58 Luis D. Virla et al.
sector. In 2016, a survey revealed the views of the Canadian public on climate
change initiatives. In this survey, more than three out of four Canadians
supported a national plan that guaranteed meeting international targets for
emissions reduction, supported independent action from the federal government
to meet the targets, and had a positive perspective on establishing a minimum
carbon pricing scheme across Canada (Nanos Research, 2016).
Based on stakeholder consultations carried out in Alberta (see the Research
process and methods box earlier in this chapter for details), a dominant view
emerged that was favoured by a range of Alberta stakeholders. Stakeholders
would favour a future that converged the development of the oil sands sector
with the growth of energy supply from renewable resources (Figure 4.2). Such a
vision was observed across all the stakeholders consulted. Stakeholders from
industry, government, environmental groups, communities, and Indigenous
communities all considered a future where oil sands continued being one of the
economic drivers of the province. The graduate population from local universities
are now seeking more meaningful employment morally aligned with their own
values where they can contribute to the greater good of society. More Albertans
are becoming aware of both the benefits, as well as the negative impacts, of the
oil sands. While there is an agreement that a gradual transition is needed, there
is greater hope placed on cleaner technologies that support a more sustainable
and equitable future. Such a middle- ground position indicates that Albertans
hope for a solution able to keep the best of all worlds: maintain an economic
benefit from a growing oil and gas sector while assuring the protection of the
ecological integrity of the territory. This preference, although idealistic, resonates
with elements present on the ‘mix and round it all up’ future, which supports a
clean energy mix incorporated into the current energy supply.
Indeed, ideals for the hopes of Albertans as a whole, the development of the
oil and gas sector, and even the development of the renewable energy sector
will continue to have negative impacts on the environment unless new
technologies are introduced that are capable of changing current practices
towards unknown, low- carbon economic activities. Moreover, communities
where these activities occur will not be where most of the population
concentrates. Instead they are likely to be located near remote communities,
with high probabilities of conflicting with Indigenous values and traditional
practices. Still, with the implementation of a cleaner energy mix, local
communities will pay the price to maintain a more sustainable – better publicly
perceived – Alberta: the sacrifice of their surrounding ecosystems and wellbeing
due to the deployment of energy generation facilities strange to the local
ecosystem. Considering these aspects, we asked Albertans to identify the biggest
risks they foresaw for this ideal future (Figure 4.3).
All the risks identified by stakeholders could be grouped in six main risks
classified by their effect on the pathway, either as a barrier (implementation
risk) or as a negative impact (consequential risk). The implementation risks
include: (i) social rejection, where public opposition may affect the realisation
of such a pathway because of anticipated impacts; and (ii) political barriers,
sector. In 2016, a survey revealed the views of the Canadian public on climate
change initiatives. In this survey, more than three out of four Canadians
supported a national plan that guaranteed meeting international targets for
emissions reduction, supported independent action from the federal government
to meet the targets, and had a positive perspective on establishing a minimum
carbon pricing scheme across Canada (Nanos Research, 2016).
Based on stakeholder consultations carried out in Alberta (see the Research
process and methods box earlier in this chapter for details), a dominant view
emerged that was favoured by a range of Alberta stakeholders. Stakeholders
would favour a future that converged the development of the oil sands sector
with the growth of energy supply from renewable resources (Figure 4.2). Such a
vision was observed across all the stakeholders consulted. Stakeholders from
industry, government, environmental groups, communities, and Indigenous
communities all considered a future where oil sands continued being one of the
economic drivers of the province. The graduate population from local universities
are now seeking more meaningful employment morally aligned with their own
values where they can contribute to the greater good of society. More Albertans
are becoming aware of both the benefits, as well as the negative impacts, of the
oil sands. While there is an agreement that a gradual transition is needed, there
is greater hope placed on cleaner technologies that support a more sustainable
and equitable future. Such a middle- ground position indicates that Albertans
hope for a solution able to keep the best of all worlds: maintain an economic
benefit from a growing oil and gas sector while assuring the protection of the
ecological integrity of the territory. This preference, although idealistic, resonates
with elements present on the ‘mix and round it all up’ future, which supports a
clean energy mix incorporated into the current energy supply.
Indeed, ideals for the hopes of Albertans as a whole, the development of the
oil and gas sector, and even the development of the renewable energy sector
will continue to have negative impacts on the environment unless new
technologies are introduced that are capable of changing current practices
towards unknown, low- carbon economic activities. Moreover, communities
where these activities occur will not be where most of the population
concentrates. Instead they are likely to be located near remote communities,
with high probabilities of conflicting with Indigenous values and traditional
practices. Still, with the implementation of a cleaner energy mix, local
communities will pay the price to maintain a more sustainable – better publicly
perceived – Alberta: the sacrifice of their surrounding ecosystems and wellbeing
due to the deployment of energy generation facilities strange to the local
ecosystem. Considering these aspects, we asked Albertans to identify the biggest
risks they foresaw for this ideal future (Figure 4.3).
All the risks identified by stakeholders could be grouped in six main risks
classified by their effect on the pathway, either as a barrier (implementation
risk) or as a negative impact (consequential risk). The implementation risks
include: (i) social rejection, where public opposition may affect the realisation
of such a pathway because of anticipated impacts; and (ii) political barriers,