On carbon sinks and home heating costs
In his May 17 letter, “Let’s get all the data out to the public,” Ryan Landreville (responding to my letter of May 16) refers to the large amount of forests, grasslands, and grain that grows in Canada and its ability to be a carbon sink by consuming CO2 from the atmosphere. The premise is that this carbon sink potentially consumes all the manmade CO2 emissions from within Canada making Canada a net consumer of CO2 rather than a net emitter. Sixty-five per cent of Canadian forests are considered managed forests (under direct human influence) and information on these can be found on the Natural Resources Canada web page and its State of Canada’s Forests reports.
Up until 1990 managed forests were consistently a net consumer of CO2 but since that time there have been years where they have been net emitters due to increase in fires and insect infestation both of which release CO2. Since 2009, they have been a consistent net emitter. Unmanaged forests also experience fires but there are no statistics on the above mentioned source indicating if they are net emitters or consumers of CO2. Statistics for other vegetation are also not provided so there can still be some uncertainty if Canada is a net emitter or consumer of CO2.
Regardless of whether Canada is currently a net emitter or consumer of CO2, the idea of taking credit for natural carbon sinks was actually part of the Kyoto protocol in the 1990s. It is still an idea with some support and will be part of the on-going discussion. The more recent Paris Climate Accord also considers the importance of carbon sinks and stresses the need to limit deforestation and promote reforestation and afforestation but doesn’t consider these as a reliable solution or to have the potential capacity to consume all the manmade CO2 currently produced. All countries are still urged to reduce fossil fuel usage.
In his May 18 letter, “Statistics on carbon tax called ‘magic,’” Mike Somerville (responding to my May 16 letter) correctly points out that the dollar value I gave for heating a home in a cold winter month was low. The 9 gigajules (GJ) I referred to in my letter is an estimate of the average monthly consumption over an entire year and not representative of a cold winter month as I mistakenly stated. To verify this amount, I did further checking and found, on the City of Medicine Hat webpage, that coincidentally 9 GJ is the typical monthly utility usage in Medicine Hat. For the current CO2 cost of $30/tonne (which results in $1.517/GJ) the average monthly cost would be $13.65, which would be $164 for a year. In 2019, when CO2 cost increases to $50/tonne, this will increase to $273/year and the estimate of gasoline costs in my previous letter would rise to $225/year from $135/year. The intent was to provide approximate numbers and let individuals decide the impact keeping in mind that low income Albertans receive rebates.
Denis Hoffman Medicine Hat