Compare and contrast

I came across these two articles (1 and 2) today on the Globe and Mail’s website. The federal government is going to give low income households $250 to help with heating costs this winter since the prices of oil, gas, and electricity have all risen big time, partly due to the Gulf Coast hurricanes. But prices have been rising steadily for a while now and this policy, like that of the Nova Scotian government, implies that future cost increases might also be mitigated by such rebates.

This is awfully short-sighted. As fuel costs rise, not only will these fuel rebates increase, but the number of people claiming them will also increase, driving the total cost of such a programme through the roof. So it’s disappointing that the articles, and the comments posted by the general public, have been focusing on how much everyone pays in fuel taxes and wouldn’t it be nice if the government would just let us keep some more of our money. Well yes, it would be nice but wouldn’t it also make sense to spend this money improving the thermal performance of these homes so that less energy is required to heat them in the first place, insulating (pardon the pun) against future price rises? The article makes only a one sentence mention of this option plus a soundbite from the NDP.

In contrast, this article on the BBC website at least briefly mentions energy efficiency, as well as supply-side measures. This is not a one-off though and I’ve noticed a general difference between North America and European media on energy issues. In the UK, the BBC and the broadsheets almost always mention some form of demand side management when discussing energy policy issues but in Canadian or American media, efficiency or conservation hardly ever appear. The only exception is when there is an energy-related crisis; e.g. when prices rise so much (as with gasoline recently), that people start to notice and change their behaviour according or in the case of Ontario’s summer energy shortages, there is a threat of blackouts. In Europe, I would say that the already high cost of fuels (and perhaps greater awareness of environmental issues) forces decision makers to consistently explore all options. Maybe if prices keep rising in North America, demand side measures and other considerations will be integrated into policies which appear to be almost exclusively supply-side driven.

Nova Scotia’s Energy Policy

I’ve been living in the UK since I began studying energy issues a few years ago. It’s a great country for this type of work with lots of (comparatively) progressive policies being discussed and implemented. Unfortunately being in the UK also means that I don’t really know what’s happening in Canada. Occasionally I’ll see an interesting article on globeandmail.com but I’m usually disappointed by the lack of awareness and consideration for environmental or social energy policy issues in North American media outlets.

So it was a pleasant surprise when I saw that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published a review of energy policy in my home province, Nova Scotia. Written by Dalhousie professor Larry Hughes, the report looks at developments in the energy sector in 2004 and asks whether or not NS is ticking the right boxes. Over the past 50 years or so, “energy” in Nova Scotia has been synonymous with coal but offshore oil and gas are the new fuels since their discovery in the waters near Sable Island. The sector’s been booming in the past few years but Prof Hughes highlights several signs that the party may be almost over:

These findings do not bode well for the future of offshore oil and gas in Nova Scotia but for me, the report’s most important critique was its implication that energy policy in Nova Scotia – like those rare Globe and Mail articles – has completely missed the mark on larger energy-related issues.

Energy security is one such concern. In the traditional sense, the term means that Nova Scotia’s increasing reliance on imported oil and gas will make it captive to rising prices in the global market with potentially damaging economic effects. But right now, energy security means something very different to the thousands of Nova Scotians who are unable to affordably heat their homes. This phenomenon is widely known in the UK as fuel poverty and the most appropriate remedy is to improve the thermal efficiency of these homes, thereby reducing the amount of energy required to heat homes. Instead the NS government is providing “fuel assistance” payments of $200 per household, a short-sighted move which will only set the precedent for fatter payments as energy prices continue to rise.

Reducing energy demand through efficiency and conservation also tackles the climate change question, which the province has failed to address sufficiently to date. Cynically I would suggest that the flash of offshore black gold has blinded the government to Nova Scotia’s more traditional – and more sustainable – sources of energy wealth: biomass, winds, waves, tides, and sun. There is great potential in these resources, especially in microgeneration applications: biomass micro-CHP isn’t all that different from my grandmother’s old wood stove.

At one point in the report, Hughes implies that “an over-inflated view of Nova Scotia’s importance as an energy player” is harming the province’s ability to make sensible energy policy. This strikes me as a perfect summary of the situation and the goverment’s knee-jerk reaction to the report’s publications only confirms this suspicion. From my position on the other side of the Atlantic, I’m thrilled that the CCPA and Prof Hughes are raising these questions, stirring public debate and hopefully leading to sound energy policy decisions. I look forward to reading the 2005 version of the report, due to be released sometime next year.