March 6, 2025 • 58 mins
Shannon Joseph once dreamed of being an astronaut, but ultimately chose to tackle humanity's most pressing challenges right here on Earth.
With over 15 years of experience in energy, sustainability, and Indigenous relations, Shannon has shaped major federal policies like the Impact Assessment Act and the UNDRIP Act. As Chair of Energy for a Secure Future, she is leading a critical conversation about how Canada can balance energy development, environmental responsibility, and economic growth.
"In Canada, we assume energy will always be affordable and reliable. But we should not assume. We need to be cold-blooded about the numbers and whether this will actually work." – Shannon Joseph
Recorded 12/12/2024
Subscribe for fact-based, expert-led conversations!
Follow us and our guest on social media:
Stewart Muir on Linkedin
Shannon Joseph on Twitter/ X
The energy conversation is polarizing. But the reality is multidimensional. Get the full story with host Stewart Muir.
Reach out to us with thoughts, questions, or ideas at info@powerstruggle.ca
Linkedin
Instagram
Facebook
Twitter
🎧 For audio versions of our podcast visit powerstruggle.ca and listen on the go in your favourite podcast app!
Video available on Power Struggle’s YouTube! https://www.youtube.com/@PowerStrugglePod
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Stewart Muir (00:00):
I'll bet there's people watching this saying
hello, you're not talking aboutthe biggest issue climate.
Shannon Joseph (00:05):
That is the biggest issue for people who
have solved their own energyissue.
It's the biggest issue untilyour lights go out and it's 40
degrees Celsius.
It's the biggest issue untilyou don't have the power you
need to disinfect medicalinstruments.
Then something else is thebiggest issue To the people
listening who are like oh my God, why are you going on about all
this?
Expensive or not expensive,Don't you know we're all going
(00:27):
to die in 12 years and I don'twant to caricature that because
these are important concerns.
I guess what I'm saying is weshould not tell ourselves in
Canada, where we have energysecurity that relies on energy
that we want to deny to othercountries.
We shouldn't tell ourselvesthat, just because we have
energy comfort and can thinkthat this is the biggest issue,
that it's everyone's biggestissue.
(00:47):
And if we don't help othercountries address their biggest
issue, which is keeping thelights on 24 7 if people need it
, having the energy they needall the time the environmental
issue is not going to beaddressed as efficiently as it
could be.
Stewart Muir (01:11):
Welcome to Power Struggle.
I'm Stuart Muir.
Shannon Joseph has spent over15 years at the intersection of
energy sustainability andindigenous relations.
She's one of those rare peoplewho sees the big picture but
never loses sight of the humanimpact.
She's one of those rare peoplewho sees the big picture but
never loses sight of the humanimpact.
She's motivated by the strongconviction that energy is about
people and that abundant,affordable, low-emission energy
(01:35):
is a precondition for growingthe middle class, protecting the
environment and, in Canada,advancing reconciliation.
Simply put, shannon gets thingsdone.
Shannon Joseph, welcome toPower Struggle.
Shannon Joseph (01:48):
Thank you very much.
Stewart Muir (01:49):
I heard you wanted to be an astronaut when you
were young.
Is that true?
Shannon Joseph (01:53):
That's true.
I did want to be an astronaut.
I used to watch a lot of StarTrek and I thought this looks
like a great job.
But I'm busy enough on Earthnow I don't need to go to space.
Stewart Muir (02:04):
When did you decide?
Going to space wasn't for you.
Shannon Joseph (02:07):
I, you know, I decided when I'm from Quebec
originally and I was in CEGEPand I took a political and
social ethics course and gotkind of my eyes open to
political issues, economicissues at the time, you know,
issues of free trade and all ofthese things and is it
benefiting people, and I wasvery opinionated.
(02:27):
That's when I started to caremore about trying to do things
in the real world and reallyhaving a focus on, well, how do
we end poverty for people, like,how do we make life better on
Earth?
And I ended up going into civilengineering so that I could,
you know, build wells in Africa,as if people didn't know how to
build wells.
And really the issues of thatare so much bigger and that's
(02:49):
what I've come to learn as I'vegone on my personal kind of
career journey.
That led to the energy for asecure future.
Stewart Muir (02:56):
I've heard you say many times that energy is about
people.
It's not just resources,engineering or policy.
Shannon Joseph (03:15):
And also you've talked about how it changes
lives.
Bring us into that hadbuildings, pyramids, coliseums
is because human beings ate foodand then would be made to drag
rocks and plow fields and do allof the work, and so life was
short, brutish and somethingelse.
I don't know what philosophersaid that Things were harder and
(03:38):
as people have had access tomore modern forms of energy,
they can get a machine to plowthe field and they can get a
machine to lift the concrete andbuild the buildings and go to
space and do all the things ofmodern life.
And I think people take forgranted that.
You know, today we live for along time.
(04:00):
That's because we haverefrigerators and refrigerators
are made of products that comeout of modern energy, that
require modern energy.
We eat every day in Canada, eventhough we have winter six
months a year at least in thepart of Canada I live because we
can bring food from around theworld affordably because of
energy, and so there's just somuch that isn't invisible, but
(04:22):
it is done by energy and itmakes people's lives longer and
the more energy people have, thebetter they live, and you can
see that by the data.
Like you know, the people inwhat's called the West and North
America, et cetera, use themost energy in the world, and
you know, as you go down thestandard of living ladder in the
world, people are using lessand less energy and their lives
(04:46):
are harder, and so the more wecan get affordable abundant
energy to more people, thebetter our lives will be, and
that's really important.
Stewart Muir (04:54):
This observation you've made.
When you hear it, of course,it's so obvious.
Is it resonating with people?
Shannon Joseph (05:01):
I think it's starting to.
But I also think that a lot ofpeople just aren't aware they
don't have contact with it.
They become more aware of itwhen they don't have it.
They become more aware of itwhen it's expensive.
And you know that's too badthat you got to kind of have
those experiences to appreciateenergy.
But you know, I have a.
(05:24):
I work with a gentleman whogrew up in India and he said
when he was growing up and it'sstill the case today there are a
lot of power failures.
And he said, when the powerfails, and it's 40 degrees
Celsius, all you want is power,no matter how you get it.
And so I think you know thereare people in Canada with those
(05:45):
experiences who also, I thinkcould share that with others who
maybe have not had thoseexperiences and could learn from
that.
Stewart Muir (05:56):
Shanna, your career has spanned environmental
engineering, municipal climateprograms, indigenous relations.
It's an incredible range.
How has working across so manyfields shaped your particular
vision?
Shannon Joseph (06:11):
So I think that what it's shaped the most is my
belief that problems need to besolved closest to the people who
are affected by them.
The solution needs to bedeveloped by those who are most
affected by the solutions and,even though you know nothing's
perfect, that'll increase yourodds of getting a good solution
(06:35):
or a better solution than if thedecisions are made far away and
so on.
The municipal piece.
When we worked on issues aroundenvironment, it was everything
from emissions to watertreatment to solid waste
management, et cetera, and thesolution you got in St John, new
Brunswick was different fromwhat you could get in Iqaluit
from Vancouver.
You know it was right sized tothose places.
(06:58):
You know one of the toughthings in today's society is the
decisions that are made by thecentral government and the way
it impacts other people in otherparts of the country, other
regions, other industries, andit creates these huge tensions.
And I think the more you candevolve that locally, to a
(07:20):
province, to a municipality, themore you get a resilient, a
right size and a resilientsolution to whatever the issue
is you're trying to work on.
Stewart Muir (07:28):
Recently I read an article.
It was the headline the bill iscoming for net zero.
And it's a great headline.
It makes you want to figure out.
You know, we know what net zerois, but I didn't know there was
a bill coming.
I thought we have to pay forthat.
I thought then, what was yourpoint in that particular
commentary?
Shannon Joseph (07:47):
Yeah, it's so funny because I was testifying
at Parliament on thegovernment's clean electricity
strategy and regulation and youknow, when you testify in
Parliament you can never quitesay what you want to say,
because the MPs are trying tosay what they want to say.
Stewart Muir (08:03):
Yeah, you're there for their needs.
What you want to say, becausethe MPs are trying to say what
they want to say.
Shannon Joseph (08:05):
Yeah, you're there for their needs, that's
right.
And so I decided to write thisarticle to say the things I
wanted to say, and it is that inthe conversation in Canada
around net zero and climate moregenerally and, by extension,
energy and again, energy iseverything.
It's why we eat every day, it'swhat turns the lights on, etc.
(08:26):
We were never talking aboutwhat it takes to do some of the
things that are being proposed,and we were never looking at
anything we had learned in reallife from running energy systems
until now, and so Energy for aSecure Future had done a paper
called Getting Canada's EnergyFuture Right and it looked at
end use energy.
(08:47):
So how do people use energy intheir house, how do they use it
at their school or some otherinstitutions, and what does
industry do with energy and whathave we learned in the last 20
years that will help us knowwhat we can expect or what we
should anticipate getting out to2050, which is only 25 years
from now, and you know thethings that we should know.
(09:12):
And what I want to talk about inthat article is that today,
electricity only does 20 percentof the energy job for Canadians
.
So that's number one.
Most people in this country,including in provinces like
Quebec and in British Columbiathat are hydro provinces they're
still a majority using oil andgas directly to meet their
(09:34):
energy needs.
And the other thing peopledon't realize is that most of
the energy in Canada, just likemost of the energy in most
countries, are used by industry,and the important thing about
that is that's everybody's job.
So if it becomes too expensiveor if the way we try to achieve
our emission reductions goalsends up making energy expensive,
(09:56):
either for industries or forordinary people, there's a
double cost to that.
Because you know if you have tobuild a new hydro dam or if you
have to build whatever else,that goes on power bills or
somewhere the tax bill to payfor that, and if you have to put
too much of that on yourindustry and they start to be
uncompetitive with theirAmerican competitors or their
(10:17):
Asian competitors, their job'sgoing to go there, and then you
can't pay that bill because youdon't have a job anymore.
Bob's going to go there, andthen you can't pay that bill
because you don't have a jobanymore.
And that means that the wholeroad to wherever we're going
needs to acknowledge trade-offs,needs to acknowledge that there
are some things we might haveto do first and get that to work
(10:38):
really well before we dosomething else.
And the other thing it needs toacknowledge is that and I spoke
about this in parliament wejust need more energy.
Everybody's really excitedabout AI, but AI increases
energy demand by orders ofmagnitude as the more you bring
it on, and so we're not justtalking about like transitioning
or transforming or whatever.
(10:58):
In order to have the quality oflife we have with a growing
population, we just need more,and if we want it to be
different, that's going to beexpensive, because you just have
to build a lot of stuff.
There's no way around it.
You have to pay the workers whoare going to do the work.
You have to buy the materialthat's going to be used to build
the stuff.
That stuff all gets paid forfirst, and then you ostensibly
(11:21):
get the benefits, but you'realso getting the bill.
And so let's talk about thatand let's let the Canadian
people decide what is.
How do we want to approach this?
What are tradeoffs that aregoing to be acceptable to us so
that we have that resilientfuture that we want?
We have a future with jobs, afuture with a good quality of
(11:42):
life.
Stewart Muir (11:43):
There's so many directions to go in from what
you just said, Shannon.
What do you think the averageCanadian thinks net zero is?
Shannon Joseph (11:51):
Oh, I think they don't really know about it and
they don't think about it untilthey are asked.
And I think maybe the termmight be surrounded by good
feelings if they've heard goodthings about it, bad feelings if
they, you know, have heard badthings about it.
But I think people don't reallyknow and the truth is, in
(12:14):
legislation and we have net zerolegislation in Canada there is
no definition of net zero.
Like there's kind of adefinition but like, when you
get down to it, what does itreally mean?
Because for some people inCanada net zero means zero and
for other people it's net andtheir version of net means
something else.
And so I think that's anotherchallenge with that whole issue
(12:37):
is there's like a word out therebut nobody really knows what
that word means, like as anobjective, but then nobody knows
what it means to implement iteither.
Stewart Muir (12:48):
Well, I'm starting to wonder if, given that
there's 200 countries, 200 oddcountries in the world and
Canada is just one of them thereare countries that are
different stages of what they'redoing in energy.
Maybe energy poverty is areality, maybe they have energy
wealth and they're starting todo net zero things.
My question for you is arethere countries that we could be
(13:10):
looking at that are examples ofwe should go there and also of
countries where maybe weshouldn't go there in terms of
you know the example they'resetting?
Shannon Joseph (13:18):
Yeah, so because you know, ultimately this is
all comes down to energy and howit's used.
Every country is going to bedifferent, because every country
starts off with differentresources.
Canada has so much energy wehave oil and gas, obviously.
We have lots of water, andthat's allowed us to have
(13:39):
hydropower.
We have one of the mostimportant uranium deposits in
the world, so we have nuclearOntario's 60 percent nuclear
electricity and so I think, forus, energy means one thing and
transforming energy meansanother thing, because we truly
have lots of options at ourdisposal, so much so that we're
(14:03):
also an energy exporter.
Most of the countries that wedeal with are not in that
situation.
Japan imports over 90 percentof the energy it uses, and
that's true for Korea, southKorea as well.
Europe also has a lot of energyimporting, and so their
(14:24):
economies are not aboutexporting energy, they're about
making stuff and exporting stuff.
Now, of course, making thatstuff requires energy to remain
cheap, and what Europe iscurrently experiencing on their
road to get to one part of yourquestion, is that if you pursue
some of these policies in acertain way, energy gets really
(14:45):
expensive, and so Germany, as anexample, industry is facing a
lot of high energy costs andthey're leaving.
You know, deindustrializationis a problem not just for them
but in many parts of Europe, andthat is a very direct function
of the way energy has becomemore expensive as they've
(15:07):
shifted the balance fromtraditional energy to renewable
energy or, you know, wind andsolar, without necessarily
dealing with some of thetechnical challenges that come
with that, like the need tostore energy when the wind
doesn't blow and the sun doesn'tshine, which actually happens
quite a bit, and it also happensat the inopportune times, like
when it's the coldest.
(15:28):
That's the day the wind won'tblow, you know.
And so I think Canada needs tolearn that those problems can't
be kind of brushed aside whenyou're planning.
You need to, and thatacknowledging them doesn't mean
you're against wind or you'reagainst something, but you're
acknowledging that thistechnology works this way, it
has limitations, and you've gotto pay to manage the limitations
(15:52):
of this technology.
And so are you prepared to payfor that?
And do you know how you'regoing to do that?
Because if your economy reallydepends on manufacturing, you
don't figure that out properly,you're not going to be a
manufacturer anymore, so atleast that should answer one
part.
Who's doing it right?
I've spent a lot of time nowmeeting countries, leaders from
(16:14):
countries in the Asia-PacificVietnam, south Korea, japan,
taiwan recently and they neverlook at kind of the climate
issue or, you know, theemissions issue, without also
looking at supply and ensuringthe OAS has security, supply
diversification.
(16:35):
So am I?
Am I getting 50 percent of myenergy from Russia or from the
Middle East, or from one?
Like?
How do I diversify so that I asa country am not at the mercy
of any particular country?
I have options.
All of those things areabsolutely important because if
the day you don't have yourenergy supply, every other
(16:56):
consideration goes out thewindow, and so I think a smart
approach is one thatacknowledges diversity, that
energy plays this vital role inpeople's lives and we have to
always have it.
It has to be affordable and thesupply needs to be secure, and
then we want it to have theleast environmental impacts that
(17:17):
it can have, and we always haveto solve for those things at
the same time, and, in my view,in Canada we haven't always
tried to solve for all thosethings at the same time.
I think we've assumed it'llalways be affordable, we assume
it's always going to be reliable, and we haven't always tried to
solve for all those things atthe same time.
I think we've assumed it'llalways be affordable, we assume
it's always going to be reliable, and we shouldn't assume things
.
We should make sure that we'rereally cold-blooded when we look
at the numbers of whether thisis going to play out the way we
(17:40):
want, and we should take thingsin an approach that allows us to
test, succeed, test, fail,course correct, so that we don't
end up with some of thechallenges Europe has
experienced, but actually createa position for Canada where we
are resilient as a country andwe are positioned to help other
(18:01):
countries, because mostcountries, as I said, don't have
the energy we have need thatenergy for their people, but
also for their security.
Stewart Muir (18:11):
Have you ever said to someone in Canada you know
you're really complacent Thingscould go badly if you're not
careful.
And what is the reaction beingif you've said anything like
that?
Shannon Joseph (18:22):
When you say things like that to people, they
don't like that.
No, I guess not that to peoplethey don't like that.
No, I guess not.
No, I mean, I think I reallytry to position all of this
stuff in a positive way.
We have a lot of resources andthere's an important role we can
play in the world and peopleare aware.
I think people kind of putthings in a box there's like a
(18:45):
climate box, there's ageopolitical box, there's an
affordable groceries box andthey don't always see the
connection between these boxes.
And I think what myself and theother people that I work with,
and especially the Energy for aSecure Network, which includes a
lot of individual leaders butalso organizations is connect
those boxes and say you know, ifwe could actually get this
(19:08):
right in Canada, we would livebetter and we could really help
others around the world andraise the stature of our country
.
And you know a lot of theinternational work I do.
I also do with the FirstNations leaders and
organizations who are part ofEnergy for a Secure Futures
Network and beyond, likeMFriends, because a lot of those
(19:31):
leaders understand kind of thereal things of life, like when
you don't have affordable energy, what does this mean for your
community on reserve, forexample, when you don't have
access to trade and your owneconomic export opportunities.
What does that mean for yourability to provide the things
your nation wants?
(19:52):
And so you know I work with theFirst Nations LNG Alliance, the
Indigenous Resource Network,the First Nations Power
Authority and others who, again,are all about striking that
balance, because they know thecost of not striking that
balance.
And you know, part of thatpositive story for Canada on
(20:13):
energy is reconciliation and Ithink that's an important thing
also for most Canadians to knowthat they don't know.
Stewart Muir (20:21):
You've mentioned security a few times.
In fact, it's in the name ofyour organization, Secure Future
.
What does energy security meanto you?
Shannon Joseph (20:30):
Energy security to me means having the energy
you need when you need it at aprice you can afford.
And you know, for a countrylike Canada, because we have so
much domestically, we can justfigure out.
You know two of those thingsbecause we know one of them is
guaranteed Like we have it, howdo we get it to people
(20:53):
consistently at a price thatthey can afford?
But again, because of whoCanada, because of the resources
we have, we can help othercountries with that.
That's a positive global rolewe can play.
And for many countries in theworld, they don't have the
energy, they can't guaranteethat they can get it affordably,
and so they want partners tohelp them guarantee those things
(21:17):
.
When Russia first invadedUkraine and Russia is a major
global oil and gas supplier, youknow Europe put sanctions on
them.
They're like, ok, we don't wantthis anymore, but now where are
we going to get our energy?
And so they just went on whatis called the spot market and
said we'll pay anything for youto send us your natural gas.
And so ships bound for Asia,you know, based on long term
(21:41):
contracts literally turnedaround in the ocean and went
back so that they can bring allthat energy to Europe and Asia
was like, oh my gosh, what do wedo now?
And a lot of them startedburning more coal, which is
higher emitting, like all thesethings, that until that point
there had also been a bigdivestment movement.
There kind of is, let's divestfrom oil and gas, we don't need
(22:02):
it anymore.
And it's like guess what?
When people couldn't get it,they just burned coal because
they're never going to let theirpeople not have energy, and so
you know.
Another interesting thing thathappened is that you know China,
as an example, has a lot ofenergy flexibility, so they had
long term gas contracts and theyjust switched their power
(22:22):
plants to coal and sold the gasto Europe and sold the gas to
other people to coal, and soldthe gas to Europe and sold the
gas to other people.
And so, anyway, it's just veryinteresting.
But it speaks to thefundamental importance of energy
and why countries are lookingfor partners who can be a
reliable supplier and partner intheir security and, of course,
(22:43):
in their economic development,and that's good for Canada, that
would be good for thosecountries.
Stewart Muir (22:48):
Would you say that's something that's happened
since the Russia invasion ofUkraine occurred, this
perception of security?
Shannon Joseph (22:57):
I think security has taken on a serious
importance since Russia'sinvasion of Ukraine that it did
not have Before.
If you brought up energysecurity, energy affordability
in many conversations, you'd becalled a climate denier or
someone who didn't take theseenvironmental issues seriously.
Because why are you talkingabout these costs or things like
that?
Why are you speaking negativelyabout the strategy we have?
(23:19):
And then you know, suddenlywe're hit with a war that we
didn't expect and the falloutfrom that ended up being an
energy which people didn'texpect and it made real again
like that.
This is not an issue that canbe ignored, nor can
affordability be ignored, and Ithink that's a good thing,
because it makes theconversation move from the
(23:41):
theoretical and the aspirationalto the real.
Let's get real about what we'redoing.
Let's get real about how we'regoing to pay for it, how fast we
can do it, etc.
Stewart Muir (23:49):
The United States, right beside Canada, close
neighbor, set aside today'spolitics, whatever,
fundamentally, two nations thatexist happily and have done for
centuries as nations andpre-nations no-transcript.
(24:33):
I'm tormented by something Icannot answer.
How is it that Americans,including the American left you
know the Democratic Party is soat ease with being an energy
superpower?
John Kerry, the climate czar ofthe United States of America,
will talk freely about howimportant it is for energy
(24:54):
security in the world thatAmerican energy is out there on
those markets, whereas youcannot get the Canadian prime
minister or many other leadersto even talk about this topic,
even though we're prettyimportant in the energy world
not an energy superpower,because there's some kind of
(25:14):
cultural impediment to havingthat conversation in Canada.
So how is it that PresidentBiden has a kind of green halo
as this environmental presidentand yet under his presidency
America truly became thesuperpower?
Things were happening before hecame along, but it was really
on his watch, right.
Shannon Joseph (25:34):
And Obama's watch.
Stewart Muir (25:36):
And Obama's watch, absolutely.
So what is going on here?
That we have these twodifferent characters in the same
domain of energy security?
Shannon Joseph (25:46):
Yeah, I think that the United States has been
a direct recipient of energy asa tool of geopolitical power and
maybe I don't remember the OPECcrisis, but it was a crisis,
and I was reading an articlerecently that was apparently
Richard Nixon was telling peoplenot to put on their Christmas
lights and so they haveexperienced other countries
(26:09):
using their influence throughenergy to squeeze their
geopolitical rivals, and theyalso, as a country, I think,
play a security role.
Right, it's the US Navy thatguards a lot of the shipping
routes for all the stuff that webuy on Amazon and all our food
and all, et cetera, and so Ithink they're alive to the fact
that you can't just look atenvironment as an issue and not
(26:34):
security or whatever else, thatall of these things exist
together in the world and needto be dealt with together to get
it right.
I think it's always been a kindof a bipartisan thing that the
United States wants to seekenergy independence, and that's
just.
States wants to seek energyindependence, and that's just
been completely uncontroversial.
And when they found a way to doit, which was, you know, the
(26:55):
shale revolution, as they callit they just went for it.
Every administration has gonefor it and you know it's been to
their benefit.
And a lot of people talk abouthow the United States and Canada
started at the same place in2015 with zero LNG export
facilities and now the US haslike eight of them and they're
building more and we are aboutto have one, which is great, and
(27:15):
we have some others that havebeen approved.
But I think because Canada hasnot been on the receiving end of
some of those geopoliticalattacks and really had to take
them in, and has not been kindof on all those front lines from
a security perspective, ormaybe our political leaders have
not kind of felt drawn intothat, I think it's meant that we
(27:40):
maybe can be more idealized inthe way we look at things.
But I think even that ischanging, and I think, certainly
with the newly elected Americanadministration, the Trump
administration if Canada is notthinking seriously about these
things, I think he's going tomake us think about them more,
(28:02):
because it's in the US interestfor Canada to think about it
more.
And I think it's in ourinterest to think about it more
because there's actually a hugeopportunity for us if we could
play the role that we have thecapacity to play.
Stewart Muir (28:16):
What's an example of how President Trump and his
administration might have thatinfluence on Canada?
Shannon Joseph (28:21):
Well, I mean, everybody's been talking about
the tariff thing and that's beenpresented as a border issue,
but our number one export to theUnited States is oil, and we
provide about 7% of the gas thatthey have in their system, some
of which is exported throughtheir LNG facilities.
(28:43):
You know, who knows how hemight decide to put pressure on
us, but I think the point ishe's already putting pressure on
us for other issues and if hedoesn't want the United States,
as this energy superpower, tocarry all of the weight of
trying to rebalance thingspolitically from an energy
standpoint, he might put otherkinds of pressure.
(29:05):
I mean, it could be viewed aspressure or not, or an
opportunity Right, isn't?
The risk and opportunity is thesame character, or something,
so I think.
But whatever it is, it's goingto force a conversation and a
change that can be takenadvantage of, I think for the
good, in Canada and in a waythat would advance the things
that we care about as a countryand as people.
Stewart Muir (29:26):
You mentioned some countries in Asia that are
important to you.
Maybe you've visited there inyour travels.
Japan what is their outlook onCanada and energy and security
for Japan and the world today?
Shannon Joseph (29:38):
So, again, japan imports over 90% of its energy
and has lots of suppliers,including the US, but the Middle
East, and you know they stillbuy a little bit from Russia and
they're very interested inworking with Canada because they
want that diversity of supply.
We're closer to them, we couldship it to them at lower cost.
(30:01):
So I think you know, just fromthat security of supply
standpoint, japan is interestedin energy partners because of
its geography.
They don't have, you know, lotsof places for a large scale
wind, like all the people kindof live here, and in the middle
is mountains and you can't do it.
And so they're looking at whatare our options, and for them,
(30:22):
nuclear had been a reallyimportant part of their
portfolio After the Fukushimadisaster in 2010,.
The population there is scaredof nuclear and it actually had
an effect in neighboringcountries like Taiwan, which
also decided to phase outnuclear.
And so, squaring all of thiswith their Japan has a goal to
be net zero by 2050.
It was like squaring that withconstraints on what energy
(30:45):
sources could be used, the factthat they don't have those
energy sources domestically.
They're looking at LNG as animportant source.
They're looking at ammonia asan important energy that could
be used to reduce the emissionsintensity of their coal plants,
for example, which they don'twant to phase out early because
they just need more energy, justlike everybody else.
(31:06):
And so, yeah, japan's lookingfor partners, and Japan also
plays an important regional role.
They work with other countriesto build power plants, to build
LNG intake facilities, to buildother infrastructure as part of
supporting the energy securityof the region, and so they're
also looking regionally.
You know it's good for theregion if the region has Canada
(31:28):
and other friendly countries aspartners on the energy issue.
Stewart Muir (31:33):
If you took one thing from the perspective of
Japan or Korea or Taiwan andsuggest to Canadians that they
adopted that because it wouldmake them better off, what would
one thing be that Canadianscould take away?
Shannon Joseph (31:47):
Canadians.
What should we do differently?
We should do things.
We should build things.
I think Canada spends a lot oftime thinking about whether to
do something and we should bethinking we're going to do
things and then we can think howdo we do them in a good way?
And I think that's a verydifferent conversation about
(32:12):
whether we do it.
We need to decide that we wantto be that partner and then
think about how do we becomethat partner.
Stewart Muir (32:18):
Good advice.
You've talked about yourmunicipal work, so very
different from that high levelinternational diplomacy and
security.
This is delivering services topeople in their homes.
What do you think the currentsare there right now?
We're taping today in Vancouver.
Only a short time ago there wasa lively debate around banning
(32:42):
natural gas.
This has been quite a divisivething for residents in Vancouver
.
I think it's quite unpopular.
At least if you go by thepolling, I think 57% of
residents oppose banning naturalgas because, unlike some places
, you know, in Quebec not a lotof people have natural gas in
their homes.
There's lots in industry, butin Vancouver it's like 90% very
(33:05):
heavy reliance.
It's like 90% very heavyreliance.
So you know people have used,they're familiar with the
product, they've used it intheir lives.
Is this a common situation?
I mean, what would you say toresidents of Vancouver?
I mean it's going to be a realimpact on their quality of life.
Shannon Joseph (33:17):
What is it going to cost to heat your house with
electricity as opposed tonatural gas?
And the answer is it's moreexpensive to heat space with
electricity than it is withnatural gas, at least in British
Columbia.
And as you build moreinfrastructure that has to be
paid for.
I don't see your electricitygetting cheaper because of it.
Maybe it will, who knows?
But that hasn't been theexperience in other
(33:38):
jurisdictions.
They need to think about thefact that their energy demand is
going up because they're doingmore things with energy, and you
know AI was one example of thatbefore.
It has never gone down yet.
Maybe it will, but so far wesee efficiency gains.
So we see, you know, maybeenergy per person going down,
(33:58):
but total energy continuing togo up because there's more
people.
Canada's population went up bytwo million people, or something
like that in the last few years.
There was more people Usingmore, they're using more stuff,
so we just need more.
The other thing is so last yearthere was this very cold week in
(34:21):
the prairies where it was likeminus 50 in Alberta in
particular, and there was a daywhen Alberta's electric system
almost was like overwhelmed andthey said it to everyone please
use less electricity.
And the things went down.
But Alberta also gotelectricity from Saskatchewan
(34:41):
and from British Columbia, andPremier Eby kind of talked about
that.
You know we were able to sendthem I don't know how much
electricity to help them out.
Fantastic, that day that theysent that extra electricity.
Bc had something liketwo-thirds of the energy being
used in the province was directnatural gas.
(35:02):
If that all had to be replacedby electricity, doing that,
replacing that, would be veryexpensive, but in the meantime
they wouldn't have been able togive anybody any extra
electricity.
And so does the public knowthat?
Does the public know thathaving those different streams
of energy put them in a positionto help other people with their
(35:25):
electricity, because they couldrely on gas directly for home
heating, which is also a cheaperhome heating solution?
I don't think people think aboutthat and I don't think
politicians present things inthat way, and that is
unfortunate, because you're notputting to people the tradeoffs
associated with a given policy.
It's like we're going to savethe climate, rip out this thing,
(35:47):
pay $30,000,.
Given policy, it's like we'regoing to save the climate, rip
out this thing, pay $30,000.
And then it's going to beamazing, except that at a
household level it's going to beexpensive to change that thing
and it might be more expensiveto heat your home in the long
term because you've now changeda higher cost energy solution.
Now you know there are numberson heat pumps and I think maybe
(36:07):
Vancouver could be a good placeto use that, where you could
save energy.
But in places where it getsmuch colder, which is the whole
rest of the country and the restof British Columbia, I don't
know if people are going to savemoney with some of the
solutions that are being putforward, and so I think we just
have to be really clear eyed putforward, and so I think we just
(36:30):
have to be really clear eyed.
Stewart Muir (36:31):
I'll bet there's people watching this saying,
hello, you're not talking aboutthe biggest issue climate.
Shannon Joseph (36:35):
That is the biggest issue for people who
have solved their own energyissue, and you know the reason.
Some of the other countries Iwork with are very pragmatic OK,
we want LNG, we need this, wewant to keep our coal and just
make it less emissions intensiveis because they haven't.
They don't have a guaranteedenergy answer.
(36:55):
It's the biggest issue untilyour lights go out and it's 40
degrees Celsius.
It's the biggest issue untilyou don't have the power you
need to disinfect medicalinstruments.
Then something else is thebiggest issue.
And so you know, to those, tothe people listening, who are
like, oh my God, why are yougoing on about all this
expensive or not expensive?
Don't you know we're all goingto die in 12 years or whatever
(37:19):
it is, and I don't want tocaricature that because you know
these are important concernsthat people have for the
environment.
I guess what I'm saying is, ifwe are, we should not tell
ourselves in Canada, where wehave energy security an energy
security that relies on energythat we want to deny to other
(37:40):
countries we haven't even beenable to stop using them.
We shouldn't tell ourselves that, just because we have energy
comfort and can think that thisis the biggest issue, that it's
everyone's biggest issue, and ifwe don't help other countries
address their biggest issue,which is keeping the lights on
24-7, if people need it, havingthe energy they need all the
(38:01):
time then the environmentalissue is not going to be maybe
addressed as efficiently as itcould be.
Because there's a big world outthere.
There are countries withbillions of people who don't
have energy security and they'regoing to use whatever energy
they have available to them toget that energy security and
(38:21):
they want to pay an affordableprice for it it.
So how are we going to help dosomething about that, so that we
can do something about thebigger question of making it
overall less environmentallyimpactful?
Because there is one atmospherethere's not a Canadian
atmosphere, there's not aBritish Columbia atmosphere and
(38:42):
there are a lot of jurisdictionsthat end up exporting their
emissions to other countriesbecause they stop making things
where they are and theiremissions go down and they just
import it from somewhere else.
That's not really an answer ifyou're worried about the global
environment and the atmosphereand all of that.
We got to think holisticallyabout the drivers of the demand
(39:03):
for energy, the options that areavailable and how do we make it
less impactful to theenvironment without losing the
ball on having people livebetter.
Stewart Muir (39:13):
Exporting emissions.
That might be a confusingphrase.
What do you mean exactly?
Shannon Joseph (39:18):
Yeah, so I think a couple of years ago there was
reported that the UnitedKingdom had reduced their
emissions by like 27% from like2005 levels, something like that
, and we're celebrated for that.
But what that meant in practicewas a lot of things that were
made in the UK, notably steel,stopped being made in the UK and
(39:40):
the UK started importing itbecause their energy was higher
cost.
They couldn't make those thingslocally anymore, and so, yeah,
you have less emissions.
You had fewer jobs for peoplein those areas of the country.
And then you're importing thatsteel from a country that burns
higher emitting fuels than you,and so you haven't actually
(40:00):
reduced the impact to theenvironment.
You just sent the thingsomewhere else and in doing that
, had a higher emission impact,because now you're burning a
higher emitting fuel somewhereelse, and then you're putting
the product on a boat when itcould have been made in your own
country and you're payingenergy to move it to where you
are.
So there are things that havelooked like victories on this
(40:23):
that actually don't, becauseyou're just exporting the
environmental impacts you don'twant to have in your own country
.
Stewart Muir (40:30):
One thing that I think is bubbling up here is in
Canada you often hear terms likeclimate leadership, that if you
do something or you set anaspirational goal of whatever,
it is sure you might not get tothat goal, but you want to do it
because others will look toCanada and say, well, that's
(40:53):
what they're doing.
So we here in India or China wegot to do what they're doing in
Canada.
We feel guilty that we're notfollowing those Canadians going
to net zero or banning naturalgas in Vancouver.
Do you think that's aneffective way to change the
world?
Shannon Joseph (41:09):
Well, I just think anyone who says that
should then tell us who exactlyis following us, because we've
been climate leaders or whateverother like who?
Where has that actuallyhappened?
Is there anyone who didsomething because we were doing
it?
Or are they doing it because oftheir own national interest and
situation and economic goalsand social goals, Like why would
(41:33):
a country?
And social goals, Like whywould a country you know, like
India, say, oh, you know, we'renot going to do this because
Canada, a country with acompletely different reality, is
doing something else?
I mean, I don't know.
I think it's important to haveevidence.
Stewart Muir (41:47):
Okay, Well, suppose that same country you
mentioned India, suppose Indiawas able to acquire some of that
sought after LNG you've talkedabout get it from Canada, so it
can maybe not use as much coal.
Do you think they might seethat as climate leadership?
Shannon Joseph (42:04):
Oh, india would see that as climate leadership.
India would see that as a kindof leadership period.
Good, this is just good.
It's not just good because it'sgood for the environment is
just good.
It's not just good because it'sgood for the environment, it's
good because it's good for us,because now our people have more
energy than we did before andnow our air is cleaner because
we're burning a cleaner fuel.
You know, in terms of theglobal emissions picture I think
(42:27):
it was Banque Nationale,national Bank, I don't know they
put out a report showingIndia's trajectory, which was to
significantly increasecoal-fired production.
They wouldn't have to have thattrajectory and the emissions
that come with it if they couldget our LNG.
And because of the scale we'retalking about, in a country of
(42:50):
that size, it makes a hugedifference globally to what ends
up being out in the world froman emissions standpoint.
Stewart Muir (42:57):
So let me see if I can put this together.
The things that we're doing, orat least some of the things
we're doing in Canada that somepeople in Canada think make them
climate leaders and respectedby the world, aren't seen that
way by the world, but the thingswe're not doing, that other
parts of the world would see usas climate leaders for remain
(43:18):
something that might happen inthe future or might not.
Shannon Joseph (43:20):
Yeah.
So I would say that countrieshave been coming to Canada both
from Europe and from Asia askingus for our LNG because for them
it means energy security and itmeans a lower emission energy
solution in contexts where theyjust need more energy and they
(43:41):
know it.
They're not kind of speculating.
And from an emission standpoint, getting them that energy is
reducing the emissions intensityof those economies.
Avoiding emissions, which iskind of the number one kind of
thing you want to do.
It avoids emissions growth.
The failure to acknowledge thatin Canada, among some in the
(44:03):
environmental community, I thinkcomes from maybe not believing
some of those countries whenthey say what their constraints
are, maybe not knowing and neverhaving had those conversations
and believing that there's somekind of alternative that if only
these guys knew.
Somebody said to me weshouldn't be helping those
(44:26):
countries get LNG, we should behelping them do renewables.
We should help Japan getrenewables and you know Japan is
a country that makes more stuffthat is imported to Canada than
the other way around.
They don't need us to tell themhow to do anything.
You know what I mean.
But they're a mountainouscountry.
We're doing some of that largescale.
(44:48):
Wind or solar can't deliver theenergy they need, period, and
you can not like that or you canbe frustrated by that, but it
is a fact.
It is a fact of geography.
They don't have some other landnearby where they could put all
this stuff and then put a powerline to their country.
It's just, it's not an option.
And so in Canada, we have tolisten to other countries when
(45:10):
they say this is what we need,these are our constraints
geographically, politically orwhatever else and we need you to
do.
You want to work with us, and Ithink if we say yes to working
with them, it means puttingaside our prejudices about what
the answer should be.
Stewart Muir (45:27):
Thinking about the new administration in the
United States, do you thinkthere's going to be a let's call
it a Trump doctrine on energy,and how does Canada fit into
that view of the world?
Shannon Joseph (45:38):
I do think that and this is just based on, you
know, reading articles I dothink that the incoming US
administration wants to avoidthe United States getting tied
up into hot conflicts.
Like you know, they're famouslyisolationist.
I think they want to find a wayto kind of negotiate a solution
(46:03):
to Ukraine, negotiate asolution wherever else, because
they don't want Americansoldiers getting killed in other
wars.
They don't want theseprotracted conflicts.
To the extent that energy canbe a tool in such conflicts and
energy has certainly been a toolin the Russia-Ukraine conflict
and has impacted allies ofUkraine and Europe in their
(46:24):
ability to respond I think ifCanada, the United States and
Mexico, all three of whom areenergy producing countries, got
together and say let's make astrategy for the continent and
how we will work together on ourenergy security for our area,
our region, and ensuring thatthat energy is affordable,
(46:45):
reliable and low in itsenvironmental impact, and that's
how we're going to worktogether to do that for our
friends, and that this is ashared strategy, I think that
could be something very ofinterest not only to the United
States but also to Mexico, andcould be an opportunity for
Canadian leadership in thatconversation.
Stewart Muir (47:05):
I'd just like to shift gears to a topic that, in
your public speaking that I'veseen is clearly one that means a
lot to you, and that'sIndigenous peoples and how they
fit into this whole energyconversation.
The First Nations of Canada andall of the Indigenous peoples
in this country how did you comeinto that?
Shannon Joseph (47:25):
Well, you know it's funny because I think I
didn't know much about kind ofIndigenous issues and treaties
and all that kind of jazz untilI started working at the
Canadian Association ofPetroleum Producers, which you
know.
I'm sure for some of my formercolleagues it was like going
(47:47):
over to the dark side, but itwas when I started working with
resource producing companies andyou know reality of their work
is working with the FirstNations and other indigenous
communities that are on the landbase where they are working
that I really started learningabout all of these things.
(48:07):
You know there has been.
We have the Indian Act inCanada.
The Indian Act treats Indigenouspeople, or First Nations in
particular, different from otherpeople.
Like I don't know if this isstill the case in the Indian Act
, but you used to not be able tohave a lawyer.
You can hire a lawyer if you,if you wanted to become a lawyer
(48:30):
yourself, getting that lawdegree would make you lose your
status as a First Nation.
So there are, there were a lotof things in the law that were
holding people back and arestill holding people back, Like
even today, because of theIndian Act.
What I've heard from fromchiefs in different parts of the
country is that they have toask Ottawa permission to spend
money that they've earned, likeyou know, they might have earned
(48:53):
selling some resource ordeveloping some product, but
it's like, okay, we want tobuild this on reserve lands, Now
I have to ask somebody inOttawa permission.
All of those things arefrustrating, but they're also
associated with a lot of thosecommunities having high levels
of poverty and other issues.
And for me, as a person to youknow to go back to the start of
(49:13):
our conversation who cares a lotabout ending poverty and how do
we help people live better thefact that you know this is such
an acute issue for Indigenouspeople in Canada really spoke to
me and spoke to the things thatI thought were really important
and were things that I was like.
Well, if this is happening inCanada, I can focus on Canada
and, you know, forget abouttrying to solve other countries'
(49:35):
problems you know what I meanor getting into that game,
because there's a lot ofimportant stuff to do here and
it's been incredible to workwith those leaders and be
supportive and part of thingsthat they have been doing, and I
think of people like StephenBuffalo of the Indian Resource
Council and AIOC, and Karen Ogun, who I'd mentioned, from First
(49:57):
Nations LNG Alliance, and many,many others Like I can't name
them all.
Crystal Smith and you know allof these people have been doing
really important things tochange the reality on the ground
.
A reality on the ground.
(50:17):
And, in the same way that youknow, good projects in
municipalities make thingsbetter on the ground right away.
Indigenous participation inresource projects creates jobs
and incomes that change thingson the ground right away.
And you know Crystal Smith fromHaisla talks about this a lot.
She did a video with Energy fora Secure Future.
When Haisla got the moneybecause they were involved in
(50:39):
LNG Canada and then were in aposition to do their own LNG
project, which is Cedar LNG theyhad their own money to preserve
their language and recovertheir language.
They had their own money tobuild the Center for Elders.
They had their own money to dothings with youth.
People in the community wereearning money that allowed them
to become homeowners, to allowthem to travel for the first
(51:01):
time all kinds of things thatpeople take for granted.
And so, for me, the reason I'mpassionate about the work that I
do with the First Nationsorganizations that I work with
and leaders that I work with isthat doing these things makes
people's lives better right awayand, conversely, when projects
are suddenly canceled or thingsjust don't happen, you know you
(51:22):
don't always see the effect ofmoney not coming or an
investment not happening whomthat was going to be their job,
that was going to be thespringboard to diversify the
economy of that nation.
When the thing doesn't happen,there's like a lasting
consequence that is negative,that maybe nobody sees,
(51:43):
including the people who arefighting a given project.
But boy do the people in thatcommunity feel it, and I think
that's really important.
Stewart Muir (51:57):
You made reference to the dark side and shifts in
your career.
Shannon Joseph (51:59):
What was that all about?
So when I was in university, Istudied civil engineering and I
really wanted to doenvironmental engineering.
Like if anybody asked me what Iwas doing, I was doing
environmental engineering.
I was the person who was thepresident of the environmental
club at my CGEP.
I founded an environment clubin my elementary school.
Stewart Muir (52:19):
A CGEP is a Quebec community college.
Shannon Joseph (52:22):
I'm sorry rest of Canada.
It's an acronym.
I don't know what it stands for, but it is this two-year thing
that you do between high schooland university and, all to say,
like I've been very passionateabout protecting the environment
, it was an important issue forme all throughout my school
years and then going intouniversity and then, you know, I
(52:46):
spent eight years of my careerworking at the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, a bigpart of which was that their
green municipal fund.
So I designed, you know, thecriteria for applications for
getting grants or loans to do,you know, wastewater treatment
and building retrofits andwhatever else.
And I really thought of that as, whereas other countries are
(53:09):
still trying to get peopleenough water or energy or
whatever else, in North Americaand in Canada, what we're trying
to do is have those things butreduce the impact of those
things so that we have a cleanerenvironment.
This is kind of how I saw thewhole thing and I love that work
and I loved all the people Iworked with and what I started
to experience and I had theprivilege of, for a six month
(53:35):
period, being the actingexecutive director of the
Nunavut Association ofMunicipalities.
So there are 25 municipalitiesin Nunavut, which is a settled
lands claim and and they're veryremote.
There are no roads betweenthese communities and it gave me
insight into, you know, issuesof suicide which were a huge
(53:55):
thing for my board members atthe time.
There would always be somebodyin their community and and you
know the need for jobs and theneed for that because of the
need for hope in these places,and you know, a lot of the
mayors would be very excited ifthere was a mine that was going
to come into those communitiesand all of these things because
it meant development and, yes,there'd be an environmental
(54:16):
impact and, yes, they were goingto have a role in how those
were dealt with.
But, you know, on top of thatlist was how do we create
opportunity and hope and avision for the future for our
communities?
And we want these things tohappen.
And then I, you know, go to, youknow, meetings in Toronto and
wherever else and be in meetingswhere people are like, ok, when
(54:36):
we phase out fossil fuels, wereally need to move on to
getting rid of mining, becausethis is also bad for the
environment.
And I was like, whoa, there's ahuge disconnect here.
And also, if you get rid ofmining, you're not going to have
a phone anymore.
Like what are you talking about?
Mining, you're not going tohave a phone anymore.
(54:57):
Like what are you talking about?
And it just made me start tothink that I needed to see for
myself what was going on in theresource development world.
And I didn't necessarily want togo work in oil and gas, but
basically the opportunity cameup and I met with the people at
CAP and I'm like I kind of likethese people and I decided to go
(55:19):
for it, because the fact is weuse resources every day, in
every aspect of our lives, andwe want to have those resources
in a way that obviously isproduced in a way that you know
people are not hurt that theenvironment has the least impact
, but there's going to be animpact, but that impact allows
people to live and to livebetter and to have services that
(55:39):
are really important.
And you know, getting back tothat question of balance and
trade-offs and what are our realchoices, for me it is not a
real choice for anyenvironmentalist to say, well,
we're just going to stop mining,because I think if they thought
(56:01):
about it they'd know that's notreally possible, and instead
it's like, how do we do thingsin a better way.
And having crossed over to thedark side, the side of people
digging in the ground and doingstuff, it's like what are they
doing to do things in a betterway, not just in terms of the
environment, but in terms of howthey work, for example, with
local Indigenous communities andwhatever else.
(56:21):
And you know how can that bebetter or whatever else?
But what I've learned isthey're constantly trying to do
things in a better way, not justbecause it's good for the
environment, but it's good forbusiness, it's good for the
longevity of what they're tryingto do.
It's good, it's just a goodthing.
And in Canada we do have evenour business leaders want to do
(56:44):
things in a good way.
Stewart Muir (56:46):
So they're not out there trying to hurt the
environment.
Shannon Joseph (56:50):
That's right, they're not out there.
You know it's tooling theirthumbs, mr Burns.
Yes, it's not Mr Burns.
I mean maybe there are some MrBurns's out there and we all,
and that's why we're all holdeach other accountable in our
work, whether it's the localcommunity or the government or
whoever, but I think on thewhole, it's not a bunch of Mr
(57:13):
Burns out there.
And Canadian industry has beenat the forefront of developing
technologies that not onlyreduce the impact of resource
development here but can be usedby other countries to produce
their impact, and that is a goodthing, and that technology
development would not havehappened if those industries
didn't exist and if thoseindustries weren't making money
(57:33):
that they could spend oninnovation.
And I think that's notsomething that's really
considered enough.
Stewart Muir (57:38):
I said early on this could be a six-hour podcast
.
I have to revise that.
I think this could be aneight-hour podcast, but we have
to wrap things up.
So, Shanna Joseph, thanks somuch for being on Power Struggle
.
Shannon Joseph (57:51):
Thank you.
I'll bet there's people watching this saying
hello, you're not talking aboutthe biggest issue climate.
Shannon Joseph (00:05):
That is the biggest issue for people who
have solved their own energyissue.
It's the biggest issue untilyour lights go out and it's 40
degrees Celsius.
It's the biggest issue untilyou don't have the power you
need to disinfect medicalinstruments.
Then something else is thebiggest issue To the people
listening who are like oh my God, why are you going on about all
this?
Expensive or not expensive,Don't you know we're all going
(00:27):
to die in 12 years and I don'twant to caricature that because
these are important concerns.
I guess what I'm saying is weshould not tell ourselves in
Canada, where we have energysecurity that relies on energy
that we want to deny to othercountries.
We shouldn't tell ourselvesthat, just because we have
energy comfort and can thinkthat this is the biggest issue,
that it's everyone's biggestissue.
(00:47):
And if we don't help othercountries address their biggest
issue, which is keeping thelights on 24 7 if people need it
, having the energy they needall the time the environmental
issue is not going to beaddressed as efficiently as it
could be.
Stewart Muir (01:11):
Welcome to Power Struggle.
I'm Stuart Muir.
Shannon Joseph has spent over15 years at the intersection of
energy sustainability andindigenous relations.
She's one of those rare peoplewho sees the big picture but
never loses sight of the humanimpact.
She's one of those rare peoplewho sees the big picture but
never loses sight of the humanimpact.
She's motivated by the strongconviction that energy is about
people and that abundant,affordable, low-emission energy
(01:35):
is a precondition for growingthe middle class, protecting the
environment and, in Canada,advancing reconciliation.
Simply put, shannon gets thingsdone.
Shannon Joseph, welcome toPower Struggle.
Shannon Joseph (01:48):
Thank you very much.
Stewart Muir (01:49):
I heard you wanted to be an astronaut when you
were young.
Is that true?
Shannon Joseph (01:53):
That's true.
I did want to be an astronaut.
I used to watch a lot of StarTrek and I thought this looks
like a great job.
But I'm busy enough on Earthnow I don't need to go to space.
Stewart Muir (02:04):
When did you decide?
Going to space wasn't for you.
Shannon Joseph (02:07):
I, you know, I decided when I'm from Quebec
originally and I was in CEGEPand I took a political and
social ethics course and gotkind of my eyes open to
political issues, economicissues at the time, you know,
issues of free trade and all ofthese things and is it
benefiting people, and I wasvery opinionated.
(02:27):
That's when I started to caremore about trying to do things
in the real world and reallyhaving a focus on, well, how do
we end poverty for people, like,how do we make life better on
Earth?
And I ended up going into civilengineering so that I could,
you know, build wells in Africa,as if people didn't know how to
build wells.
And really the issues of thatare so much bigger and that's
(02:49):
what I've come to learn as I'vegone on my personal kind of
career journey.
That led to the energy for asecure future.
Stewart Muir (02:56):
I've heard you say many times that energy is about
people.
It's not just resources,engineering or policy.
Shannon Joseph (03:15):
And also you've talked about how it changes
lives.
Bring us into that hadbuildings, pyramids, coliseums
is because human beings ate foodand then would be made to drag
rocks and plow fields and do allof the work, and so life was
short, brutish and somethingelse.
I don't know what philosophersaid that Things were harder and
(03:38):
as people have had access tomore modern forms of energy,
they can get a machine to plowthe field and they can get a
machine to lift the concrete andbuild the buildings and go to
space and do all the things ofmodern life.
And I think people take forgranted that.
You know, today we live for along time.
(04:00):
That's because we haverefrigerators and refrigerators
are made of products that comeout of modern energy, that
require modern energy.
We eat every day in Canada, eventhough we have winter six
months a year at least in thepart of Canada I live because we
can bring food from around theworld affordably because of
energy, and so there's just somuch that isn't invisible, but
(04:22):
it is done by energy and itmakes people's lives longer and
the more energy people have, thebetter they live, and you can
see that by the data.
Like you know, the people inwhat's called the West and North
America, et cetera, use themost energy in the world, and
you know, as you go down thestandard of living ladder in the
world, people are using lessand less energy and their lives
(04:46):
are harder, and so the more wecan get affordable abundant
energy to more people, thebetter our lives will be, and
that's really important.
Stewart Muir (04:54):
This observation you've made.
When you hear it, of course,it's so obvious.
Is it resonating with people?
Shannon Joseph (05:01):
I think it's starting to.
But I also think that a lot ofpeople just aren't aware they
don't have contact with it.
They become more aware of itwhen they don't have it.
They become more aware of itwhen it's expensive.
And you know that's too badthat you got to kind of have
those experiences to appreciateenergy.
But you know, I have a.
(05:24):
I work with a gentleman whogrew up in India and he said
when he was growing up and it'sstill the case today there are a
lot of power failures.
And he said, when the powerfails, and it's 40 degrees
Celsius, all you want is power,no matter how you get it.
And so I think you know thereare people in Canada with those
(05:45):
experiences who also, I thinkcould share that with others who
maybe have not had thoseexperiences and could learn from
that.
Stewart Muir (05:56):
Shanna, your career has spanned environmental
engineering, municipal climateprograms, indigenous relations.
It's an incredible range.
How has working across so manyfields shaped your particular
vision?
Shannon Joseph (06:11):
So I think that what it's shaped the most is my
belief that problems need to besolved closest to the people who
are affected by them.
The solution needs to bedeveloped by those who are most
affected by the solutions and,even though you know nothing's
perfect, that'll increase yourodds of getting a good solution
(06:35):
or a better solution than if thedecisions are made far away and
so on.
The municipal piece.
When we worked on issues aroundenvironment, it was everything
from emissions to watertreatment to solid waste
management, et cetera, and thesolution you got in St John, new
Brunswick was different fromwhat you could get in Iqaluit
from Vancouver.
You know it was right sized tothose places.
(06:58):
You know one of the toughthings in today's society is the
decisions that are made by thecentral government and the way
it impacts other people in otherparts of the country, other
regions, other industries, andit creates these huge tensions.
And I think the more you candevolve that locally, to a
(07:20):
province, to a municipality, themore you get a resilient, a
right size and a resilientsolution to whatever the issue
is you're trying to work on.
Stewart Muir (07:28):
Recently I read an article.
It was the headline the bill iscoming for net zero.
And it's a great headline.
It makes you want to figure out.
You know, we know what net zerois, but I didn't know there was
a bill coming.
I thought we have to pay forthat.
I thought then, what was yourpoint in that particular
commentary?
Shannon Joseph (07:47):
Yeah, it's so funny because I was testifying
at Parliament on thegovernment's clean electricity
strategy and regulation and youknow, when you testify in
Parliament you can never quitesay what you want to say,
because the MPs are trying tosay what they want to say.
Stewart Muir (08:03):
Yeah, you're there for their needs.
What you want to say, becausethe MPs are trying to say what
they want to say.
Shannon Joseph (08:05):
Yeah, you're there for their needs, that's
right.
And so I decided to write thisarticle to say the things I
wanted to say, and it is that inthe conversation in Canada
around net zero and climate moregenerally and, by extension,
energy and again, energy iseverything.
It's why we eat every day, it'swhat turns the lights on, etc.
(08:26):
We were never talking aboutwhat it takes to do some of the
things that are being proposed,and we were never looking at
anything we had learned in reallife from running energy systems
until now, and so Energy for aSecure Future had done a paper
called Getting Canada's EnergyFuture Right and it looked at
end use energy.
(08:47):
So how do people use energy intheir house, how do they use it
at their school or some otherinstitutions, and what does
industry do with energy and whathave we learned in the last 20
years that will help us knowwhat we can expect or what we
should anticipate getting out to2050, which is only 25 years
from now, and you know thethings that we should know.
(09:12):
And what I want to talk about inthat article is that today,
electricity only does 20 percentof the energy job for Canadians
.
So that's number one.
Most people in this country,including in provinces like
Quebec and in British Columbiathat are hydro provinces they're
still a majority using oil andgas directly to meet their
(09:34):
energy needs.
And the other thing peopledon't realize is that most of
the energy in Canada, just likemost of the energy in most
countries, are used by industry,and the important thing about
that is that's everybody's job.
So if it becomes too expensiveor if the way we try to achieve
our emission reductions goalsends up making energy expensive,
(09:56):
either for industries or forordinary people, there's a
double cost to that.
Because you know if you have tobuild a new hydro dam or if you
have to build whatever else,that goes on power bills or
somewhere the tax bill to payfor that, and if you have to put
too much of that on yourindustry and they start to be
uncompetitive with theirAmerican competitors or their
(10:17):
Asian competitors, their job'sgoing to go there, and then you
can't pay that bill because youdon't have a job anymore.
Bob's going to go there, andthen you can't pay that bill
because you don't have a jobanymore.
And that means that the wholeroad to wherever we're going
needs to acknowledge trade-offs,needs to acknowledge that there
are some things we might haveto do first and get that to work
(10:38):
really well before we dosomething else.
And the other thing it needs toacknowledge is that and I spoke
about this in parliament wejust need more energy.
Everybody's really excitedabout AI, but AI increases
energy demand by orders ofmagnitude as the more you bring
it on, and so we're not justtalking about like transitioning
or transforming or whatever.
(10:58):
In order to have the quality oflife we have with a growing
population, we just need more,and if we want it to be
different, that's going to beexpensive, because you just have
to build a lot of stuff.
There's no way around it.
You have to pay the workers whoare going to do the work.
You have to buy the materialthat's going to be used to build
the stuff.
That stuff all gets paid forfirst, and then you ostensibly
(11:21):
get the benefits, but you'realso getting the bill.
And so let's talk about thatand let's let the Canadian
people decide what is.
How do we want to approach this?
What are tradeoffs that aregoing to be acceptable to us so
that we have that resilientfuture that we want?
We have a future with jobs, afuture with a good quality of
(11:42):
life.
Stewart Muir (11:43):
There's so many directions to go in from what
you just said, Shannon.
What do you think the averageCanadian thinks net zero is?
Shannon Joseph (11:51):
Oh, I think they don't really know about it and
they don't think about it untilthey are asked.
And I think maybe the termmight be surrounded by good
feelings if they've heard goodthings about it, bad feelings if
they, you know, have heard badthings about it.
But I think people don't reallyknow and the truth is, in
(12:14):
legislation and we have net zerolegislation in Canada there is
no definition of net zero.
Like there's kind of adefinition but like, when you
get down to it, what does itreally mean?
Because for some people inCanada net zero means zero and
for other people it's net andtheir version of net means
something else.
And so I think that's anotherchallenge with that whole issue
(12:37):
is there's like a word out therebut nobody really knows what
that word means, like as anobjective, but then nobody knows
what it means to implement iteither.
Stewart Muir (12:48):
Well, I'm starting to wonder if, given that
there's 200 countries, 200 oddcountries in the world and
Canada is just one of them thereare countries that are
different stages of what they'redoing in energy.
Maybe energy poverty is areality, maybe they have energy
wealth and they're starting todo net zero things.
My question for you is arethere countries that we could be
(13:10):
looking at that are examples ofwe should go there and also of
countries where maybe weshouldn't go there in terms of
you know the example they'resetting?
Shannon Joseph (13:18):
Yeah, so because you know, ultimately this is
all comes down to energy and howit's used.
Every country is going to bedifferent, because every country
starts off with differentresources.
Canada has so much energy wehave oil and gas, obviously.
We have lots of water, andthat's allowed us to have
(13:39):
hydropower.
We have one of the mostimportant uranium deposits in
the world, so we have nuclearOntario's 60 percent nuclear
electricity and so I think, forus, energy means one thing and
transforming energy meansanother thing, because we truly
have lots of options at ourdisposal, so much so that we're
(14:03):
also an energy exporter.
Most of the countries that wedeal with are not in that
situation.
Japan imports over 90 percentof the energy it uses, and
that's true for Korea, southKorea as well.
Europe also has a lot of energyimporting, and so their
(14:24):
economies are not aboutexporting energy, they're about
making stuff and exporting stuff.
Now, of course, making thatstuff requires energy to remain
cheap, and what Europe iscurrently experiencing on their
road to get to one part of yourquestion, is that if you pursue
some of these policies in acertain way, energy gets really
(14:45):
expensive, and so Germany, as anexample, industry is facing a
lot of high energy costs andthey're leaving.
You know, deindustrializationis a problem not just for them
but in many parts of Europe, andthat is a very direct function
of the way energy has becomemore expensive as they've
(15:07):
shifted the balance fromtraditional energy to renewable
energy or, you know, wind andsolar, without necessarily
dealing with some of thetechnical challenges that come
with that, like the need tostore energy when the wind
doesn't blow and the sun doesn'tshine, which actually happens
quite a bit, and it also happensat the inopportune times, like
when it's the coldest.
(15:28):
That's the day the wind won'tblow, you know.
And so I think Canada needs tolearn that those problems can't
be kind of brushed aside whenyou're planning.
You need to, and thatacknowledging them doesn't mean
you're against wind or you'reagainst something, but you're
acknowledging that thistechnology works this way, it
has limitations, and you've gotto pay to manage the limitations
(15:52):
of this technology.
And so are you prepared to payfor that?
And do you know how you'regoing to do that?
Because if your economy reallydepends on manufacturing, you
don't figure that out properly,you're not going to be a
manufacturer anymore, so atleast that should answer one
part.
Who's doing it right?
I've spent a lot of time nowmeeting countries, leaders from
(16:14):
countries in the Asia-PacificVietnam, south Korea, japan,
taiwan recently and they neverlook at kind of the climate
issue or, you know, theemissions issue, without also
looking at supply and ensuringthe OAS has security, supply
diversification.
(16:35):
So am I?
Am I getting 50 percent of myenergy from Russia or from the
Middle East, or from one?
Like?
How do I diversify so that I asa country am not at the mercy
of any particular country?
I have options.
All of those things areabsolutely important because if
the day you don't have yourenergy supply, every other
(16:56):
consideration goes out thewindow, and so I think a smart
approach is one thatacknowledges diversity, that
energy plays this vital role inpeople's lives and we have to
always have it.
It has to be affordable and thesupply needs to be secure, and
then we want it to have theleast environmental impacts that
(17:17):
it can have, and we always haveto solve for those things at
the same time, and, in my view,in Canada we haven't always
tried to solve for all thosethings at the same time.
I think we've assumed it'llalways be affordable, we assume
it's always going to be reliable, and we haven't always tried to
solve for all those things atthe same time.
I think we've assumed it'llalways be affordable, we assume
it's always going to be reliable, and we shouldn't assume things
.
We should make sure that we'rereally cold-blooded when we look
at the numbers of whether thisis going to play out the way we
(17:40):
want, and we should take thingsin an approach that allows us to
test, succeed, test, fail,course correct, so that we don't
end up with some of thechallenges Europe has
experienced, but actually createa position for Canada where we
are resilient as a country andwe are positioned to help other
(18:01):
countries, because mostcountries, as I said, don't have
the energy we have need thatenergy for their people, but
also for their security.
Stewart Muir (18:11):
Have you ever said to someone in Canada you know
you're really complacent Thingscould go badly if you're not
careful.
And what is the reaction beingif you've said anything like
that?
Shannon Joseph (18:22):
When you say things like that to people, they
don't like that.
No, I guess not that to peoplethey don't like that.
No, I guess not.
No, I mean, I think I reallytry to position all of this
stuff in a positive way.
We have a lot of resources andthere's an important role we can
play in the world and peopleare aware.
I think people kind of putthings in a box there's like a
(18:45):
climate box, there's ageopolitical box, there's an
affordable groceries box andthey don't always see the
connection between these boxes.
And I think what myself and theother people that I work with,
and especially the Energy for aSecure Network, which includes a
lot of individual leaders butalso organizations is connect
those boxes and say you know, ifwe could actually get this
(19:08):
right in Canada, we would livebetter and we could really help
others around the world andraise the stature of our country
.
And you know a lot of theinternational work I do.
I also do with the FirstNations leaders and
organizations who are part ofEnergy for a Secure Futures
Network and beyond, likeMFriends, because a lot of those
(19:31):
leaders understand kind of thereal things of life, like when
you don't have affordable energy, what does this mean for your
community on reserve, forexample, when you don't have
access to trade and your owneconomic export opportunities.
What does that mean for yourability to provide the things
your nation wants?
(19:52):
And so you know I work with theFirst Nations LNG Alliance, the
Indigenous Resource Network,the First Nations Power
Authority and others who, again,are all about striking that
balance, because they know thecost of not striking that
balance.
And you know, part of thatpositive story for Canada on
(20:13):
energy is reconciliation and Ithink that's an important thing
also for most Canadians to knowthat they don't know.
Stewart Muir (20:21):
You've mentioned security a few times.
In fact, it's in the name ofyour organization, Secure Future
.
What does energy security meanto you?
Shannon Joseph (20:30):
Energy security to me means having the energy
you need when you need it at aprice you can afford.
And you know, for a countrylike Canada, because we have so
much domestically, we can justfigure out.
You know two of those thingsbecause we know one of them is
guaranteed Like we have it, howdo we get it to people
(20:53):
consistently at a price thatthey can afford?
But again, because of whoCanada, because of the resources
we have, we can help othercountries with that.
That's a positive global rolewe can play.
And for many countries in theworld, they don't have the
energy, they can't guaranteethat they can get it affordably,
and so they want partners tohelp them guarantee those things
(21:17):
.
When Russia first invadedUkraine and Russia is a major
global oil and gas supplier, youknow Europe put sanctions on
them.
They're like, ok, we don't wantthis anymore, but now where are
we going to get our energy?
And so they just went on whatis called the spot market and
said we'll pay anything for youto send us your natural gas.
And so ships bound for Asia,you know, based on long term
(21:41):
contracts literally turnedaround in the ocean and went
back so that they can bring allthat energy to Europe and Asia
was like, oh my gosh, what do wedo now?
And a lot of them startedburning more coal, which is
higher emitting, like all thesethings, that until that point
there had also been a bigdivestment movement.
There kind of is, let's divestfrom oil and gas, we don't need
(22:02):
it anymore.
And it's like guess what?
When people couldn't get it,they just burned coal because
they're never going to let theirpeople not have energy, and so
you know.
Another interesting thing thathappened is that you know China,
as an example, has a lot ofenergy flexibility, so they had
long term gas contracts and theyjust switched their power
(22:22):
plants to coal and sold the gasto Europe and sold the gas to
other people to coal, and soldthe gas to Europe and sold the
gas to other people.
And so, anyway, it's just veryinteresting.
But it speaks to thefundamental importance of energy
and why countries are lookingfor partners who can be a
reliable supplier and partner intheir security and, of course,
(22:43):
in their economic development,and that's good for Canada, that
would be good for thosecountries.
Stewart Muir (22:48):
Would you say that's something that's happened
since the Russia invasion ofUkraine occurred, this
perception of security?
Shannon Joseph (22:57):
I think security has taken on a serious
importance since Russia'sinvasion of Ukraine that it did
not have Before.
If you brought up energysecurity, energy affordability
in many conversations, you'd becalled a climate denier or
someone who didn't take theseenvironmental issues seriously.
Because why are you talkingabout these costs or things like
that?
Why are you speaking negativelyabout the strategy we have?
(23:19):
And then you know, suddenlywe're hit with a war that we
didn't expect and the falloutfrom that ended up being an
energy which people didn'texpect and it made real again
like that.
This is not an issue that canbe ignored, nor can
affordability be ignored, and Ithink that's a good thing,
because it makes theconversation move from the
(23:41):
theoretical and the aspirationalto the real.
Let's get real about what we'redoing.
Let's get real about how we'regoing to pay for it, how fast we
can do it, etc.
Stewart Muir (23:49):
The United States, right beside Canada, close
neighbor, set aside today'spolitics, whatever,
fundamentally, two nations thatexist happily and have done for
centuries as nations andpre-nations no-transcript.
(24:33):
I'm tormented by something Icannot answer.
How is it that Americans,including the American left you
know the Democratic Party is soat ease with being an energy
superpower?
John Kerry, the climate czar ofthe United States of America,
will talk freely about howimportant it is for energy
(24:54):
security in the world thatAmerican energy is out there on
those markets, whereas youcannot get the Canadian prime
minister or many other leadersto even talk about this topic,
even though we're prettyimportant in the energy world
not an energy superpower,because there's some kind of
(25:14):
cultural impediment to havingthat conversation in Canada.
So how is it that PresidentBiden has a kind of green halo
as this environmental presidentand yet under his presidency
America truly became thesuperpower?
Things were happening before hecame along, but it was really
on his watch, right.
Shannon Joseph (25:34):
And Obama's watch.
Stewart Muir (25:36):
And Obama's watch, absolutely.
So what is going on here?
That we have these twodifferent characters in the same
domain of energy security?
Shannon Joseph (25:46):
Yeah, I think that the United States has been
a direct recipient of energy asa tool of geopolitical power and
maybe I don't remember the OPECcrisis, but it was a crisis,
and I was reading an articlerecently that was apparently
Richard Nixon was telling peoplenot to put on their Christmas
lights and so they haveexperienced other countries
(26:09):
using their influence throughenergy to squeeze their
geopolitical rivals, and theyalso, as a country, I think,
play a security role.
Right, it's the US Navy thatguards a lot of the shipping
routes for all the stuff that webuy on Amazon and all our food
and all, et cetera, and so Ithink they're alive to the fact
that you can't just look atenvironment as an issue and not
(26:34):
security or whatever else, thatall of these things exist
together in the world and needto be dealt with together to get
it right.
I think it's always been a kindof a bipartisan thing that the
United States wants to seekenergy independence, and that's
just.
States wants to seek energyindependence, and that's just
been completely uncontroversial.
And when they found a way to doit, which was, you know, the
(26:55):
shale revolution, as they callit they just went for it.
Every administration has gonefor it and you know it's been to
their benefit.
And a lot of people talk abouthow the United States and Canada
started at the same place in2015 with zero LNG export
facilities and now the US haslike eight of them and they're
building more and we are aboutto have one, which is great, and
(27:15):
we have some others that havebeen approved.
But I think because Canada hasnot been on the receiving end of
some of those geopoliticalattacks and really had to take
them in, and has not been kindof on all those front lines from
a security perspective, ormaybe our political leaders have
not kind of felt drawn intothat, I think it's meant that we
(27:40):
maybe can be more idealized inthe way we look at things.
But I think even that ischanging, and I think, certainly
with the newly elected Americanadministration, the Trump
administration if Canada is notthinking seriously about these
things, I think he's going tomake us think about them more,
(28:02):
because it's in the US interestfor Canada to think about it
more.
And I think it's in ourinterest to think about it more
because there's actually a hugeopportunity for us if we could
play the role that we have thecapacity to play.
Stewart Muir (28:16):
What's an example of how President Trump and his
administration might have thatinfluence on Canada?
Shannon Joseph (28:21):
Well, I mean, everybody's been talking about
the tariff thing and that's beenpresented as a border issue,
but our number one export to theUnited States is oil, and we
provide about 7% of the gas thatthey have in their system, some
of which is exported throughtheir LNG facilities.
(28:43):
You know, who knows how hemight decide to put pressure on
us, but I think the point ishe's already putting pressure on
us for other issues and if hedoesn't want the United States,
as this energy superpower, tocarry all of the weight of
trying to rebalance thingspolitically from an energy
standpoint, he might put otherkinds of pressure.
(29:05):
I mean, it could be viewed aspressure or not, or an
opportunity Right, isn't?
The risk and opportunity is thesame character, or something,
so I think.
But whatever it is, it's goingto force a conversation and a
change that can be takenadvantage of, I think for the
good, in Canada and in a waythat would advance the things
that we care about as a countryand as people.
Stewart Muir (29:26):
You mentioned some countries in Asia that are
important to you.
Maybe you've visited there inyour travels.
Japan what is their outlook onCanada and energy and security
for Japan and the world today?
Shannon Joseph (29:38):
So, again, japan imports over 90% of its energy
and has lots of suppliers,including the US, but the Middle
East, and you know they stillbuy a little bit from Russia and
they're very interested inworking with Canada because they
want that diversity of supply.
We're closer to them, we couldship it to them at lower cost.
(30:01):
So I think you know, just fromthat security of supply
standpoint, japan is interestedin energy partners because of
its geography.
They don't have, you know, lotsof places for a large scale
wind, like all the people kindof live here, and in the middle
is mountains and you can't do it.
And so they're looking at whatare our options, and for them,
(30:22):
nuclear had been a reallyimportant part of their
portfolio After the Fukushimadisaster in 2010,.
The population there is scaredof nuclear and it actually had
an effect in neighboringcountries like Taiwan, which
also decided to phase outnuclear.
And so, squaring all of thiswith their Japan has a goal to
be net zero by 2050.
It was like squaring that withconstraints on what energy
(30:45):
sources could be used, the factthat they don't have those
energy sources domestically.
They're looking at LNG as animportant source.
They're looking at ammonia asan important energy that could
be used to reduce the emissionsintensity of their coal plants,
for example, which they don'twant to phase out early because
they just need more energy, justlike everybody else.
(31:06):
And so, yeah, japan's lookingfor partners, and Japan also
plays an important regional role.
They work with other countriesto build power plants, to build
LNG intake facilities, to buildother infrastructure as part of
supporting the energy securityof the region, and so they're
also looking regionally.
You know it's good for theregion if the region has Canada
(31:28):
and other friendly countries aspartners on the energy issue.
Stewart Muir (31:33):
If you took one thing from the perspective of
Japan or Korea or Taiwan andsuggest to Canadians that they
adopted that because it wouldmake them better off, what would
one thing be that Canadianscould take away?
Shannon Joseph (31:47):
Canadians.
What should we do differently?
We should do things.
We should build things.
I think Canada spends a lot oftime thinking about whether to
do something and we should bethinking we're going to do
things and then we can think howdo we do them in a good way?
And I think that's a verydifferent conversation about
(32:12):
whether we do it.
We need to decide that we wantto be that partner and then
think about how do we becomethat partner.
Stewart Muir (32:18):
Good advice.
You've talked about yourmunicipal work, so very
different from that high levelinternational diplomacy and
security.
This is delivering services topeople in their homes.
What do you think the currentsare there right now?
We're taping today in Vancouver.
Only a short time ago there wasa lively debate around banning
(32:42):
natural gas.
This has been quite a divisivething for residents in Vancouver
.
I think it's quite unpopular.
At least if you go by thepolling, I think 57% of
residents oppose banning naturalgas because, unlike some places
, you know, in Quebec not a lotof people have natural gas in
their homes.
There's lots in industry, butin Vancouver it's like 90% very
(33:05):
heavy reliance.
It's like 90% very heavyreliance.
So you know people have used,they're familiar with the
product, they've used it intheir lives.
Is this a common situation?
I mean, what would you say toresidents of Vancouver?
I mean it's going to be a realimpact on their quality of life.
Shannon Joseph (33:17):
What is it going to cost to heat your house with
electricity as opposed tonatural gas?
And the answer is it's moreexpensive to heat space with
electricity than it is withnatural gas, at least in British
Columbia.
And as you build moreinfrastructure that has to be
paid for.
I don't see your electricitygetting cheaper because of it.
Maybe it will, who knows?
But that hasn't been theexperience in other
(33:38):
jurisdictions.
They need to think about thefact that their energy demand is
going up because they're doingmore things with energy, and you
know AI was one example of thatbefore.
It has never gone down yet.
Maybe it will, but so far wesee efficiency gains.
So we see, you know, maybeenergy per person going down,
(33:58):
but total energy continuing togo up because there's more
people.
Canada's population went up bytwo million people, or something
like that in the last few years.
There was more people Usingmore, they're using more stuff,
so we just need more.
The other thing is so last yearthere was this very cold week in
(34:21):
the prairies where it was likeminus 50 in Alberta in
particular, and there was a daywhen Alberta's electric system
almost was like overwhelmed andthey said it to everyone please
use less electricity.
And the things went down.
But Alberta also gotelectricity from Saskatchewan
(34:41):
and from British Columbia, andPremier Eby kind of talked about
that.
You know we were able to sendthem I don't know how much
electricity to help them out.
Fantastic, that day that theysent that extra electricity.
Bc had something liketwo-thirds of the energy being
used in the province was directnatural gas.
(35:02):
If that all had to be replacedby electricity, doing that,
replacing that, would be veryexpensive, but in the meantime
they wouldn't have been able togive anybody any extra
electricity.
And so does the public knowthat?
Does the public know thathaving those different streams
of energy put them in a positionto help other people with their
(35:25):
electricity, because they couldrely on gas directly for home
heating, which is also a cheaperhome heating solution?
I don't think people think aboutthat and I don't think
politicians present things inthat way, and that is
unfortunate, because you're notputting to people the tradeoffs
associated with a given policy.
It's like we're going to savethe climate, rip out this thing,
(35:47):
pay $30,000,.
Given policy, it's like we'regoing to save the climate, rip
out this thing, pay $30,000.
And then it's going to beamazing, except that at a
household level it's going to beexpensive to change that thing
and it might be more expensiveto heat your home in the long
term because you've now changeda higher cost energy solution.
Now you know there are numberson heat pumps and I think maybe
(36:07):
Vancouver could be a good placeto use that, where you could
save energy.
But in places where it getsmuch colder, which is the whole
rest of the country and the restof British Columbia, I don't
know if people are going to savemoney with some of the
solutions that are being putforward, and so I think we just
have to be really clear eyed putforward, and so I think we just
(36:30):
have to be really clear eyed.
Stewart Muir (36:31):
I'll bet there's people watching this saying,
hello, you're not talking aboutthe biggest issue climate.
Shannon Joseph (36:35):
That is the biggest issue for people who
have solved their own energyissue, and you know the reason.
Some of the other countries Iwork with are very pragmatic OK,
we want LNG, we need this, wewant to keep our coal and just
make it less emissions intensiveis because they haven't.
They don't have a guaranteedenergy answer.
(36:55):
It's the biggest issue untilyour lights go out and it's 40
degrees Celsius.
It's the biggest issue untilyou don't have the power you
need to disinfect medicalinstruments.
Then something else is thebiggest issue.
And so you know, to those, tothe people listening, who are
like, oh my God, why are yougoing on about all this
expensive or not expensive?
Don't you know we're all goingto die in 12 years or whatever
(37:19):
it is, and I don't want tocaricature that because you know
these are important concernsthat people have for the
environment.
I guess what I'm saying is, ifwe are, we should not tell
ourselves in Canada, where wehave energy security an energy
security that relies on energythat we want to deny to other
(37:40):
countries we haven't even beenable to stop using them.
We shouldn't tell ourselves that, just because we have energy
comfort and can think that thisis the biggest issue, that it's
everyone's biggest issue, and ifwe don't help other countries
address their biggest issue,which is keeping the lights on
24-7, if people need it, havingthe energy they need all the
(38:01):
time then the environmentalissue is not going to be maybe
addressed as efficiently as itcould be.
Because there's a big world outthere.
There are countries withbillions of people who don't
have energy security and they'regoing to use whatever energy
they have available to them toget that energy security and
(38:21):
they want to pay an affordableprice for it it.
So how are we going to help dosomething about that, so that we
can do something about thebigger question of making it
overall less environmentallyimpactful?
Because there is one atmospherethere's not a Canadian
atmosphere, there's not aBritish Columbia atmosphere and
(38:42):
there are a lot of jurisdictionsthat end up exporting their
emissions to other countriesbecause they stop making things
where they are and theiremissions go down and they just
import it from somewhere else.
That's not really an answer ifyou're worried about the global
environment and the atmosphereand all of that.
We got to think holisticallyabout the drivers of the demand
(39:03):
for energy, the options that areavailable and how do we make it
less impactful to theenvironment without losing the
ball on having people livebetter.
Stewart Muir (39:13):
Exporting emissions.
That might be a confusingphrase.
What do you mean exactly?
Shannon Joseph (39:18):
Yeah, so I think a couple of years ago there was
reported that the UnitedKingdom had reduced their
emissions by like 27% from like2005 levels, something like that
, and we're celebrated for that.
But what that meant in practicewas a lot of things that were
made in the UK, notably steel,stopped being made in the UK and
(39:40):
the UK started importing itbecause their energy was higher
cost.
They couldn't make those thingslocally anymore, and so, yeah,
you have less emissions.
You had fewer jobs for peoplein those areas of the country.
And then you're importing thatsteel from a country that burns
higher emitting fuels than you,and so you haven't actually
(40:00):
reduced the impact to theenvironment.
You just sent the thingsomewhere else and in doing that
, had a higher emission impact,because now you're burning a
higher emitting fuel somewhereelse, and then you're putting
the product on a boat when itcould have been made in your own
country and you're payingenergy to move it to where you
are.
So there are things that havelooked like victories on this
(40:23):
that actually don't, becauseyou're just exporting the
environmental impacts you don'twant to have in your own country
.
Stewart Muir (40:30):
One thing that I think is bubbling up here is in
Canada you often hear terms likeclimate leadership, that if you
do something or you set anaspirational goal of whatever,
it is sure you might not get tothat goal, but you want to do it
because others will look toCanada and say, well, that's
(40:53):
what they're doing.
So we here in India or China wegot to do what they're doing in
Canada.
We feel guilty that we're notfollowing those Canadians going
to net zero or banning naturalgas in Vancouver.
Do you think that's aneffective way to change the
world?
Shannon Joseph (41:09):
Well, I just think anyone who says that
should then tell us who exactlyis following us, because we've
been climate leaders or whateverother like who?
Where has that actuallyhappened?
Is there anyone who didsomething because we were doing
it?
Or are they doing it because oftheir own national interest and
situation and economic goalsand social goals, Like why would
(41:33):
a country?
And social goals, Like whywould a country you know, like
India, say, oh, you know, we'renot going to do this because
Canada, a country with acompletely different reality, is
doing something else?
I mean, I don't know.
I think it's important to haveevidence.
Stewart Muir (41:47):
Okay, Well, suppose that same country you
mentioned India, suppose Indiawas able to acquire some of that
sought after LNG you've talkedabout get it from Canada, so it
can maybe not use as much coal.
Do you think they might seethat as climate leadership?
Shannon Joseph (42:04):
Oh, india would see that as climate leadership.
India would see that as a kindof leadership period.
Good, this is just good.
It's not just good because it'sgood for the environment is
just good.
It's not just good because it'sgood for the environment, it's
good because it's good for us,because now our people have more
energy than we did before andnow our air is cleaner because
we're burning a cleaner fuel.
You know, in terms of theglobal emissions picture I think
(42:27):
it was Banque Nationale,national Bank, I don't know they
put out a report showingIndia's trajectory, which was to
significantly increasecoal-fired production.
They wouldn't have to have thattrajectory and the emissions
that come with it if they couldget our LNG.
And because of the scale we'retalking about, in a country of
(42:50):
that size, it makes a hugedifference globally to what ends
up being out in the world froman emissions standpoint.
Stewart Muir (42:57):
So let me see if I can put this together.
The things that we're doing, orat least some of the things
we're doing in Canada that somepeople in Canada think make them
climate leaders and respectedby the world, aren't seen that
way by the world, but the thingswe're not doing, that other
parts of the world would see usas climate leaders for remain
(43:18):
something that might happen inthe future or might not.
Shannon Joseph (43:20):
Yeah.
So I would say that countrieshave been coming to Canada both
from Europe and from Asia askingus for our LNG because for them
it means energy security and itmeans a lower emission energy
solution in contexts where theyjust need more energy and they
(43:41):
know it.
They're not kind of speculating.
And from an emission standpoint, getting them that energy is
reducing the emissions intensityof those economies.
Avoiding emissions, which iskind of the number one kind of
thing you want to do.
It avoids emissions growth.
The failure to acknowledge thatin Canada, among some in the
(44:03):
environmental community, I thinkcomes from maybe not believing
some of those countries whenthey say what their constraints
are, maybe not knowing and neverhaving had those conversations
and believing that there's somekind of alternative that if only
these guys knew.
Somebody said to me weshouldn't be helping those
(44:26):
countries get LNG, we should behelping them do renewables.
We should help Japan getrenewables and you know Japan is
a country that makes more stuffthat is imported to Canada than
the other way around.
They don't need us to tell themhow to do anything.
You know what I mean.
But they're a mountainouscountry.
We're doing some of that largescale.
(44:48):
Wind or solar can't deliver theenergy they need, period, and
you can not like that or you canbe frustrated by that, but it
is a fact.
It is a fact of geography.
They don't have some other landnearby where they could put all
this stuff and then put a powerline to their country.
It's just, it's not an option.
And so in Canada, we have tolisten to other countries when
(45:10):
they say this is what we need,these are our constraints
geographically, politically orwhatever else and we need you to
do.
You want to work with us, and Ithink if we say yes to working
with them, it means puttingaside our prejudices about what
the answer should be.
Stewart Muir (45:27):
Thinking about the new administration in the
United States, do you thinkthere's going to be a let's call
it a Trump doctrine on energy,and how does Canada fit into
that view of the world?
Shannon Joseph (45:38):
I do think that and this is just based on, you
know, reading articles I dothink that the incoming US
administration wants to avoidthe United States getting tied
up into hot conflicts.
Like you know, they're famouslyisolationist.
I think they want to find a wayto kind of negotiate a solution
(46:03):
to Ukraine, negotiate asolution wherever else, because
they don't want Americansoldiers getting killed in other
wars.
They don't want theseprotracted conflicts.
To the extent that energy canbe a tool in such conflicts and
energy has certainly been a toolin the Russia-Ukraine conflict
and has impacted allies ofUkraine and Europe in their
(46:24):
ability to respond I think ifCanada, the United States and
Mexico, all three of whom areenergy producing countries, got
together and say let's make astrategy for the continent and
how we will work together on ourenergy security for our area,
our region, and ensuring thatthat energy is affordable,
(46:45):
reliable and low in itsenvironmental impact, and that's
how we're going to worktogether to do that for our
friends, and that this is ashared strategy, I think that
could be something very ofinterest not only to the United
States but also to Mexico, andcould be an opportunity for
Canadian leadership in thatconversation.
Stewart Muir (47:05):
I'd just like to shift gears to a topic that, in
your public speaking that I'veseen is clearly one that means a
lot to you, and that'sIndigenous peoples and how they
fit into this whole energyconversation.
The First Nations of Canada andall of the Indigenous peoples
in this country how did you comeinto that?
Shannon Joseph (47:25):
Well, you know it's funny because I think I
didn't know much about kind ofIndigenous issues and treaties
and all that kind of jazz untilI started working at the
Canadian Association ofPetroleum Producers, which you
know.
I'm sure for some of my formercolleagues it was like going
(47:47):
over to the dark side, but itwas when I started working with
resource producing companies andyou know reality of their work
is working with the FirstNations and other indigenous
communities that are on the landbase where they are working
that I really started learningabout all of these things.
(48:07):
You know there has been.
We have the Indian Act inCanada.
The Indian Act treats Indigenouspeople, or First Nations in
particular, different from otherpeople.
Like I don't know if this isstill the case in the Indian Act
, but you used to not be able tohave a lawyer.
You can hire a lawyer if you,if you wanted to become a lawyer
(48:30):
yourself, getting that lawdegree would make you lose your
status as a First Nation.
So there are, there were a lotof things in the law that were
holding people back and arestill holding people back, Like
even today, because of theIndian Act.
What I've heard from fromchiefs in different parts of the
country is that they have toask Ottawa permission to spend
money that they've earned, likeyou know, they might have earned
(48:53):
selling some resource ordeveloping some product, but
it's like, okay, we want tobuild this on reserve lands, Now
I have to ask somebody inOttawa permission.
All of those things arefrustrating, but they're also
associated with a lot of thosecommunities having high levels
of poverty and other issues.
And for me, as a person to youknow to go back to the start of
(49:13):
our conversation who cares a lotabout ending poverty and how do
we help people live better thefact that you know this is such
an acute issue for Indigenouspeople in Canada really spoke to
me and spoke to the things thatI thought were really important
and were things that I was like.
Well, if this is happening inCanada, I can focus on Canada
and, you know, forget abouttrying to solve other countries'
(49:35):
problems you know what I meanor getting into that game,
because there's a lot ofimportant stuff to do here and
it's been incredible to workwith those leaders and be
supportive and part of thingsthat they have been doing, and I
think of people like StephenBuffalo of the Indian Resource
Council and AIOC, and Karen Ogun, who I'd mentioned, from First
(49:57):
Nations LNG Alliance, and many,many others Like I can't name
them all.
Crystal Smith and you know allof these people have been doing
really important things tochange the reality on the ground
.
A reality on the ground.
(50:17):
And, in the same way that youknow, good projects in
municipalities make thingsbetter on the ground right away.
Indigenous participation inresource projects creates jobs
and incomes that change thingson the ground right away.
And you know Crystal Smith fromHaisla talks about this a lot.
She did a video with Energy fora Secure Future.
When Haisla got the moneybecause they were involved in
(50:39):
LNG Canada and then were in aposition to do their own LNG
project, which is Cedar LNG theyhad their own money to preserve
their language and recovertheir language.
They had their own money tobuild the Center for Elders.
They had their own money to dothings with youth.
People in the community wereearning money that allowed them
to become homeowners, to allowthem to travel for the first
(51:01):
time all kinds of things thatpeople take for granted.
And so, for me, the reason I'mpassionate about the work that I
do with the First Nationsorganizations that I work with
and leaders that I work with isthat doing these things makes
people's lives better right awayand, conversely, when projects
are suddenly canceled or thingsjust don't happen, you know you
(51:22):
don't always see the effect ofmoney not coming or an
investment not happening whomthat was going to be their job,
that was going to be thespringboard to diversify the
economy of that nation.
When the thing doesn't happen,there's like a lasting
consequence that is negative,that maybe nobody sees,
(51:43):
including the people who arefighting a given project.
But boy do the people in thatcommunity feel it, and I think
that's really important.
Stewart Muir (51:57):
You made reference to the dark side and shifts in
your career.
Shannon Joseph (51:59):
What was that all about?
So when I was in university, Istudied civil engineering and I
really wanted to doenvironmental engineering.
Like if anybody asked me what Iwas doing, I was doing
environmental engineering.
I was the person who was thepresident of the environmental
club at my CGEP.
I founded an environment clubin my elementary school.
Stewart Muir (52:19):
A CGEP is a Quebec community college.
Shannon Joseph (52:22):
I'm sorry rest of Canada.
It's an acronym.
I don't know what it stands for, but it is this two-year thing
that you do between high schooland university and, all to say,
like I've been very passionateabout protecting the environment
, it was an important issue forme all throughout my school
years and then going intouniversity and then, you know, I
(52:46):
spent eight years of my careerworking at the Federation of
Canadian Municipalities, a bigpart of which was that their
green municipal fund.
So I designed, you know, thecriteria for applications for
getting grants or loans to do,you know, wastewater treatment
and building retrofits andwhatever else.
And I really thought of that as, whereas other countries are
(53:09):
still trying to get peopleenough water or energy or
whatever else, in North Americaand in Canada, what we're trying
to do is have those things butreduce the impact of those
things so that we have a cleanerenvironment.
This is kind of how I saw thewhole thing and I love that work
and I loved all the people Iworked with and what I started
to experience and I had theprivilege of, for a six month
(53:35):
period, being the actingexecutive director of the
Nunavut Association ofMunicipalities.
So there are 25 municipalitiesin Nunavut, which is a settled
lands claim and and they're veryremote.
There are no roads betweenthese communities and it gave me
insight into, you know, issuesof suicide which were a huge
(53:55):
thing for my board members atthe time.
There would always be somebodyin their community and and you
know the need for jobs and theneed for that because of the
need for hope in these places,and you know, a lot of the
mayors would be very excited ifthere was a mine that was going
to come into those communitiesand all of these things because
it meant development and, yes,there'd be an environmental
(54:16):
impact and, yes, they were goingto have a role in how those
were dealt with.
But, you know, on top of thatlist was how do we create
opportunity and hope and avision for the future for our
communities?
And we want these things tohappen.
And then I, you know, go to, youknow, meetings in Toronto and
wherever else and be in meetingswhere people are like, ok, when
(54:36):
we phase out fossil fuels, wereally need to move on to
getting rid of mining, becausethis is also bad for the
environment.
And I was like, whoa, there's ahuge disconnect here.
And also, if you get rid ofmining, you're not going to have
a phone anymore.
Like what are you talking about?
Mining, you're not going tohave a phone anymore.
(54:57):
Like what are you talking about?
And it just made me start tothink that I needed to see for
myself what was going on in theresource development world.
And I didn't necessarily want togo work in oil and gas, but
basically the opportunity cameup and I met with the people at
CAP and I'm like I kind of likethese people and I decided to go
(55:19):
for it, because the fact is weuse resources every day, in
every aspect of our lives, andwe want to have those resources
in a way that obviously isproduced in a way that you know
people are not hurt that theenvironment has the least impact
, but there's going to be animpact, but that impact allows
people to live and to livebetter and to have services that
(55:39):
are really important.
And you know, getting back tothat question of balance and
trade-offs and what are our realchoices, for me it is not a
real choice for anyenvironmentalist to say, well,
we're just going to stop mining,because I think if they thought
(56:01):
about it they'd know that's notreally possible, and instead
it's like, how do we do thingsin a better way.
And having crossed over to thedark side, the side of people
digging in the ground and doingstuff, it's like what are they
doing to do things in a betterway, not just in terms of the
environment, but in terms of howthey work, for example, with
local Indigenous communities andwhatever else.
(56:21):
And you know how can that bebetter or whatever else?
But what I've learned isthey're constantly trying to do
things in a better way, not justbecause it's good for the
environment, but it's good forbusiness, it's good for the
longevity of what they're tryingto do.
It's good, it's just a goodthing.
And in Canada we do have evenour business leaders want to do
(56:44):
things in a good way.
Stewart Muir (56:46):
So they're not out there trying to hurt the
environment.
Shannon Joseph (56:50):
That's right, they're not out there.
You know it's tooling theirthumbs, mr Burns.
Yes, it's not Mr Burns.
I mean maybe there are some MrBurns's out there and we all,
and that's why we're all holdeach other accountable in our
work, whether it's the localcommunity or the government or
whoever, but I think on thewhole, it's not a bunch of Mr
(57:13):
Burns out there.
And Canadian industry has beenat the forefront of developing
technologies that not onlyreduce the impact of resource
development here but can be usedby other countries to produce
their impact, and that is a goodthing, and that technology
development would not havehappened if those industries
didn't exist and if thoseindustries weren't making money
(57:33):
that they could spend oninnovation.
And I think that's notsomething that's really
considered enough.
Stewart Muir (57:38):
I said early on this could be a six-hour podcast
.
I have to revise that.
I think this could be aneight-hour podcast, but we have
to wrap things up.
So, Shanna Joseph, thanks somuch for being on Power Struggle
.
Shannon Joseph (57:51):
Thank you.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.