patterns of behaviour. Those that argue over the technicalities of whether or not climate change can be prevented miss the point that a public mindset change has already happened.

We need to stop seeing red over the debate about going green because right or wrong green is here and now.

Posted By: Candice Powley