Don’t fall for rhetoric on emissions
Here is the scary math about our commitments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Today the prime minister is to meet with his provincial and territorial counterparts in Ottawa, as well as with First Nations, Inuit and Métis leaders. He plans to work with them on a “pan-Canadian” framework for clean growth and climate change.
Let us hope for a good outcome and real leadership in dealing with climate change. But listen for the rhetoric. Here’s why. “There remains a chasm between the facts and what the public understands, and between government rhetoric and action. If the government doesn’t treat climate change as an emergency, then many people feel that they don’t need to either. To earn public support for serious climate action, the whole government must consistently show that it takes climate change seriously.”
So says Dr. Diane Saxe, the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario, in her Greenhouse Gas Progress Report 2016 to the Ontario Legislature issued last month.
Never has the gap between government rhetoric and action been more obvious than with the recent approval of the Kinder Morgan Trans Mountain and Line 3 Pipelines by the federal government.
You might ask “What about the deal to phase out of the coal-burning power plants that the federal government announced in November? Won’t that reduce our emissions?”
You might ask “What about the national plan for a carbon tax or equivalent, which in Ontario is being implemented as a cap and trade program? Won’t that reduce our emissions?”
The answer to those questions is yes — but not enough to counter the increases from the newly approved pipelines.
Here is the simple but scary math using the federal government’s current commitments to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 200 megatons to 524 megatons by 2030:
5 megatons = Expected reduction from eliminating coal burning power stations by 2030
18 megatons = Expected reduction from introduction of Canada wide carbon tax of $50/ton by 2030
12 megatons = Increase from production of gas for the Pacific LNG plant approved in September
12 megatons = Increase from Line 3 tarsands production approved in November
19 megatons = Increase from Kinder Morgan tarsands production approved November See the problem? Drilling, fracking and digging the fossil fuel product for the three recently approved projects will create an additional 43 megatons of life cycle emissions while the announced government programs only save 23 megatons. That’s not much help toward our national reduction goal of 200 megatons by 2030. But it’s worse than that. You see, the numbers above are for the EXTRACTION of the fossil fuels. The real problem comes from BURNING fossil fuels.
If we take that into account, then we get another:
60 megatons = Increase from burning the Pacific LNG output
• 68 megatons = Increase from burning the Line 3 tarsands output
108 megatons = Increase from burning Kinder Morgan tarsands output
That’s another 236 megatons of growth. How does that fit with the 200 megaton reduction by 2030?
Some may argue that exported fossil fuels don’t count to Canada’s targets. That should only be true if these exports do not result in any expansion of the tarsands, which clearly they do. So we will add to global emissions. The rhetoric gets worse. Here is the statement in “Canada’s midcentury long-term low greenhouse gas development strategy” issued by the federal government as input to the recent Marrakesh Climate Talks.
“Failure to act now means that costs will likely rise in the future as the required pace of decarbonization increases. This raises the probability of misallocation of investment and infrastructure, as well as stranded assets. As the world moves to address climate change Canada should not be left behind in the emerging global markets for clean energy and related goods and services
“Reducing greenhouse gas emissions ... will require substantial effort on the part of all of all Canadians, with a fundamental restructuring of multiple sectors of the economy.”
To translate — we shouldn’t invest in pipelines which become stranded assets. We should invest in renewable energy technologies fast, so we don’t miss the boat in the worldwide expansion of renewable energy generation. We shouldn’t rely on the oil and gas industry to power the future Canadian economy but start to restructure it. Invest in the future, not the past.
So listen carefully to see if there are any real commitments coming out of the talks on Dec. 9.
Don’t be fooled by talks of “balancing the environment with the economy.” The environment is about physics and chemistry and it does not deal with paper constructs like GDP.
Unpick the rhetoric and press for real action on emissions.