Energy & Climate Solitudes

While the Energy Transition is driven by new technologies, the pace of the transition will be influenced by consumer choices and government policies. Understanding the Energy Transition is key to making good choices and enacting sound policy, especially now that Canada is committed to decarbonization goals under the Paris Climate Accord. Get it right, and the Canadian and provincial economies can be stronger and more competitive in the low-carbon future. Get it wrong, and Canada can damage both its economy and its climate mitigation efforts.

Energy writer Markham Hislop takes Resource Works on a seven-part journey of understanding. This is the second part.


Any discussion of public policy and the Energy Transition must begin with the Paris Climate Accord, ratified by Canada in Oct. 2016. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau surprised most Canadians when he proposed a more aggressive target - 1.5C above pre-industrial levels instead of 2C - in Paris. At either number, Canada is going to struggle to meet its commitments.

Canada has pledged to lower annual GHG emissions from the current level of 726 Mt to 622 Mt in 2020 and 525 Mt in 2030.

According to Paul Boothe and Felix-A. Boudreault in their 2016 study “By the Numbers: Canadian GHG Emissions,” Canada’s emissions account for 1.6 percent of the global total. Canada is one of the largest developed world GHG emitters on a per capita basis; Alberta (68 tonnes) and Saskatchewan (67 tonnes) are the worst offenders, while BC, Ontario, and Quebec “are in the 10-14 tonne range, comparable to best performers in Western Europe.” Provincially, Alberta is tops at 267 megatonnes (Mt), while B.C. sits at 68 Mt.

Canada and the other nations basically agreed to a two-pronged strategy. One, decarbonize the existing energy systems as quickly as possible. Two, speed up the development and implementation of clean energy technologies - which in its simplest form means electrifying all facets of the global economy, which depends on coal, oil, or natural gas to supply more than 80 percent of its energy needs.

Canadians are on board with this strategy. An Oct. 2016 survey from Abacus Data asked how people would feel about a plan to “shift Canada’s energy use over the coming decades, including incentives to promote cleaner transportation and buildings, and pricing carbon to encourage a shift towards greater use of cleaner energy.” The pollsters found that 86 per cent support such a strategy, including majorities in every region of the country and across party lines.

“[The data] shows us that there are strong voices on either side of the energy and environment debate but for the most part, most average Canadians are somewhere in the middle,” said Abacus CEO David Coletto in an interview.

“They recognize the importance of our country dealing with the climate crisis, dealing with carbon emissions but, at the same time, they’re not willing to completely give up on the energy sector and see the importance of that to the country, that they almost want a balanced approach. We tested this hypothesis, that kind of balanced approached would find appeal, and that’s what we found in our survey.”

But the consensus identified by Coletto’s seminal poll doesn’t reflect the “two solitudes” of the Canadian energy and climate public debate, which is polarized between eco-activists (with the epicentre of the movement located in Vancouver) pushing hard for decarbonization and the transition to renewables, and energy boosters (centred in Calgary specifically and Alberta more generally) pushing for little or no regulation of GHG emissions.

Governments at all levels are stuck in the middle, pushed and pulled from both camps as they try to navigate the tricky job of managing the Energy Transition. This essential tension explains much of the political conflict around Canadian energy and climate policies. 

Canadas mid-century low greenhouse gas development strategy to 2050 

In Nov. Environment Minister Catherine McKenna released Ottawa’s mid-century greenhouse gas reduction strategy: “The global economy is moving towards cleaner, more sustainable growth. Canada's mid-century strategy outlines how we will create the conditions for innovation and long-term growth, keeping Canadian businesses competitive and helping grow the middle class. 

The strategy sets out four broad emissions abatement pathways related to the Energy Transition:

  1. Electrification “The electrification of end use applications that are currently using fossil fuels is fundamental, for example, using electricity to power certain cars, trucks, building appliances and heating systems, and energy requirements for some industries.” - P. 6
  2. Clean Energy Tech “Innovation in clean technologies, whether it is a breakthrough technology or one that improves the efficiency of an existing process, can lead to significant GHG abatement internationally as the new technology becomes utilised globally.” - P. 4
  3. Energy Efficiency and Demand-side Management “The International Energy Agency estimates that 38% of the required global emissions reductions associated with a 2°C pathway could be met through energy efficiency improvements.” - P. 6
  4. National Carbon Tax “Carbon pricing can provide the market signal required for private sector investment and innovation. Technology developers and users are best positioned to bring forward new technologies that will ultimately succeed.” - P. 4

Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change 

In early December 2016, Canada and eight provinces - Saskatchewan and Manitoba were hold outs - reached agreement on the Pan-Canadian Framework on Clean Growth and Climate Change. The centrepiece of the agreement was the national carbon tax, announced in Oct. and scheduled to go into effect in 2018 at $10 a tonne and rising $10 a year until it reaches $50 a tonne in 2022. BC Premier Christy Clark negotiated an eleventh hour compromise to pause increases at $30/tonne, the BC rate, in 2020 and have an expert panel review further increases. Each province is expected to design its own carbon tax. If a province chooses not to do so, Ottawa will impose the national levy and return all monies raised to the provincial government. The Prime Minister described the national levy as “a floor price for carbon pollution.”

Western provinces

Alberta and British Columbia present special challenges to Canada achieving national emissions reductions, BC because of its liquified natural gas (LNG) development objectives and Alberta because of the oil sands.


BC introduced the first carbon tax in Canada in 2008. UBC Prof. Sumeet Gulati says voters were initially skeptical of the tax, not believing the governing Liberals’ claim it would be revenue neutral (meaning business and income taxes would be lowered by the amount raised by the carbon tax). “If you look at the numbers, we've always rebated in BC more than what we've collected,” he said in an interview. “Since then, any party that has run against the carbon tax has lost the election.”

The carbon tax was in the political crosshairs again last summer, when Clark released an updated climate plan. She ignored virtually all the recommendations made by her external advisors, earning her these tweets from eco-activist Tzeporah Berman: “Being asked as member BC’s Climate Leadership Team what I think of this plan: Pathetic and cowardly. U can quote me,” and “Number of our 32 recommendations accepted in full today? Zero.”

UBC professor George Hoberg says that Clark’s plan does not reduce emissions at all before 2030, which puts an unfair burden on other provinces to make up the difference. He argues the BC government should have adopted the leadership team’s recommendations wholesale: “They came up with a very sophisticated plan and the premier virtually ignored it when they introduced the climate leadership plan.”

Many of the recommendations were practical and relatively easy to implement. For instance, phasing out diesel generation in remote communities and replacing it with renewable or low-GHG electricity. Or bumping up the renewable energy from 93 percent (almost all hydro) to 100 per cent, though the controversy surrounding the Site C dam project suggests achieving this recommendation might not as easy as it seems. Reducing fugitive methane emissions is another obvious winner.

But a couple weren’t winners at all.

The team’s report praised the California zero-emission vehicle standard, suggesting that leading jurisdictions, “have used this standard to successfully drive electric vehicle adoption.” Only the California standard has not been successful. Despite generous subsidies from both state and federal governments ($10,000 per vehicle in total), only 270,000 EVs are registered in the state, which is less than one per cent of the state-wide auto fleet. Gov. Jerry Brown’s goal of 1.5 million electric vehicles by 2025 will not be met, according to a 2016 report from the Natural Resource Defense Council.

In British Columbia. as of Sept. 31, 2016 a grand total of 4,698 were registered in the province, according to the FleetCarma website, only 0.13% of the provincial auto fleet. To meet even Clark’s modest goal of five per cent of the BC fleet being electric or hydrogren-powered by 2020, 55 per cent of auto sales over the next four years would have to be EVs. If that sounds ridiculous, consider the climate leadership team’s recommendation for the BC zero-emission standard (not yet enacted) to encourage 10 percent of sales by 2020; 22.5 percent by 2025; and 30 percent by 2030. The targets are completely unrealistic given the high cost and low range of EV batteries, and the fact the next generation battery design won’t be ready for another 20 years

Berman and her colleagues were also upset by Clark’s decision to leave the BC carbon tax at $30/tonne until 2020. At the time the BC government’s revised climate plan was announced, the Canadian government was still discussing its climate strategy with the provinces. Why would BC commit itself to an aggressive acceleration of the carbon tax without knowing what other provinces intended to do?


The 2013 BC election was all about - or so it seemed at the time - the many benefits the Liberal vision of a big LNG industry build out on the West Coast. Since then, Woodfibre has made a final investment decision to proceed, Fortis is expanding its Delta facility, and there has been a “conditional final investment decision” on the $27 billion Pacific NorthWest LNG.

The BC Liberal 2017 re-election platform has the stated goal of “three LNG plants moving to construction by 2020”, while the trade group representing competing LNG developers says its members remain committed to their projects and have already spent billions. Not everyone is so certain. According to University of Calgary economist Jennifer Winter: “Canada has some benefits but we are a more challenging environment, especially because it is a new industry for BC.”

Support for Trans Mountain Expansion

Critics say the two are simply incompatible. And it didn’t help that Premier Clark finally supported the 525,000 barrels a day Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline project. “Many environmentalists and policy analysts believe her promotion of LNG production runs counter to reducing emissions,” says Prof. David Tindall in an email. “And they also believe her acceptance of the Kinder Morgan pipeline expansion also runs counter to reducing emissions.”


The Alberta government introduced the Climate Leadership Plan in Nov. 2015. Supporters hailed it as the most aggressive climate mitigation policy in North America. Critics said it imposed unnecessary tax burdens on consumers, businesses, and the provincial fossil fuel sector.

The Alberta Climate Leadership Plan has four main components:

  1. Province-wide carbon price on greenhouse gas emissions: Unlike the BC carbon tax, the Alberta version is not strictly revenue-neutral because 60 percent will be rebated to lower and middle income households, while the remaining 40 percent will be applied to green energy programs, including helping the Alberta oil industry develop and adopt new technologies to lower the carbon-intensity of its processes and product. The $20-a-tonne levy will increase to $30 in 2018.
  2. End coal-generated electricity, more renewable energy: In 2015, coal made up 51 percent of Alberta power, natural gas was 39 percent, and wind was 5 percent. By 2030 coal will be entirely phased out, replaced two-thirds by wind and solar and one-third by gas.
  3. Capping oil sands emissions at 100 megatonnes per year: The oil sands are the single biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada. How to reduce their emissions so that Alberta and Canada can meet climate targets is a source of considerable political conflict between opponents (shut them down or severely limit growth) and supporters (do nothing or only decarbonize what can be done for nominal cost). Rachel Notley’s NDP government chose the middle road by imposing a 100 megatonnes cap (current annual emissions are 70 megatonnes) and providing “output based allocations” that act as a subsidy to innovative producers that use technology to lower emissions, and penalize those that don’t.
  4. Reducing methane emissions by 45% by 2025: Methane is from 25 to 84 times as potent a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide. Both the American and Canadian government have committed to reduce their fugitive methane emissions by 40 to 45 per cent, mostly by reducing flaring during oil and gas production, and fixing leaks in processing facilities and distribution systems (e.g. transmission pipelines).

Despite the accolades heaped upon the Alberta plan outside the province - Prime Minister Trudeau said he couldn’t have approved the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline without it - the carbon tax remains intensely unpopular within the province. Surveys conducted by Mainstreet Research found rural Albertans especially opposed, at just 16 percent approval. Support was somewhat better in the two big cities, but overall just 34 percent of Albertans liked the levy in the months immediately after it came into effect on Jan. 1, 2017.


The interplay between climate and energy policy and politics is complex. Canadian politicians - including Trudeau, Clark, and Notley - appear to be sincere in their commitment to reducing national greenhouse gas emissions. At the same time, Canada is a “hewer of wood and drawer of water” and extracting and transporting natural resources like oil, gas, minerals, forestry products tends to be energy-intensive. As is their historical wont, Canadians lean toward a middle way, a moderate approach to managing the Energy Transition. But the political voices leading the debate on the Energy Transition are fractious and polarized.


ward-one.jpgEnergy transition at a glance

While the Energy Transition is driven by new technologies, the pace of the transition will be influenced by consumer choices and government policies. Understanding the Energy Transition is key to making good choices and enacting sound policy, especially now that Canada is committed to decarbonization goals under the Paris Climate Accord. Get it right, and the Canadian and provincial economies can be stronger and more competitive in the low-carbon future. Get it wrong, and Canada can damage both its economy and its climate mitigation efforts.

Energy writer Markham Hislop takes Resource Works on a seven-part journey of understanding. This is the first part

Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih told an international energy conference in Houston recently that the world’s leading oil producer expects the cost of clean energy technologies like solar power and electric vehicles to continue dropping and their marketshare to continue rising.

He also acknowledged that “energy transformations are complex phenomena that take considerable time to unfold.” Last summer, Royal Dutch Shell CEO Ben Van Beurden gave a speech to the Norwegian Parliament in which he echoed Al-Falih, talking about the challenges of meeting a rapidly rising global energy demand while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “So the energy transition is likely to play out in a different way in different places…The pace of the transition will differ too. In some places it will be relatively fast, in others relatively slow.”

When Big Oil accepts the idea that fossil fuels will one day be replaced by clean energy, it’s safe to say that the energy transition has arrived.

Count Canadian politicians among the converted. Natural Resources Minister Jim Carr says the Trudeau Liberals explicitly based their energy and climate policies upon the energy transition worldview, pointing to the Prime Minister’s comments at a 2016 Vancouver clean tech conference as proof: “[W]e must continue to generate wealth from our abundant natural resources to fund this transition to a low-carbon economy,” Trudeau told the audience. “The choice between pipelines and wind turbines is a false one. We need both to reach our goal.”

Shannon Phillips, Alberta environment minister, says Rachel Notley’s NDP government based its Climate Leadership Plan upon the twin principles of decarbonizing the provincial oil and gas sector, especially oil sands bitumen, and beginning the transition to clean energy (a goal of 30% renewable electricity generation by 2030). But the Alberta oil sands account for 9.3% of Canadian greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions

British Columbia is in a unique position because Vancouver is the epicentre of the national environmental movement and the energy transition has been accepted for years (unlike Alberta, where conservative politicians still question global warming science), clean hydro power makes up almost 100% of provincial electricity, and the temperate climate of the lower mainland and Vancouver Island mean consumers spend less on energy than Canadians east of the Rockies.

At the same time, Premier Christy Clark has signed on to the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline and is promoting a huge build-out of the LNG industry.

How fast can the Energy Transition take place?

Vaclav Smil, a University of Winnipeg professor and the pre-eminent scholar on energy transitions, argues that transforming an energy system is a very slow, laborious process.

Modern citizens are accustomed to thinking in “Internet time” and assuming that technical change occurs at the speed of Moore’s Law (the number of components on a computer microchip will double every 18 months, an annual growth rate of 46%). Energy systems, however, change at a rate of two to three percent a year. “Change at the rate of energy systems means doubling efficiencies, or halving the costs, in 35 years — a vastly longer timespan,” says Smil.

For example, battery storage for power grids is improving at the rate of three percent a year, according to Tim Grejik, an analyst with Navigant Research of Denver. There are occasional “step changes” in battery technology but they don’t really affect the annual average rate of improvement. And changing too fast can lead to big mistakes. ”This is the electrical grid, one of the largest synchronized manmade machines in history. Everything needs to work together.

That's why it might feel frustrating and utilities might look like they're in the way of progress, but really they're the shepherds of the way forward,” said Grejik. A slow, incremental approach is best, he argues: “It'll look like a great leap forward 20 or 25 years from now, but over time it'll just be steady incremental improvements with a punctuation mark here or there.”

Imagine applying the example of battery storage and power grids to the global economy.

Because that’s more or less the plan: Decarbonize the world’s energy system by shifting from fossil fuels to electricity (with a nod to existing low or no carbon systems). The International Energy Agency says this is one of the top priorities of global nations, which will need to invest $44 trillion in energy supply and another $23 trillion in energy efficiency through 2040 just to meet current policy goals. And the investment will be needed during a time when Asia, particularly China and India, are pushing ahead with rapid economic development that will drive energy demand growth up by 37 percent by 2035.

If energy transitions occur slowly, as Prof. Smil says, then imagine the challenge of transitioning the global economy during rapid growth using clean energy technologies that are uncompetitive,

immature, or still in the laboratory. No wonder Bill Gates thinks the world needs an “energy miracle.” And no wonder the G7 countries set 2100 as the end date for the decarbonizing process.

How do we know the global economy has begun an energy transition?

This is a common question. And a common criticism from fossil fuel proponents. Electric cars and solar panels and wind turbines have been around for decades. How do we know Tesla isn’t a flash in the pan? How do we know that wind farms won’t be dismantled after subsidies run out? Why is this time different?

I first encountered similar questions during my graduate thesis research 30 years ago, writing about the transition from horse-drawn technology to power-farming in Saskatchewan before the Great Depression. The letters to the editor sections of the Prairie farm press were full of vigorous debate about what tractors and combines meant for Prairie farms. Critics of the new technology worried that slick salesmen would con farmers into buying unreliable machinery, bankrupting the typical 160-acre wheat operation. Sometimes the critics were right. But by 1930 power-farming was firmly established in Saskatchewan agriculture and only a few years after World War II horses were rarely seen working in the fields.

Why? Falling machinery prices and rising value. Consumers understand how lower prices stimulate demand - ask any grocery shopper with a handful of coupons. But rising value is a bit trickier. Take the iPhone. Prior to 2007, when Apple introduced its revolutionary smartphone, cell phones were mostly the standard cheap models that cost around $100 or maybe a Blackberry for a few hundred more. You could make a call and do a few simple functions, like text or use a calculator, or email securely. The iPhone, by contrast, was a mini-computer that happened to make phone calls. Sure it cost $800, but thanks to free or cheap apps the iPhone could do thousands of things. And replace a variety of stand alone devices like cameras, alarm clocks, and GPS. Smartphones offered consumers a huge increase in value for an acceptable increase in cost. Now everyone has one: last year over 1.5 billion smartphones were sold worldwide, according to technology research firm Gartner.

As a rule of thumb, clean energy technologies do not provide smartphone-like value to consumers, businesses, or industry. And they’re more expensive. Sometimes much more expensive, two or three times the cost of existing energy technologies. But they do offer some value.

For instance, one of the reasons governments want wind and solar power to replace coal plants is that particulates and other emissions harm human health, which drives up healthcare costs, some of which they pay for. Reducing health expenditures represents value to hard-pressed finance ministers.

One more example: Last year I was interviewing Rudy Garza, VP of communications for CPS Energy, the municipally-owned utility for San Antonio, Texas. We were discussing why CPS was replacing ageing coal plants with natural gas combined cycle facilities and wind turbines. Garza told me that gas and wind were competitive with coal, but had one additional advantage: no fuel costs. Or, as accountants like to say, no variable just capital costs. Being able to calculate long-term generation costs gave CPS a competitive advantage, one that might not be obvious.

That additional value can be key to the adoption of clean energy technologies.

Markham’s model of technology diffusion

When reporting on and writing about clean energy technologies, I use the simple model developed all those years ago for my thesis.

Step #1 - Identify accelerators to diffusion

Accelerators speed up diffusion. Does the new technology solve a problem? Does it provide more value? Is it “cool,” like the Tesla Model S? Is it subsidized and supported by government policy, like wind and solar energy in the United States? Is capital (especially large amounts of capital) being spent on research and development?

Step #2 - Identify constraints to diffusion

Constraints slow down diffusion. Is the new technology expensive? Does it perform poorly compared to the competition? Are consumers aware of the technology?

Not all accelerators and constraints are created equal, so I list them in priority, strongest to the weakest. By the time I’ve identified all or most of the accelerators and constraints, interviewed experts about them, compiled whatever data is available, I have a pretty good idea about how fast the new technology is likely to be adopted.

Step #3 - Put the technology on the S-curve

All technologies follow some form of the S-curve. Technologies that diffuse more slowly have a more horizontal curve. Technologies that diffuse more quickly have a steeper, straighter curve.

What I’m looking for is one or two measurements of market penetration. For instance, in the United States electric vehicles now make up 1% of annual vehicle sales, but only .002% of the national auto fleet (measured since 2011 when the Chevy Volt and Nissan Leaf first hit the market). Those numbers put EVs right at the bottom of the S-curve, which suggests they still have many years of slow diffusion ahead of them.

Step #4 - Put the technology on Rogers’ diffusion bell curve

Everett Rogers was a pioneer of technology diffusion research. He created a bell curve (see figure ___) whose terms - Innovator, Early Adopter, etc. - will be familiar to many consumers.

The percentages tell us roughly how many consumers are in each category.

There are many characteristics of the various types of adopters, but I focus on one: how much of a price premium is that consumer willing to pay?

An innovator will pay a very high price premium, sometimes two or three times the cost of the old technology. I’m an Early Majority Adopter, meaning I will generally pay 10% to 30% more for the new technology. For instance, when my wife and I bought a flat screen TV 10 years ago, we chose the well-established plasma from a reputable brand (Panasonic) when it came on sale.

We paid more than for any TV we had purchased in the past, but thought we had done our homework and received good value.

Step #5 - The rule of thumb

Finally, how does the new technology compare to the rule of thumb, which is that new technologies take 50 years to progress from zero to 70 or 80 percent marketshare. Some technologies take a little less time and some take a little more time, but I’ve asked many economists and analysts and they agree 50 years is a reasonable average.

Now, imagine the number of technologies involved in transitioning from fossil fuels to clean energy. Is it thousands? Tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?

Whatever the number is, it’s very large. Primarily because we’re not only changing from one type of fuel (hydrocarbons) to another (electricity), we’re also changing all the technologies that burned the old fuels. Think of the many, many technologies involved in transportation and buildings and industry and power generation and agriculture and so on that must be re- engineered to a greater or lesser degree.

Many of the technologies are new and immature. Many are still in the laboratory and a decade away from being commercialized. Many haven’t even been thought of yet. Now imagine managing the complexity of the Energy Transition on the scale of the global economy.

Now imagine doing it while global energy demand - driven largely by rapid economic growth in Asia, led by China and India - soars 37% between now and 2040.

“If we’re talking about moving from one generation of battery to another generation of batteries, for example, that’s very distinct and manageable and study-able,” says Fred Beach, assistant director for energy & technology policy at the Energy Institute, University of Texas at Austin.

“But once we talk about concepts like a global energy transition, it becomes unbelievably complex and interlocks with many other things and many other drivers.”


In 2015, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper joined with other G7 leaders to pledge the end of fossil fuel use by 2100. Not surprisingly, environmental critics complained that 85 years was far too long - global warming had to be tamed in a few decades, not the better part of a century.

“There are reasons for cynicism: the long time frame means none of the politicians involved in the commitment will even be alive, let alone held accountable, for meeting the target in 2100; Canada and Japan watered down Germany’s proposal to end fossil fuel energy by 2050; and many governments, including Canada’s, haven’t met even their current weak commitments,” wrote David Suzuki in the Georgia Strait.

The more I report upon the development, diffusion, and adaptation of clean energy technologies - and the resilience of fossil fuel technologies - the more I’m convinced 2100 is a reasonable target. Perhaps even an optimistic target.

But as Suzuki said in his op-ed, at least Harper and his fellow leaders took “matters a step further by envisioning a fossil fuel–free future.”

That clean energy Utopia appears to be possible - and as the Energy Transition gathers steam, almost inevitable - but it will not happen quickly.


BRIDGING THE DIVIDE: Here's how one mine is building communities

For those in the natural resource fields, it can prove incredibly challenging to demonstrate to others – like city residents – the positive impact that rural and out-of-sight industrial activities have on the economy. Check out how the Copper Mountain Mine is working to overcome that. 

Read more

Busy time ahead for Resource Works

In communities across British Columbia, Resource Works is part of an emerging movement in support of getting past today's natural resource conflicts. We are also helping keep decision makers abreast of important developments in recognizing the essential role of natural resources in the economy. 

Read more

A moment of reflection – and building the movement

The central role of natural resources in British Columbia life is reflected in the province's general election results. What are the lessons for those of us working toward broader consensus on what will surely be a resource-intensive future? Stewart Muir looks at the landscape.

Read more

Suzuki Foundation researchers come back impressed by B.C.'s natural gas emissions

Looking for evidence of methane emissions in British Columbia's natural gas extraction industry, researchers were surprised at how tight the new wave of field equipment really is.

Read more

Angry about U.S. duties on Canadian lumber? Blame B.C.

A significant chunk of the penalty is due to log export restrictions that exist only in British Columbia, according to Barrie McKenna of the Globe and Mail.

Read more

Veteran woodsman certain "raw" log exports are not a problem

The issue is far more complicated and a ban would not solve anything, says Nanaimo log broker Barry Simpson in this report by Don Hauka for Resource Works.

Read more

How natural resources are spinning high-tech and clean-tech jobs

British Columbia's highest productivity, highest paying jobs are in natural resources. But did you know resources are creating a stunning level of high-tech and clean tech jobs? Meet the companies driving this renaissance.

Read more

Inventys: Saving the world by braving hi-tech's "Valley of Death"

Naturally_Resourceful_logo.pngGreener and more efficient use of our precious natural resources can only come from harnessing technology. In the Naturally Resourceful series, Resource Works writer Don Hauka looks at the British Columbia companies that are on the leading edge of this transformation. Fifth in the series.

Read more