The Hosts in the Hot Seat: Turning the Tables on Ed and Sara

EvC Superfan and fellow energy nerd Robert Tremblay turns the tables on Sara and Ed — asking the questions the podcast usually doesn't: how EvC started, the energy transition over the 7 seasons of the show, what's changed, and whether any of it is working.

They get into their backgrounds, the EvC origin story (are the rumours about Danielle Smith true?), how the show has evolved, and what they actually think about Canada's climate trajectory. Plus a rapid-fire round... well, at least as rapid-fire as EvC gets.

Topic Timestamps

00:00:20 — Intro and episode setup

00:01:07 — Hosts' backgrounds before the podcast

00:07:09 — Origin story: how EvC came to be 

00:12:56 — How things have changed since 2020: energy data and political landscape

00:23:04 — Is the Energy vs. Climate premise still relevant?

00:30:35 — Alberta/Canada focus vs. international scope

00:34:30 — Can Alberta lead the energy transition?

00:38:48 — Climate targets: useful or counterproductive?

00:43:00 — Rapid fire questions

About Our Guest Host:
Rob Tremblay is Policy Manager at Energy Storage Canada, where he leads policy analysis and advocacy efforts across Alberta while contributing to federal and technical policy initiatives nationally. Robert holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Saskatchewan and is a registered Professional Engineer with the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta.

Follow us on:
LinkedIn
Bluesky
X/Twitter
Instagram

Energy vs Climate relies on the support of our generous listeners
Donate to keep Energy vs Climate going

Produced by Bespoke Podcasts

Transcript

[00:00:00] Ed Whittingham: In 2020, we had a liberal Prime Minister in Ottawa. We had a very conservative premier in Edmonton and a Republican in the White House who everyone thought was a narcissist and dangerously incompetent. And look what we have today. So really not much has changed. 

[00:00:16] Sara Hastings-Simon: It's the glass half full kind of guy. Uh, 

[00:00:20] Robert Tremblay: hi, I'm Rob Tremblay and you're listening to Energy Versus Climate.

The show where my friends, Ed Whittingham, Sara Hastings-Simon, and David Keith debate today's climate and energy challenges. You'll note that I am not Ed and things are a little different Today. Today we will be turning the tables on the hosts and asking a bit about the hosts themselves, how the show got started, how things have changed since the show started, and where things are going.

And finally, it wouldn't be right for me to be here without asking a couple questions of my own. So at the end, we'll look to rapid fire some questions to the hosts on all things climate and energy. So without further ado, let's get into it.

Hey Sara and Ed, welcome to the podcast. 

[00:00:58] Sara Hastings-Simon: Thank you. 

[00:00:59] Ed Whittingham: Thank you. It's, uh, an honor to be on energy versus climate 

[00:01:03] Robert Tremblay: for the first time.

[00:01:05] Ed Whittingham: Alright, so Rob, what are we doing today? 

[00:01:07] Robert Tremblay: Yeah, so I, I thought we'd kind of go, you know, turn the tables on you folks. Um, that's why I'm here. So, to start off, so I guess you know. One thing I'd like to know is what were you, um, each doing, um, before the podcast on what kind of got you into starting the podcast together?

[00:01:22] Ed Whittingham: I'll jump in because I was a step ahead of Sara on this podcast at least, and I was not long after leaving the Pemina Institute. Not long after having a bit of a pillow fight with Jason Kenny and his caucus over my role on the board of the Alberta Energy regulator and doing the work that I do today, which is still working in climate energy policy, running my own little consultancy, working with a few folks, and, uh, I can, I can tell, uh, if, if we get into the origin story of the pod, I can share a few more of the gory details.

But that's, that's what I was doing. 

[00:02:02] Robert Tremblay: Thanks. And how about you, Sara? 

[00:02:03] Sara Hastings-Simon: I had to pull up my CV to remember where I was exactly when we started the podcast. Um, but it was, it was just before, uh, I joined the University of Calgary. So I was still, um, remotely at the Colorado School of Mines, uh, in Golden Colorado, which I actually never went to while I was working there.

But, uh, had been to way, way back, uh, longer ago than I probably care to admit, uh, when I was an undergraduate and I did a summer internship at the National Renewable Energy Lab. So, yeah, but I was, I was doing energy and climate stuff. I had recently left my full-time role at, uh, Pemina, which is where I met Ed originally.

[00:02:45] Robert Tremblay: Nice. And yeah, and I think that that kind of blends into kind of, you know, another aspect of this question. And that's, you know, have you always worked in, uh, energy and climate? Um, or is that kind of a, a transition or a pivot that you made in your career? 

[00:02:58] Sara Hastings-Simon: Yeah, well, I, so I went, I guess if people are listening to the pod, they'll have to check out the, um, video on YouTube if they want this.

'cause I brought, I brought props. So this is my very first energy book. Um, it's called For People Not Watching. It's called What Makes Everything Go By Michael Ellison Ross. Um, I think it was published in, yeah, 1979. Uh, by the Yosemite Natural History Association and, uh, it included great things I learned as a, as a small child.

Like how when, uh, you put gas in a car, it will change to smoke and heat. And can you take that smoke and heat and change it back into gas? No. Why? So, uh, I guess you could say I was indoctrinated from an early age about the wonders of, uh, energy and, and physics and stuff. So I'd al always had an interest of it.

As I sort of hinted that there as an undergrad, I actually, um, did some work in energy. Um, it's kind of funny looking back and like that maybe talks about how much things have changed. Like there was no energy science degree you could have. Right. We have one now at the University of Calgary, uh, plugging a program in, in my department or energy and environment.

But I, uh, I ended up going into physics. I got kind of caught up in, in the other thing that I thought was really cool, which was. Uh, quantum mechanics, quantum information, and quantum computing, which has, funnily enough, become also quite big now. 

[00:04:20] Robert Tremblay: Nice. Um, and how about you, ed? 

[00:04:22] Ed Whittingham: You know, look at Sara and, and you know, her entry into climate and energy has been preciate motivated by, you know, the pursuit of, uh, scientific truth and learned environment.

My moves have all been motivated by money, drugs, and women, and client climate is such a great opportunity for that. Actually, it was a shoulder injury. I was on the path to becoming a professional basketball player, but, uh. Uh, shoulder injuries sent me down the path to climate an energy policy, so pretty typical.

Pretty typical for people getting into the field. Actually, uh, I was working in the environmental sector, or have been since the late nineties and working for a, a small hard scrabble conservation research and advocacy organization working on parks and protected areas. I'm always the, the environment has always been near and dear to my heart.

Uh, and back then I was running this conservation research office. I was testifying before parliamentary committees. I was launching legal actions and even dancing in a bear suit in front of hotel Fairmont hotels and when needed fixing photocopiers. Uh, I, I had a personal interest in climate and it was sort of growing in the early two thousands when.

Uh, the GA eight came to town by coming to town. It came to Banff. That's where they hosted it when Canada hosted the GA eight summit back when it was a G eight, when Russia was still, uh, in everyone's good books. And I as a prominent local environmentalist. Ha ha I was asked to speak to topics that they are dealing with, and climate was one of them.

And I actually remember giving an interview on climate. Uh, it was on the equivalent of CBC NewsHour at the time, and it was the day that Greenpeace had just put solar panels on the roof of Ralph Klein as a protest. And I do believe our former ener, uh, environment and climate change minister Stephen Gibo was involved in that action.

And I was speaking about climate and they asked me about that. I said it was pretty funny. And then there ended up being this backlash against Greenpeace and I thought my career as a climate activist and commentator was instantly over before it began, but that just wet my appetite. And after I finished off a master's degree, I signed up with a Pembina Institute which focuses on climate energy, and the rest was career history for me.

[00:06:42] Robert Tremblay: That's awesome. Yeah, I think, you know, I knew some of that, but I'm not, I'm not sure I knew all of it. So I guess going back to kind of the, the formation of the podcast. Um, so who, how did the podcast kind of come to be? Who, whose idea was the podcast? Were you three always gonna be the host or was there, you know, ever anyone else who was contemplated?

Um, did you all know each other before the podcast or is the podcast kind of how you got to know each other? So I've just kind of rapid fired some there, but we would love, uh, some answers. 

[00:07:09] Ed Whittingham: Infamously someone else was proposed as the third co-host. I actually went and used this, an opportunity to check some notes.

David, David Keith, who's unfortunately not available today. He and I had chatted about doing something creative together, going back to the middle, mid 2018 after I left the Pein Institute. And we were throwing around ideas. And then it really was COVID. And I remember the day, it was March 15th, 2020 and David was sent back to Canada by Harvard so he could shelter in place.

And we had him and his wife Chris Anderson over for dinner. And uh, you know, in between courses we again, sort of. Spatted around. Well, let's, let's do something, maybe a podcast. And then he and I went for a walk at the end of that month and I looked and I'd actually written up called David and Ed's excellent podcast concept because I'd written other things called David and Ed's excellent adventures concept, which for the sharp-eyed you'll recognize the reference to Bill and Ted's excellent adventures from the eighties.

Uh, and at during that walk. And this is now. EVC lore, David Infamously said, 'cause I said, listen, I want a third co-host and I really think we should have, you know, some gender balance and just not a bunch of dudes. So let's bring a dude at. And uh, David said, oh, you know who we should get? That right wing radio host, uh, what's your name?

What's your name? And I'm like, David, you mean Danielle Smith? And that's not a good idea. On about 10 different levels. And again, instead suggested Sara. Having said that, both David and I could be, you know, part of her crony capitalist inner circle today had we actually brought her on the pod and you know, we could be living large.

We chose not to. I knew Sara would work together and, uh, even though, you know, it's not as lucrative, I think that was the best decision I'd made for the pod ever. 

[00:09:07] Robert Tremblay: I think it's, it's a real watershed moment to think about how fam how much things might have been different if Dan Daniel Smith was, uh, one energy versus climate.

[00:09:15] Sara Hastings-Simon: It's like a parallel universe we could explore to, to go into the quantum side of things. 

[00:09:20] Robert Tremblay: And, sorry, Sara, did you know Ed. Ed and um, David before, before the podcast? 

[00:09:25] Sara Hastings-Simon: I did. So I knew Ed because I, uh, worked with him for him at, uh, Pemina. He hired me. He didn't turn me away when I came to him and I said, Hey, could I, could I have a job at, uh, at Pemina?

And David, I, I did kind of know funnily enough. We like our, our physics backgrounds crossed over. I, I didn't, I don't think I'd interacted with them a lot directly, but like we actually have a background in a very similar part of physics. Uh, and I had talked to him at one point, I think when I was kind of looking at making the transition from what I was doing before I was at Pembina, which was I was a consultant at, uh, at McKinsey.

I had talked with David kind of in that context previously. 

[00:10:05] Ed Whittingham: And, and Sara, true to form, is kind of selling herself a bit short. When she said she came to Pamela and asked for a job, she was, you know, a, a top consultant at McKinsey, the firm. And, you know, we started talking about it and my first reaction, what, you wanna leave that career and work for us this.

NGO with below market salary and sporadic direction and dealing with high levels of ambiguity and you know, we would've been, or I would've been absolutely foolish to have not snapped her up at the first opportunity. It's been wonderful to work with her ever since. 

[00:10:38] Sara Hastings-Simon: Well, it's been a lot of fun. I, I was really determined to like, have a work history that I could use to, uh, make sure anybody, anybody I met in Alberta could dislike me based on where I had worked previously.

[00:10:51] Ed Whittingham: Yeah, you've done a good job on that mission. 

[00:10:54] Robert Tremblay: Perfect. And, and, and, uh, how did you and David meet? Uh, I'm not sure if I, I might've missed it, but I'm not sure if I've heard it. You, it sounds like you knew each other already and you came up with the podcast together. 

[00:11:05] Ed Whittingham: Yeah, I wanna say David and I, David and I have known each other not quite 25 years, but in between 20 and 25 years, uh, shortly after I started at the Pembina Institute.

And funny quirk, because I did a lot of work with his former brother-in-law, a wonderful man named Peter Poole, and I first met David socially. Through Peter, uh, and then we reconnected when I finished my master's degree and started working with Pemina and May, maybe it is 25 years, maybe I've known him that long, but yeah.

Yeah, we kind of hit it off. Uh, as listeners will know, he's a, he's a quirky guy, but uh, he is. Uh, big hearted and a wonderful human being, and equally fun to do a podcast with. Uh, you know, just as fun as doing this with Sara. So, uh, yeah, sorry. You can't be here today. 

[00:11:59] Robert Tremblay: David's a, I think a really important member of the podcast.

Like I think he's often there to, you know, put in kind of, uh, interesting counterfactual or, um, something that, um, you know, maybe the physics kind of makes sense, but then, you know, not, uh, necessarily as much in the real world. Um, one of the things. I'll always remember what David is, um, his idea of a transmission line from Arizona to Alberta because the, the solar resource is better in Arizona, which, yeah, I'm sure the physics works, works up for that.

But try building, what would it be, like 3000, 4,000 kilometers of linear infrastructure and that, that's easier said than done. 

[00:12:34] Ed Whittingham: Well, truth be told, we've been trying to replace David for a couple years with AI and we just haven't designed the right GPT yet. It's, it's a, it's a tough algorithm to nail. 

[00:12:43] Robert Tremblay: Fair enough.

So I'm also interested in how things have changed since, uh, the podcast started. Um, so I guess that's maybe the question I'll start with. How, how have things, uh, changed since the pod has been around? Or are things, uh, pretty similar? 

[00:12:56] Sara Hastings-Simon: So in the energy space, I actually went to look and get some data.

'cause I was like, it feels like things have changed, but, but how much is, has it? So I used, I went back to 2020, which was, I think when we had our first episode. Most of the new data that I have is like 20 25, 20 24. So it's probably even more extreme. Um. And what I found is, like, in a way, some, some things have changed a lot, right?

So like the global EV sales in 2020, uh, was about 4% of the market. Um, it was 22% in the most recent number, and I think it's probably up to like a third for last year. Um, so really dramatic change in EVs. Kind of similar numbers in solar in terms of the, the shift of what's being installed there. I have the actual production number, so it sound, it sounds a little less dramatic, but it was, uh, in 2020 about 3% of the world's energy came from solar and 2024, I have 7%. So, again, like really I think a meaningful change in, in what is happening in the energy transition from when we, uh, started till now. Although some things, you know, we're still talking about pipelines, we're arguing about carbon pricing at. The federal level. Uh, so some, some things haven't changed, but I think in terms of progress of actually steel in the ground and batteries on the roads, if you can say it that way, uh, things, things are different.

[00:14:22] Ed Whittingham: Yeah. On the, on the things that haven't changed, uh, front in 2020, we had a liberal prime minister in Ottawa. We had a very conservative premier in Edmonton and a Republican in the White House who everyone thought was a narcissist and dangerously incompetent. And look what we have today. So really not much has changed.

[00:14:42] Sara Hastings-Simon: It's the glass half full kind of guy. Uh, 

[00:14:45] Robert Tremblay: yeah, I mean the, the more stuff changes, the more stuff stays the same. I guess are you surprised at, at either of those? Like did you think things would've been a lot different or, you know, have been, have this been as much the same? 

[00:14:58] Ed Whittingham: If I take like the, the high level metric and I didn't do as much homework as Sara did.

Roughly 2% of global GDP about $2 trillion a year is now going into clean energy and clean tech, and that's a massive amount of capital, and that's what makes me feel. Over the long term, quite optimistic that we are going to decarbonize the global economy when you're spending that kind of money. Am I surprised at that?

I don't think so. I think there is sort of a clear indicator of where it was going. I think there are other areas where it has been surprising, and we talk about this a lot on the pa, on the pod, you know, not just wind scaling very quickly, but solar and especially solar and batteries are scaling very quickly and I think.

Well, when we started in May, 2020, we had the sense that, oh, it's accelerating and, and you know, it's going to exceed expectations. Solar has exceeded expectations beyond that as well, and it's on the path to being, you know, cheapest new build electricity and potentially crushing other forms of new build electricity.

And on, on that note, last fall, we did a whole show on that. So that I think continues to surprise. 

[00:16:14] Sara Hastings-Simon: I didn't, I I should have done more homework and gone back to the first shows where we talked about this and then we could see whether, whether we were, were saying it or not, I had a certain sense that the writing was on the wall for this stuff.

Right. I mean, and, and that there was gonna be that kind of growth in solar and, and EVs. And I mean, those were just two that I picked. You could go down the, the list. I don't think it, it took a crystal ball to kind of see that that was coming. I think it has, it has kind of reached the broader. You know, world outside of people that listen to energy versus climate that realize that this is going on.

I would, I would say it's probably fair. We're starting to see more of a retreat from, or a kind of hardening of, of the incumbents fossil fuel industry against that kind of change. Right. And a real pullback of, you know, pathways has rebranded. I think it's the Oil Sands Alliance, something like that. Um, so a real kind of, and, and, and it's not the first time, honestly, like that you've seen this come and go.

I remember the like BP and the Beyond Petroleum world, that, that, that was one cycle before. Um, but it, but I also think it's fair to say we've gone through a bit of a cycle of like, maybe I would call it a little bit more honesty about what, you know, fossil fuel companies are really planning to do in, in light of this transition.

[00:17:30] Ed Whittingham: Yeah. Sara, are we going through our third or maybe fourth rebranding of the, the oil sands? Um, you know, I'm old enough to remember Ley the Oil Sands Leadership Initiative and then cosea Canadian Oil Sands, Indus Innovation Alliance. And yeah, now it's, now it's new, so you start to feel old when you've been through three or four rebranding cycles.

[00:17:51] Sara Hastings-Simon: It's like now the overalls are back in fashion again too. That one I'm on board with though. They're, they're comfortable, so, 

[00:17:58] Ed Whittingham: yeah. Yeah. And one thing, so on the surprise note, and the whole world has been caught sort of flat-footed, and this is, is obviously the speed and now the increasing sophistication, artificial intelligence.

And now the very strong implications for energy and for emissions. And all I do is point the dear listener to a great conversation that we had with Vijay Gadepally a few whales sometime last month. And very few it seems in 2020, just AI writ large. There are very, very few AI prognosticators I think, who successfully predicted where it we'd be at in 2026.

[00:18:38] Robert Tremblay: Yeah. And Sara, you, I think you, you kind of preempted almost a, a. Angle I was, I was thinking of with this, you know, I think, you know, when the show started, um, um, just kind of, uh, thinking for myself, that's kind of when I started a bit more in this, this space as well. You know, I think we were clearly in kind of a climate policy window, and I think as you, as you alluded, you know, we've been in climate policy windows in the past.

Like you could think of, you know, the lead up to the great recession and, you know, the US' attempts when Obama was in to get, get, and, you know, ultimately, you know, not succeed at getting carbon pricing. So are you surprised that, you know, I think it's not uncontroversial to say we're probably not in the climate policy window right now.

Are you surprised that, that we're kind of are where we're at and I know like lots of stuff, you know, when the podcast started, you know, kind of felt like there was this inevitable march forward on policy. You know, we were. Even going through COVID where there was, um, big policy disruptions, you know, we kept going with stuff like the clean electricity regulations or the zero emission vehicle mandates.

And obviously, you know, there's retrenchment now, um, or at least likely at the, at the federal level. So I guess is there a surprise on kind of where things have gone as far as the political climate too? 

[00:19:43] Sara Hastings-Simon: I mean, again, it's hard to say like whether, whether it's a surprise or not, but certainly I think it's not unheralded that, as you say, we, we see periods of sort of strong climate, strong push on climate policy, which then results in.

Real progress, I would say, on the cost of, you know, climate alternatives or on the build out of infrastructure. And then there's a bit of a pushback that comes and, and a rollback of, you know, a kind of a push against. And I mean there's, um, the, gosh, the other thing that's changed since we started the podcast is I feel like, I can't remember anybody's names anymore, but, uh, there's a, a woman, uh, professor in Santa Barbara we had as a guest whose first name is, uh, Leah, and I'm completely blanking on her, Leah 

[00:20:31] Ed Whittingham: scope.

[00:20:32] Sara Hastings-Simon: Stokes, thank you, professor Stokes, uh, who, who has written about this concept of kind of, as of many others, but certainly this concept of like the, the way that you can kind of like get a lot done in this. Climate policy window of sort of almost confusion and you throw a lot of things at the wall and some things stick.

And then also that income industries tend to not play, pay a lot of attention to, you know, threats to their industry until they get to a certain scale to be material and real. And so I would definitely describe the like most recent cycle that we've gone through. As a bit of that, right? Like, you know, going into it, we were in, you know, single digits for sales of, of EVs and, and lower numbers for, for solar.

And so I think there was like less of this sense of, oh no, we really need to worry about, from an incumbent perspective, again, the, the, you know, demand destruction for fossil fuel. And then things start to kind of take off and people get, get a little bit, feel that it's more real, let's say. Um. But I think that there is a dynamic of like, it's a bit of a two step forward, one step back.

Because again, the fact that you have those windows, you have the deployment, you have, you know, take the Alberta example where okay, I mean of course now it's not a great example 'cause it's the, the current government has managed to, to pause a lot of the new solar build. But certainly there was some government policies around the renewable energy procurement.

That really launched, I would claim the renewable energy industry. And then even when those specific policies were rolled back, that was able to continue for some time too. So I think that, you know, could, could we go faster and, and reach a 1.5 degree, uh, cap on warming? If we had, you know, perfect policies that continued in perpetuity, we certainly would have a lot of a better chance than we have with what we have.

But, but I think it's also important to acknowledge that. It's not a case of like all things are lost if you bring policy in and then it goes away. If it's policy that's designed in a way that, you know, enables kind of that, that further development. 

[00:22:42] Robert Tremblay: Mm-hmm. Yeah. You kind of had said before, you know, um, you know, when I asked about what's changed, you know, EVs like and solar batteries.

Lots of growth, but I think, you know, there's also, you know, some of the, some policy retrenchment and, you know, policy, uh, cycles that we're in as well. So is, is the premise energy versus climate, is it, is it more or less or kind of the same relevant as, as it was when the show started? 

[00:23:04] Ed Whittingham: I, I think it's still relevant.

I mean, we started this because of. The suspicion or the fear that we're not having honest enough conversations about the hard truths to, to, to do with energy transition. And I don't think that's changed because we still have governments on four year election cycles who will, you know, come out with a bunch of happy talk.

About, you know, emissions reductions and what emissions reductions will be created by certain policies without, without acknowledging just some of the hard truths to do with Canada's emissions profile, and especially to do with oil and gas, oil and gas production. So I don't think the core tension has gone away, nor have we gotten better at talking around it.

It's still there. And I think those honest conversations, I'm. Pretty happy that EVC is a purveyor of them, and I think the need is still very much real. 

[00:24:09] Sara Hastings-Simon: Yeah. I, I, I like to believe, I'm trying to like, check myself now. I, I like to believe that there's a little bit more of a recognition out there that like, it's not possible to just increase oil production and reduce emissions at the same time.

Right. Or the concept that like. In a decarbonizing world, you're, you're going to have a, a peak in oil demand. I don't know, I guess you'd have to do like a person on the street interview to see if that's just a story I like to tell myself or, or reflected in a real way. But I think I, I agree that like, that tension of energy versus climate is still very much there.

The part that maybe we didn't acknowledge as much at the beginning, or at least is not in the name, I guess, that I think I, I, over the years I'm coming to appreciate more and more is just like how much our energy and climate decision decisions and all these things live within, you know, the broader society and, and all of these other parts that come along with it.

Right? And that you can't really extract the energy or climate conversation from, you know, the conversation about politics and, and all these. Uh, and all these other things, which I think I like to think that we do talk about on, on the show. But I think I'll, I'll say, you know, as a, as someone who was trained in the hard sciences, um, it's taken me a long time and a lot of like being willing to listen and challenge my own assumptions to learn that there's a lot more to it than, you know, just the physics or even the economics of the, of the energy industry itself.

[00:25:38] Ed Whittingham: Yeah, I think I may have used this sort of pattern or mentioned this pattern before, but you know, with climate, you go through the cycle of, let's say a company, company X denies the problem exists, denies that, uh, they're part of the problem. And then denies that there's anything they can do about the problem and then denies that they can afford to do anything about the problem, and then they do something about the problem.

And you have to work through those stages. And with the kind of the recent backsliding that we've seen, I was disappointed. I don't think we've seen many companies. Outside of, you know, core companies around the MAGA base in the US denying that the problem exists anymore. Rather, we have this, this kind of brown, this avocado phenomena where people say, oh, climate exists, but.

To that point, we can't do anything about it and we just need to batten down the hatches. But companies can, some companies can very quickly then deny that they're really part of the problem or deny that there's anything that they can do about the problem. And that's a pattern that repeats itself and I find sort of chronically disappointing.

[00:26:50] Robert Tremblay: That being said though, like on the flip side you know, I think, you know, we see with, um, Horus and the war in Iran right now, you know, there, I think electricity and I think even just the nature, um, geopolitically for a lot of countries of, you know, fossil fuel imports and their energy systems, you know, relying on fossil fuels.

Is kind of an energy security or just, you know, the, the threat to their, um, country's wellbeing. So it, I guess thinking about where things are going, do you think there's a point where kind of energy just is climate because, you know, it's a lot of the lowest cost technologies, you know, pro provide climate action kind of as, as a side consequence?

And I think that's probably not a whole, a total solution to all decarbonization and reaching that zero, but yeah, I guess thinking where things are going. Do you think, I guess maybe the premise. It won't be like irrelevant, but do you think, um, it's gonna, it's gonna change in in the future? 

[00:27:40] Ed Whittingham: I'll just jump in quickly, Sara.

I, I would say certainly if you're dealing with the climate problem in this country and you're going in to talk to the federal government about the problem, you can't now go in and lead with the climate foot in the way that you could with the Trudeau government and treat that as an issue in isolation.

And with the Trudeau government, the big difference was. Hey, we've got these international commitments. We need to reduce our emissions. Let's say here's a good pathway or technology to doing that, and here are the economic benefits that would come as a result. And now with the Carney government, it's, you've gotta lead with the economic benefits foot.

Oh, well, you know, we want to develop this, you know, do a lot in carbon removal. You, you know, I want you to take, create a tax credit to incentivize, you know, superficial mineralization. And you're not saying, well, this is going to help Canada achieve its international climate commitments. It's, it's going to create jobs, foreign direct investment for Canadian clean tech.

Uh, it's going to create economic growth across these sectors. The value chain up and down. And oh, by the way, as a nice to have is Canada will be better equipped to, uh, meet its reduction targets. And that is very much a very market contrast in the orientation of the two governments. So in effect, the Carney government is putting that into practice.

[00:29:02] Sara Hastings-Simon: I don't, I, I agree with you, like on the underlying economics, that somehow on an even playing field, the lower. Carbon solutions are becoming less costly. I think the challenge that, you know, as we're seeing play out around the world here in Alberta other places is that there's a lot that governments can do to tip the scales one way or the other.

And so I. I don't think it's enough to say, well, you can just sit back and, and let the economics win out because there is not a, a, a sort of even playing field that just exists by itself. And there's a lot of ways, you know, especially when you get into, uh, tricky details of regulation and things like that, that, that you can really favor certain types of energy over others.

So I don't think we're yet at the point of kind of. Complete inevitability, or there's nothing that can be done to certainly slow down the transition. At the same time, I think, you know, there, there's, it's not very much about the big push that's needed to make it happen, if that makes sense. 

[00:30:03] Robert Tremblay: Fair enough.

Yeah. Well maybe we'll have to come chat, um, in another six years and we'll see, um, where things have been, uh, by then as well. So one other thing, um, just that I've noticed with the podcast is, you know, I think one thing that, uh, drew me and a lot of other folks kind of to the podcast was, uh, there was a, you know, a focus, uh, kind of inherently just given that the three of you are in, uh, Alberta, here in Alberta that there was a kind of a focus on Alberta and Canada.

But I think there's been more of a focus kind of. Internationally, um, kind of as, as the podcast has gone on. So is, is that intentional or is that, I guess, what's, what's behind that change? 

[00:30:35] Ed Whittingham: I would challenge the premise of that question, Rob. I think we've always been internationally focused and maybe, and one thing we've done is you used to, in the canned intro that I'll do per episode, would sort of talk about the implications for Alberta would name Alberta.

Now we've taken that out and we're really trying to draw the implications for Canada. However, if you look at our guest roster. Like what we try to do with EVC is to bring in voices that aren't, uh, if I can be crass, the same old, same old that climate energy geeks will have come across in other fora. And you know, we really try to work our Rolodexes to find those people, but then we're always bringing it back to Canada.

And if I look, if I go back and look at previous seasons, we've always, I think, maintained about the same ratio between. Guests from abroad versus Canada based guests. And the a Canada based academic tends to be the exception, uh, when we bring people on. There's my, my defense, uh, saying I challenge s premise to your question.

We've always been international, but Sara, go ahead and say what you think. 

[00:31:43] Sara Hastings-Simon: Yeah, I, I guess I'm like, I didn't do the math on, uh, the focus of the show between the episode, so I'm honestly not sure. 

[00:31:52] Robert Tremblay: Yeah. Now I'm wishing I came quantitatively prepared to ask the question. 

[00:31:56] Ed Whittingham: Well, we, we'll, we'll do that. We'll take that away.

We'll do a like a. Canada based versus non Canada based guest analysis. But you know, but the, the number one criterion for choosing a guest is, is that guest click beatty. Like, that's, that's what it's all about. You know? Will, will people look at them and say, click yes because of that guest. That's the only reason we bring 'em on.

[00:32:16] Sara Hastings-Simon: I guess maybe I will. Okay. So I said I didn't have anything to say. Now I'll say something, but I think it is like worthwhile acknowledging and often exploring like the way that things are different in Canada, and I know it's like. In Alberta and everybody wants to say like they're the special, you know, exception and things are different for them and all these things.

But like there are, I think some meaningful ways that whether it's, you know, the specific say challenges of solar in a northern climate or EVs, which again, as I think I've. You know, said many times on the show, it's not that it means it doesn't work here, but just to sort of acknowledge that there are some different situations in Canada and in particularly in a relatively northern part of Canada.

And probably if people are listening to this from like actual Northern Canada, they're laughing at me. But, um, but you know, Alberta compared with, uh, with some of the other, other big provinces, I think that's, as I said, that's important to acknowledge both as we think about, you know, what we're gonna do to our energy systems here, but actually also so that we don't get caught in this trap of like, oh, well that doesn't work so well here, therefore it's not gonna become a big thing.

Realizing that, you know, there's a very small percentage of the world's population that you know, chooses to live in a place where it routinely gets to be minus. 35 outside, right? Like that's, if, if that's your sort of bar for measuring what's going on, you're, you're gonna be missing a lot of the world's energy systems.

And so I, I do think that that is important to maybe, yeah, to do both, to discuss what we're gonna do here in Alberta, but then also make sure that our discussion of Alberta, especially because we are such a major energy exporter, is not missing what's going on in the rest of the world. 

[00:33:54] Ed Whittingham: Yeah. Sara, you're a particular part of Northern Canada is what, 15 degrees right now?

[00:33:59] Sara Hastings-Simon: Yeah, that's true. Today it's 15 degrees. Yesterday was snowing, so, you know, 

[00:34:04] Ed Whittingham: there you go. 

[00:34:05] Robert Tremblay: I've already got my floral shirt on. Care people. Um, so for Sara so Alberta, you know, we're deeply tied to oil and gas. I think, you know, especially, you know, given current events, I think it's, you know, more, you know, more true than ever as far as our finances.

Um, so is there a realistic path where we lead on transition rather than resisting it? Or is that, um, forever wishful thinking 

[00:34:30] Sara Hastings-Simon: in a nuanced way? There is a way that part of the province or part of our economy can lead on transition. Right. And I think that like. You know, of course oil and gas is a major part of our, um, industry, and that is a major, uh, employer and, and a lot of people are working there.

But, but we are not only an oil and gas province and so there are other things that we are doing and I think that those, have an opportunity, you know, whether it's in like the robotic space or, you know, I, I won't claim to be the expert on, on all the areas that Alberta is working in. I think there are certainly, we have a huge wealth of resources in the educational institutions at other institutions that.

The oil wealth has given us that really can create the situations to create a healthy economy. And I think we see that happening in various ways when it comes to, you know, will the oil and gas sector specifically be leading on this low carbon future? I, I think I'm ready at this point in my career to say like a pretty resounding no, and like, well, like a good professional, I'll say I, I wrote a paper on it for anyone who wants to, who wants to read it.

It's called, uh, mission Impossible, the Influence of Incumbent Industries on Mission Oriented Innovation Policy Targeting Carbon Lock-In. So that's a whole lot of fancy words to basically say that incumbent industries are, understandably when you think about their incentives going to do things. To prevent, um, their loss of, uh, the, the loss of their market share and the loss of their revenues.

And when it comes to decarbonization, you know, I think we now at this point understand that any, any net zero scenario that you draw has dramatically less fossil fuels being consumed. And I think any incumbent industry that's faced with trying to lead a transition that is basically leading them out of their main producing sector.

It's just, you know, as I argue in this paper, like you, I don't think that there are any examples like that. There are certainly examples of incumbent industries that have led into areas where they could grow into. Right. And so, you know, you, you look at some of the innovation in the agricultural sector or the pharmaceutical sector, um, that, that arguably have, you know, revolutionized those sectors.

And it was the incumbents leading those, but they were well positioned to be, to remain the incumbents, you know, with the development of the new drugs or, or whatever it was. And so I think that is, you know, back to, to Ed's point about avoiding the happy talk I think it's possible and, you know, we have seen oil and gas players that have participated in growing some of the different new energy sectors, but I think they will, again, you know, this is not even necessarily a value judgment as much as saying, you know, what's their sort of economic incentive and what's the, the mandates that a publicly traded company CEO has from their investors?

They will fight tooth and nail any policy that, you know, even threatens. Not super likely to, uh, to, to decrease the market size and, and revenue from their core business, which is selling fossil fuels. 

[00:37:43] Ed Whittingham: Sara, can I trot out the old wine analogy 

[00:37:46] Sara Hastings-Simon: please? 

[00:37:48] Ed Whittingham: The old wine analogy. Uh, this is a crowd pleaser. If the world were to transition away from wine, you wouldn't expect the French to be at the head.

Of that transition. And so this is, I'm equally perplexed that people still kind of swallow this hole. If the world is going to transition away from fossil fuels, why would we expect Alberta to be leading that transition instead of fighting it tooth, tooth and nail with its claws dug into the ground? And that's, I think, a reality that we just don't acknowledge.

[00:38:27] Robert Tremblay: It is a nice story that we like to tell ourselves though. So for Ed we keep, uh, you know, Canada, Alberta, you know, I'd say even the world, we, we keep setting climate targets and then, and then missing them. Is there a point where target setting, you know, becomes counterproductive? And if we, if we were to say that, what would we replace it with?

You know, would we be tethered to anything if we stopped setting targets? 

[00:38:48] Ed Whittingham: Yeah, and, and I think in this case there's a for and against argument. And first off, look at the Canadian context. So. Canada's climate targets are pretty clear and Canada is equally clearly off track. You know, we've set these really ambitious reduction targets of 40 to 45% below 2005 levels, and an interim objective of 20% below, uh, 2005 by 2026.

So yeah, that's the 20. The first one is a 2030 target, and not surprisingly, we're not actually close. To meeting those targets. Not bad on 2026, nowhere close to where we need to be by 2030. Now you would say, well, why do we set these targets? The argument's four, I think is, you know, think of it like a donkey's feedback, and you have the target.

We're going faster because of the targets, and targets actually force governments to really say where they're trying to get to. And, and create that pressure for continuity across election cycles. The argument against is, well, I think as you alluded to, Rob, if you repeatedly miss targets, it just erodes your credibility.

And frankly, they can border on climate virtue signaling and symbolic politics. You know, it's great announcements and, uh, you know, great ribbon cutting, but very weak implementation. And Canada's shown it's got very low accountability for non-delivery. Although to Canada's credit, it is trying to create more accountability and has done that through legislation.

But at some point then these targets just become a form of, of climate theater. So are those for and against? Where do I stand? I think I still stand, uh, in support of the targets for those arguments. You know, you need to tell companies, you need to tell provinces the direction of travel where we're going and without them, policy just can kind of drift into this.

Pile of disc disconnected measures with um, you know, no clear path for success. But I would encourage we're to set these targets, make them more realistic and making them more realistic is having that hard conversation. You know, we can achieve this very difficult ambition, reduction target, but we can't do that and grow oil and gas production.

Let's cancel the happy talk and say, hey. We want to grow oil and gas production as both the province and the federal government wanna do. But that's gonna come at the expense of climate targets, and we're okay with that because we'll capture lots of revenue that pays for government, for schools and hospitals, or, no, these targets are really important and our international credibility rests on them.

So then at that point we have to say we can't grow oil and gas production, and in fact, we probably have to reduce it. That is like political anathema. But I think that's the honest conversation to have. 

[00:41:49] Robert Tremblay: And just like that, we're back to the premise of the show. Energy versus climate. 

[00:41:53] Ed Whittingham: Ah, yeah. Yeah. There we go.

Applaud for the show. 

[00:41:56] Sara Hastings-Simon: I was gonna say, it's like the, it's not the targets, it's what's you, what you do with them. Right. And I think you do somehow, not having them makes it even harder to have, to have those on honest conversations about getting there or not. But just having them isn't enough. 

[00:42:11] Ed Whittingham: Let, let's get, if we're good at announcing something by 2030 or 2035, let's get.

Equally good at governing in 2026. 

[00:42:21] Robert Tremblay: Yeah, it reminds me of a lot of my work, um, in electricity policy. I've often gone kind of jaded about, you know, models and, you know, the, the efficacy of the models. But, you know, without models we're really just, um, going on vibes. So I think, you know, targets, I feel similar to me.

Like, you know, they're important, they can be flawed, but um, without them I think, uh, we're just kind of untethered. Okay, well, why don't we go through a couple rapid fire questions, starting with the first one. Um, nuclear is having a moment in Canada, SMRs refurbishments, uh, different provincial interests, you know, provincial interests.

I'd say, you know, outside of, uh, Ontario, new Brunswick is, is this, uh, real momentum or we still a decade away from it mattering at scale. 

[00:43:02] Ed Whittingham: Well, you know, as we talked about Oil Sands Alliance rebranding, this is probably my third nuclear renaissance, and at some point it stops being a Renaissance and it just starts being a pattern.

Uh, so yes, nuclear's having a moment. Again, it's had previous moments. Is it gonna be any diff different? Uh, hard to say, but I'm actually cautiously optimistic. And I say that as one who is in support of nuclear playing, not just its current role on, in the Canadian energy mix. I could see it playing an expanded role, and that's not a position that I had say 10 years ago.

Um, and just as a little plug, after this recording, we're bringing on Sara's UFC colleague Jason IV, to unpack nuclear in Canada in a more thorough way. So this is just a teaser, including, you know, maybe we'll talk about where we stand on nuclear. But the big change with what's happened previously is that we may be reversing the negative learning curve, and that sounds like a double.

Negative, but where nuclear has been in project after project, each project costs more and takes longer than the previous one. Instead of the usual benefits from project experience, you drive down the cost and it takes less amount of time to actually build it out. And that's happening particularly in China, which is going through a very clear nuclear renaissance and adding lots to its grid.

So I'm costly, optimistic that we can do that in Canada as well. And we'll have to see, you know, we got you know, Darlington's done, refurbishment, uh, Bruce Power's halfway done. Next step is Pickering. And we've got finally an, so SMR looks like it's gonna be built in Ontario and capital power here in Alberta's looking at SMRs.

So, um, it certainly is on the lips of, uh, decision makers. Now, I definitely did not put the rapid and rapid fire. I put the drawn out, um, long-winded in rapid fire there, so I should shut up. 

[00:45:07] Sara Hastings-Simon: You said, you said the bar nice and lowed. I'll, I'll, I'll try to, I'll try to outdo you and just say that I think, uh, I think nuclear is becoming more important in some places around the world.

I don't see it playing a big role in Alberta. I. I think maybe marginal in some parts of Canada that have some history around it, but look forward to our next discussion. 

[00:45:34] Ed Whittingham: And actually, here's a rapid fire comment on that, Sara. I can see that Alberta's energy only structure is really challenging for long lived assets.

So with nuclear it's much easier in say, Ontario and Saskatchewan with like, crown corporations. 

[00:45:48] Robert Tremblay: I'd say the energy only structure is also really hard for supply surplus too. And nuclear's need, usual need to be always on is, is gonna be difficult as well. But is the nuclear show, is it gonna be live? 'Cause I've got some other questions.

Maybe I'm gonna have to attend, attend the recording for that one if it is. 

[00:46:03] Ed Whittingham: It, it sure is. And because you're doing this, Rob, once again, how about we give you the first question on that show? 

[00:46:09] Robert Tremblay: Sounds good. So just going deeper into the rapid fire, so one I've, I've always wanted to ask you folks is you know, I think all of us, um, we bike sometimes to get around for transportation.

Canmore has really great cycling infrastructure. Um, you know, Calgary, I'd say our, our cycling infrastructure is better than we like to say, but, um, you know, we always compare, complain about, uh, the stuff we have. I don't often see, you know, in, in climate strategies like, say like Canada's climate strategy or climate strategies, um, say from the IEA, like the role of mode shift, um, and transportation.

Do you see that being a, being a big thing and is that something we should be taking more seriously? Should we be looking, um, beyond EVs as well for, um, actually, you know, reducing those emissions associated with, uh, transportation fuels. 

[00:46:54] Sara Hastings-Simon: I was like, yes, definitely. And, and I think you're right that, like I would say, the whole bucket of reducing vehicle miles travel doesn't get a lot of play, uh, to David Wesco, um, who talks about it certainly in the context of California.

Do I wanna say like, why I think that is, I mean, I think there is a little bit of a, for some people it, it feels a little too like, oh, we're, we're gonna prevent you from driving a car. We're gonna ban you from doing so. Um, but I think there is some, some renewed excitement and interest around, around the idea of like, showing people that it's not about like you can never drive a car, but it's more around, there's just a better mix of transportation modes that you can use that's like.

The right fit for the job, depending on how far you're going and what are you doing. And it's not a matter of sacrifice, but it can actually be, you know, more pleasant and and much cheaper. And I think it's pretty amazing. Uh, now, now I'm doing the non rapid fire, but I think it's pretty amazing to see what cities like Paris have done, uh, in a really short amount of time that have really just like, completely changed the makeup of the way that people move around.

[00:47:59] Robert Tremblay: So just doing a couple, kind of maybe going back to kind of thinking about the show. Um, so, you know, you've, you've had the podcast for I, I believe like six years now. What's a climate or energy truth that's changed your, the truth you use to hold that, um, you've changed your mind about, um, over the duration of the podcast?

[00:48:15] Sara Hastings-Simon: Oh, I've got one. It's a little, I don't dunno if it's too niche, but, uh, I was, I was gonna install an all electric, uh, heat pump in my home with a backup resistance heating. And then I started thinking about what happens if everybody does that on the block and what happens to the distribution system.

So, I am no longer all in on all electric heating in ultra cold climates or in homes that, you know, can't, uh, can't manage with a heat pump alone. But I actually think we need to be a little bit more thoughtful about that. 

[00:48:46] Ed Whittingham: I've changed my mind about the need for climate stabilization, and by stabilization I mean some type of intervention in the climate to either pull CO2 outta the atmosphere or.

Something like sunlight, reflection that David works on as a way of trying to destabilize our climate and ultimately keep people safe. Net zero ain't worth a hill of beans if you end up just locking in a dangerous level of warming. We actually have to figure out how to cool the planet. 

[00:49:14] Robert Tremblay: Who's the best guest you've had on, and, uh, how come.

[00:49:18] Ed Whittingham: I will take first crack, but this is like asking us to pick our favorite child amongst our children. So there are so many good ones. We've had guests who like drive downloads that are really popular and Blake Shafer. Created a bunch of downloads, Dore Vino from H Alberta talking about just transition.

That was a hugely popular show. Kim Stanley Robinson, you know, because of Ministry for the future. For me it was really Catherine Hamilton and why Catherine Hamilton. The, uh, again, the Ken Eye or Sharp Beed listener will recognize her as one third of the energy. Gang. Energy versus climate was partly inspired by the energy gang.

She's just a very thoughtful, amazing observer and commentator, and we managed to get her before she retired, and it was really just staring me, interviewing her. It was like, not even a full episode, but I, it was like, for me, that was like a big checkbox. We got someone from the Energy Gang on. 

[00:50:23] Sara Hastings-Simon: That's hilarious.

We, we did not coordinate this, but that's actually, uh, one of the two that I wrote down. So, uh, just also because I am such a Catherine Hamilton fan girl, and I think in some ways energy versus climate is really like a tribute podcast, uh, to the energy gang. I will leave it to the listeners as an exercise.

To decide, uh, which of our, our co-hosts we think maps to their co-hosts. But, uh, definitely that, that was a fun one. Um, but I also have to throw a shout out, uh, to, to Blake Schafer my, uh, close collaborator, uh, who I continue to work a lot with, um, electricity topics at, uh, at UCal to, so 

[00:51:03] Ed Whittingham: yeah, the politic politically correct answer is say my favorite guest is the guest who is on most recently.

[00:51:09] Robert Tremblay: There you go. Well, by Blake's great. And shout out to the Energy Gang for sure. That's, I think that's actually the first Climate and energy podcast I've ever listened to. So maybe you're gonna have to collect the trio. Um, get Steven Lacey and get, um, jigger Shaw on here. Um, especially now that, um, Jers, um, you know, not working for the Department of Energy anymore.

Okay. One more. So if the energy transition goes well, what does Canada look like in 2050? Can you give us one image? 

[00:51:36] Ed Whittingham: I'll give you an image. More wild space and more invisible energy, and by that, a country that produces energy without it dominating the landscape. 

[00:51:45] Sara Hastings-Simon: I can tell I did not prepare for the rapid fire questions before my Utopia Energy transition really links back to, to more of those like, you know, more equality and comfort and, and people just moving around and being comfortable in their spaces and, and having their needs met in a way that is, uh, that is not happening for everybody today.

[00:52:09] Robert Tremblay: Well, with that, um, I think, you know, we've gone probably a little bit longer than Will intended, so. Yeah. Thanks so much for, for having me as the host. Um, and thanks so much for telling us a little more about, um, yourselves and where you, uh, think things are all going in our world of, uh, energy versus climate.

[00:52:25] Ed Whittingham: Well, Rob, you're a fantastic host and so much so. I'm gonna be looking over my shoulder now, you know, as, uh, as we walk into the future knowing that while we're trying to replace David with ai, you could be a, a wonderful replacement for me. So, it's with mixed feelings that I say. You did a great job.

Thank you so much. 

[00:52:43] Robert Tremblay: Thanks so much.

[00:52:44] Sara Hastings-Simon: Yeah, thanks Rob. It's been a lot of fun. Of course it's always fun to, you know, talk about yourself. Uh, but, uh, but just thinking about how much things have changed and, you know, the things have been going for a little while and it's been, uh, I definitely did not expect that we would necessarily still be going six years on.

So, uh, it's, it's been a lot of fun to be a part of. And, you know, I learn a lot, always from our guests and our co-host and from just, you know, being forced to answer questions myself. So. And, and it's, you know, people that will listen to me. 'cause my kids still, uh, they, they came home with some homework the other day that, that included questions about what was it?

One was like, how will things change as EVs are adopted? And the other one was, if subsidies are enough to, um, enable EV adoption. And I was like, so ready to tell them, you know what? I thought about these two things that I have literally written papers about and they were just not interested. 

[00:53:34] Ed Whittingham: Oh, Sara, I, I had that actually, I had this wonderful like, milestone. I was chatting with my 19-year-old daughter who is a first year UBC science student, and we hit upon the fact that in my work and her studies, we had both referenced the same UBC study that's going on right now. And, uh, it is to do with carbon removal. I said, oh, well, great. You know, well, if you're interested, like we did a whole show on carbon removal that you could, I'm not interested.

Thank you. Just like, but if I ever get one of my kids to listen to a full episode of EBC, I could probably then retire.

Thanks for listening to Energy versus Climate. The show is created by David Keith, Sara Hastings Simon and me, Ed Whittingham, and produced by Amit Tandon with help from Michael Edmonds.

Our title in Show Music is The Windup by Brian Lips. This season of Energy Versus Climate is produced with the support of the North Family Foundation, the Consecon Foundation, the Trottier Family Foundation, and you are generous. Listeners, sign up for updates and exclusive webinar access at energyvsclimate.com.

And review and rate us on your favorite podcast platform really does help new listeners define the show.