Canada’s Energy Policy Should Not Be an Oil and Gas Policy
I was out for dinner with a friend the other night and, naturally, the conversation turned to food, energy policy and how they are linked. As our server was well aware, and as almost any restaurant employee could tell you, language is important.
Culinary trends can explode on the scene or grow long in the tooth for a myriad of reasons. Ingredient availability, food cost, evolving cultural norms, changing nutritional guidelines, reality television or the whims of Gwyneth Paltrow can all have an effect on today’s food choices. Especially, however, the name of a dish or its key ingredient is a particularly crucial component of success.
An exotic dinner of sushi sounds great, but a plate of raw dead fish? Not so much.
Speaking of fish; when cod, the staple fish species of my parent’s generation, became a victim of overfishing the demand grew for new species to fill the void. In 1977 an American fish wholesaler named Lee Lantz thought he had discovered the perfect alternative, but the ugly and unfortunately named Patagonian Toothfish didn’t seem very marketable. After some consideration Lantz proposed an alternative and the newly retitled Chilean Sea Bass became the toast of North American seafood restaurants.
This brings us to energy policy and the politics that define it.
A couple of weeks ago I attended an important conference on the topic of Canada’s energy policy and the future of innovation in this realm. However, on closer inspection the topic at hand wasn’t energy policy — this was an oil and gas conference. None of the other important components of our energy infrastructure were even part of the conversation.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
