[MUSIC] We've talked about energy sources and issues around designing and using them such as storage, carbon sequestration and critical supply chains. We've considered key issues in enabling the energy transition and thought about important questions that must be addressed. Now, how do we take that knowledge and use it to design the policies, roadmaps and actions required to create the best possible energy systems of the future. The positive energy program at the University of Ottawa has done a great deal of work on this question. Including surveys and research with many people from all walks of life. They discovered that energy transition viewpoints can be divided into two types of narratives. And that proponents of each narrative feel that they are addressing the issues in a realistic fashion. Positive energy calls these worldviews reality 1 and reality 2. Professor Monica Galligher, Director of the Institute for Science Society and Policy at the University of Ottawa. And chair of positive energy joins us to discuss the two energy transition realities. [MUSIC] >> Thank you, Brian. In the sessions up to this point, much of the focus has been on the scientific evidence and facts related to energy. This session begins by asking some questions about facts and evidence and the way in which they do or don't inform opinions and decisions. Most of us think about facts and evidence as directly informing the opinions and decisions of everyone from citizens to companies to governments. We think about this in a sort of input output model. Put facts and evidence in one end and out the other will come decisions informed by them. This is referred to the technocratic model of decision making. But is this how decisions are made in the real world? For those in engineering and science, the answer tends to be our resounding yes. For those in social sciences and humanities, the answer is a little more complex than that. Research undertaken in the social sciences underscores that people process facts and evidence through their values, their worldviews and ultimately their individual realities. Everyone is different. They interpret and perceive facts and evidence through their own individual lens that is unique to them. My experience as a woman or as a Canadian or as a resident of the nation's capital, will shape how I perceive and process facts and evidence. In so doing it will shape the way in which that evidence informs my opinions, my preferences and my decisions about energy transition. This is where this research study comes in. The study undertaken by positive energy researcher Dr Marissa Beck aim to understand how different energy and environmental leaders understand. And use the term transition what meanings they give to the word that are shared and where their understandings differ. Dr Beck interviewed over 40 leaders across Canada asking them all kinds of questions about transition, what it means to them, how they define it?. What they think needs to be done to transition energy systems and the like. The most important finding of the study was that energy and environmental leaders inhabit two different realities when it comes to transition, but more on that in a moment. First, let's go over what we learned about people's views on the term transition. On the plus side, most people felt the term was beneficial because it's familiar to everyone and it's accessible. But on the minus side, most people felt the term was vague, it's overused that it had become politicized in a way that was creating division between people. In particular, some people felt that because the term suggests moving away from one thing towards something else, it was not inclusive of all forms of energy being part of the energy future. Notably oil and gas, interestingly, despite the fact that most people felt the term was unhelpful to discussions about the energy future, they nonetheless conceded that it is widely used. Even more interesting was the finding that people's understandings of the term transition relate to two very different realities about the future of energy. Nobody that we interviewed embodied either of these realities perfectly, but most people tended to lean towards one or the other. And interestingly enough, they felt that their perspective on transition was the realistic one. While the other perspective was unrealistic, you can imagine this does not foster constructive exchanges between people. People can talk right past each other. It also means that people can be looking at the same evidence and come to a very different set of conclusions and opinions. So how do these two realities differ from one another. First, they differ in terms of the scope of change envisioned by the term transition. Both realities are focused on reducing GHG emissions. This is an important finding as it does underscore that there is common ground between people. But the reality is differ over what the future will or should look like, particularly the role of oil and gas in that future. For reality 1, the future will have a diverse energy portfolio that includes all kinds of energy from fossil fuels to renewables to nuclear. Along with the use of technologies like carbon capture utilization and storage to reduce emissions. In this reality, oil and gas will be part of the future and technological innovations will progressively decouple energy and economic activity from GHG emissions. For reality 2 in contrast, fossil fuels should be eliminated now, if not in the very near future to address the urgency of the climate crisis. In this reality, the oil industry should and will be phased out. This reality can also extend to objectives beyond emissions reductions to include social justice for historically marginalized communities. And reforming energy systems to make them less centralized. For example, citizens being more involved in producing their own energy through things like rooftop solar. The two realities also differ in terms of the pace of change. Reality 2, see is a very rapid transition with urgent action grounded in climate science stating the importance of holding temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre industrial levels. In contrast reality, 1 sees ongoing measured GHD reductions over time, cautioning against the disruptive potential of forcing a transition too quickly. In this reality transition will not occur overnight. It will and should be a measured process spurred predominantly by market forces of technological change. Should also be one that solves for other imperatives like energy security and economic growth. Now, reality 2 also sees a role for market forces, but it places greater emphasis on policy interventions and widespread behavioral and cultural shifts to reduce fossil fuel use. How are these two realities playing out in practice when it comes to the decisions of countries on climate change, energy and transition. Our country is leaning more towards one reality than the other, or the adopting elements of both. Globally what we see is some distinction between high and low income countries, although most countries are closer to reality 1 than reality 2 in their policy approaches. Start with high income countries, most high income countries lean towards reality 1. Recall from previous sessions that energy systems are heavily dependent on fossil fuels, as are the economies that they power. This means it's challenging to move rapidly to reduce fossil fuel usage. Not only is it economically challenging and destabilizing to rapidly remove fossil fuels from our energy systems, but it could create major political pushback from customers. Industry and energy producers if and as energy becomes less secure. Moreover, for those countries that are fossil fuel producers, rapidly eliminating fossil fuels production and use. Can have undesirable impacts on government revenues and state capacities to support services for citizens. Governments may also be unwilling to impose rapid changes on people's standards of living and the cost of energy for fear of political pushback. Generally, in middle to high income countries, what we see is a mix of policies that combine both market based and prescriptive measures. A number of countries use carbon taxes to discourage activities that emit GHGs and to essentially incentivize technological developments and activities that reduce emissions. Governments are also spending unprecedented volumes of public dollars on innovation and on supporting private sector technology development. And deployment to reduce emissions across the entire energy system and economy. In addition, they're putting in place prescriptive measures like shutting down coal fired power plants and bans on the sale of internal combustion engine vehicles. These measures tend to have longer timelines in order to give people companies and sectors the time to prepare and adjust. In middle to low income countries overall, governments tend not to be leaning too far or too fast towards reality 2. Because it could compromise other energy, social and economic imperatives this is particularly the case for energy security. If fossil fuels were rapidly removed from energy systems, this would have substantial impacts on the reliability and affordability of energy. With knock on effects for quality of life, economic growth and government finances. These issues are especially important for middle to low income countries where security of energy supply and provision of basic energy services tend to be overriding policy priorities. That said, we do see some countries taking approaches closer to reality 2 given their particular circumstances. We can think, for example, of the island country of the Maldives where the overriding concern is rapid climate action to combat sea level rise. Even though most governments are tending to lean towards reality 1, it's important to note that domestic and global debates over transition are nonetheless rooted in both realities. Understanding the difference between these perspectives, how they shape responses to new evidence and facts. And with them people's opinions and decisions is crucial to those studying and involved in domestic and global energy transition. In the next lesson, we will look at creating pathways towards making the energy transition work. [MUSIC]
