Air Quality, Energy & Climate Change
Index:
Lethbridge Climate Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan (here)
Long-term Affordable Housing: Bills 18 & 20 (here)
Phasing out public financing of the fossil fuel and petrochemical sectors (here)
Municipal Charter on Building Code Bylaw Authority (here)
Renewable Energy and Landuse Planning Letter (here)
Air Heat Pumps in Lethbridge, Alberta (here)
Purple Air - Air Quality Map (here)
Roadside Optical Vehicle Emissions Reporter III (here)
Greenhouse Gas Emission Crisis Warrants Lifestyle Change (here)
Pausing Renewable Energy Projects in Alberta (here)
Precaution & Planning are Good (here)
Clean Air Strategic Alliance: Potential to Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Alberta (here)
Open Letter to Federal Government on Hydrogen Tax Credits (here)
Open Letter to Federal Government on GHG emissions (here)
Votors need to make the right choice for environment (here)
Getting Serious About Global Warming and Climate Change (here)
What is Renewable Energy? (here)
What are your Emissions? (here)
The Resource Curse: The Alberta Context (here)
26 June 2024
City of Lethbridge, Climate Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan
To: Governance Standing Policy Committee
The Southern Alberta Group for the Environment (SAGE) has appreciated the opportunity to participate in the City of Lethbridge’s Climate Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan.
The Municipal Development Plan acknowledges that “Climate change is expected to be the most significant environmental issue in the coming years. In addition to creating challenges for ecosystem adaptation, a warming climate will bring changes that can affect the water supply, agriculture, power and transportation systems, the natural environment, cultural and heritage sites, and human health and safety. … Mitigating, responding to, and adapting to the impacts of climate change, including constraints on water and increased severe weather, will become increasingly important” (p.184).
This is an important direction for policy-makers in our collective efforts to prepare Lethbridge for the impacts of climate change on how we live, work and recreate. For success, a robust adaptation plan is vital – the health of the natural environment, the effectiveness of our economy, and social cohesion are all in play.
The multi-stakeholder planning process was very well organized and presented, with a comprehensive evaluation of climate impacts on labour productivity, building performance, public health, and infrastructure damage from extreme weather events. The most important outcome from these analyses is that there is a real cost to inaction. In other words, there is tangible return-on-investment for adaptation interventions that protect our community.
Another important perspective is that this is not directly a mitigation plan that relates to various international protocols. It is an adaptation plan that prepares Lethbridge for anticipated impacts, and offers long-term actions to preserve a livable future.
We cannot express strongly enough how important this project is for Lethbridge. Successful implementation of adaptation goals will have profound impacts on our economy and our social well-being. SAGE encourages the Governance Standing Policy Committee to support the Climate Adaptation Strategy and Action Plan.
30 May 2024
Long-term Affordable Housing:
Bill 18 Provincial Priorities Act, Bill 20 Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act
Dear Hon. Ric McIver, Minister for Municipal Affairs,
The Guardian (9 May 2024) asked the question: ‘What are the most powerful climate actions you can take?’ From the leading experts queried, the fourth top response was to reduce home heating and cooling emissions. SAGE agrees, and would add that this also speaks to affordability.
Infrastructure Canada data indicates that the average expected useful life of a single detached home in Alberta is 65 years. The data collected was based on social and affordable housing assets in both urban and rural settings. This means that a home built today is expected to still be part of the building stock in 2090. We know that, between now and 2090, there are expectations that greenhouse gas emissions be reduced to net-zero. We have to ask ourselves: Are we building homes today for yesterday’s climate? And is this affordable in the long term?
It appears, in the absence of robust public discussion, that the Provincial Priorities Act (Bill 18) is designed to restrict Municipalities and other provincial entities to enter agreements with any other entity without prior approval from the Government of Alberta. One might imagine this approval process could include grants from corporate sponsors or the Government of Canada that are directed to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. If, say, climate change mitigation and adaptation were not a priority for the Government of Alberta, much needed funding for municipalities and public research may or may not be allowed. Such gatekeeping of the public good may unintentionally restrict our collective ability to explore and innovate solutions for energy transition, building performance and, ultimately, long-term affordable housing.
Similarly, the proposed Municipal Affairs Statutes Amendment Act (Bill 20) limits the ability of municipalities to require “non-statutory studies as requirements for building and development permits.” Again, ‘non-statutory studies’ is a loosely defined category, but could include performance modelling for homes that are expected to meet higher standards as established by a municipality.
One of the motives expressed by the Government of Alberta for components of these Bills was to ‘standardize’ building in the province to make it more ‘affordable’. The standard would be the National Building Code, which (though being updated) currently sets a performance standard that will not only fail to achieve greenhouse emission targets, but also leave the homeowner with an unaffordable liability if energy prices continue to rise.
For the complete letter, click ... here.
28 March 2024
Phasing out public financing of the fossil fuel and petrochemical sectors
Dear Prime Minister Trudeau and Honourable Ministers,
We, the undersigned organizations, call on the Government of Canada to fulfill the commitment to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including derivative petrochemicals and plastics.
Many of our organizations applauded the Government of Canada’s decision to end financing of the international fossil fuel sector in 2022, as well as the government’s new rules eliminating inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. The new rules commit the government to aligning the provision of financial support with a pathway consistent with limiting global heating to 1.5°C and the development of a robust renewable energy sector and are therefore important steps towards aligning Canada’s economic policy with its climate goals.
Despite these new policies, in 2023 the federal administration still provided over $15 billion to oil and gas companies. While these new policies have set an important precedent, they have failed to significantly reduce the level of financial support being provided to the fossil fuel industry. In large part, this is due to ongoing provision of financing to the domestic oil and gas sector by Export Development Canada (EDC). Research from the Parliamentary Budget Office shows that around 80 per cent of EDC’s recent fossil fuel support flows domestically rather than internationally.
Therefore it is critical that the Government of Canada makes urgent progress on the commitment to phase out all public financing of the fossil fuel sector by Fall 2024. Little progress has been made since the federal government first made the commitment in 2021. We are concerned that the government is not prioritizing the development of this critical policy. Canada cannot claim to have ended support for fossil fuels until domestic public finance has been eliminated.
The Government of Canada does not need to recreate the wheel with this policy. Canada’s Guidelines for Canada’s International Support for the Clean Energy Transition are already robust in its scope and requirements for due diligence. The strongest approach would be to expand the existing policy for international public financing of fossil fuels to include domestic direct and indirect (i.e., insurance, bonding, guarantees) public financing. This would ensure a consistent approach between Canada’s international and domestic financing.
However, it is still unclear how the international rules will be implemented, monitored and enforced. For both current and future policies, this must be done in a rigorous way, standardized across all departments and agencies and with full public transparency. Though EDC and other relevant crown corporations should be responsible for implementing the policy and providing regular updates, the Government of Canada, and ideally Environment and Climate Change Canada, should approve any exemptions, provide oversight and enforcement of the policy, as well as full public reporting on any fossil financing that is approved, alongside a rationale for approval.
Our recommendations for fulfilling the government’s commitment to eliminate
public financing include:
- By Budget 2024, communicate the government’s approach to phasing out public financing of the oil and gas sector, including the scope of activities and sources of financing that will be covered.
- By fall 2024, release a new policy expanding the Guidelines for Canada’s International Support for the Clean Energy Transition to include domestic direct and indirect (i.e., insurance, bonding, guarantees) public financing. This new policy must ensure that all public financing aligns with a 1.5°C pathway and supports the transition off of fossil fuels to renewable energy. Public financing that leads to carbon lock-in, stranded assets or continued production of oil and gas must be phased out.
- Establish clear mechanisms for the implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the public financing rules to ensure standardized implementation across relevant agencies. This must include regular and transparent reporting on all exemptions to the policy.
- Cover a wide scope of public finance. The policy should include the full range of direct and indirect financial instruments, including loans, guarantees, equity, and insurance.
- Cover the range of crown corporations and federal agencies that provide funding and loans across sectors. However, a staged approach targeting the biggest providers of fossil financing might be the most effective approach. In this case, the policy should initially include Export Development Canada (including the Canada Account), Canada Infrastructure Bank, Canada Development Investment Corporation, the Canada Growth Fund and the Business Development Bank of Canada.
- Uphold the Polluter Pays principle. The oil and gas sector should bear the responsibility to reduce emissions itself, rather than passing these costs on to the public. Furthermore, the Government of Canada is in the process of developing a regulatory framework to achieve these emissions reductions. Subsidizing regulatory compliance is an inefficient use of public funds.
- Rule out ineffective investments into carbon capture and storage (CCS) and fossil-derived hydrogen, which are being used to prolong the extraction of and reliance on fossil fuels.
- Redirect financing toward renewable energy. The policy should not only include robust conditions for phasing out domestic public financing for fossil fuels; it should also provide
details on how the financing will be redirected toward renewable energy projects consistent with human rights. It should also include information on how this financing can be targeted to specific equity-deserving communities (including Indigenous, black, immigrant and low-income communities) who are already currently dealing with disproportionate rates of energy poverty.
Canada can build on its track record as an international leader in this area by being the first country to provide clear, stringent, and transparent guidelines for ending domestic public finance. On the other hand, Canada cannot meet its domestic commitments and obligations under the Paris Agreement without ending domestic financial support for fossil fuels. Strengthen the rules eliminating fossil fuel subsidies and report on new spending measures
In addition to addressing the provision of public financing, we are concerned with remaining gaps in the government’s approach to ending fossil fuel subsidies. First of all, the government must close loopholes related to natural gas, blue hydrogen, and CCS technology. The government claims that it has developed a “rigorous analytical guide to provide clarity and transparency on the type of support it deems to be efficient and allows to continue.” However, unless changes are made, this is inaccurate.
It remains unclear how the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidies Guidelines, including the due diligence criteria, will be implemented, monitored and enforced in a standardized way across all government departments. Further guidance for departments will be critical so that departments are able to properly assess any potential expenditure related to the fossil fuel sector to ensure alignment with robust and credible 1.5°C pathways and a transition to renewable energy.
We are also concerned with the lack of public accountability, as there is currently no requirement for publicly reporting in a central repository the measures that are deemed to meet the existing criteria (i.e. the fossil fuel subsidies which are deemed to be efficient). A public inventory should be created that new measures must be entered into in a timely manner. We have heard concerns from officials that this would be too onerous. The public has the right to know, in a timely manner, when a new subsidy or support qualifies under the criteria for the different policies and what the rationale is. Furthermore, our expectation is that very few measures are deemed efficient, otherwise the credibility of the new rules is very much at risk. Only in rare, timebound circumstances could a subsidy be considered efficient.
Release the self-inventory of existing tax and non-tax measures.
In 2023, the Government of Canada applied the Inefficient Fossil Fuel Subsidy Framework to existing tax Measures and 129 non-tax Measures. We are concerned that despite repeated calls to make this inventory publicly available, the government has still not done so.
The government should not use the G20 peer review with Argentina as an excuse for delay. The peer review was first announced in 2018. This process is not meant to take more than 12-18 months. Given political changes in Argentina, there is no excuse to wait until the end of 2024 to release the inventory.
The pathway to zero emissions and a climate–safe future does not include subsidies or public financing for the oil and gas industry. It’s time for Canada to turn off the financial taps to Canada’s most polluting industry.
For the complete letter, click ... here.
2 February 2024, Letter to Hon. Ric McIver, Minister for Municipal Affairs
Municipal Charter and Building Code Bylaw Authority
The Southern Alberta Group for the Environment (SAGE) opposes the proposed changes to the Municipal Charter regulation for the cities of Calgary and Edmonton, specifically the proposed removal of Section 7(2) of the Safety Code Act Amendments which currently reads:
(2) In the Safety Codes Act, in section 66, the following is added after subsection (3):
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the City may make bylaws relating to environmental matters, including, without limitation, matters relating to energy consumption and heat retention, but only to the extent those bylaws are consistent with all regulations made under this section and section 65.01 and all codes declared in force by those regulations.
Canada has joined 120 nations in committing to net-zero emissions by 2050, including all G7 countries. Many responsible provinces and cities in Canada have also made net-zero commitments by supporting innovation designed to transform the energy-performance of the built environment, including residential homes.
Removing the ‘building code bylaw authority’, which allows a municipality to make bylaws regarding energy consumption and heat reduction, restricts the sort of innovation and technological progress required to reduce emissions related to the built environment.
For the complete letter, click ... here.
Response from Minister Ric McIver, 27 February 2024
Thank you for your email of February 5, 2024, to the Honourable Nathan Neudorf, Minister of Affordability and Utilities, and me, regarding your concerns with the proposed City Charter Regulation amendments to remove the authority to create bylaws that modify provincial safety and building codes with respect to environmental matters. As Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister responsible for the Safety Codes Act, I am pleased to respond on behalf of the Government of Alberta.
Albertans are struggling to find affordable and attainable housing amid rising cost pressures. After considerable consultation with the cities of Calgary and Edmonton and with our development industry stakeholders, I am confident this proposed change will ensure municipalities across the province have consistent requirements under the safety and building codes. This will include a consistent Alberta energy efficiency tier under the National Building Code.
The proposed change will not impede construction of environmentally responsible buildings that exceed provincial energy tier standards. Home builders may still choose to use building methods and materials that exceed the provincial standards. However, I do not believe it is appropriate to enable any municipality to mandate building code standards beyond provincial standards.
Thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Ric McIver
Minister
cc: Honourable Nathan Neudorf, Minister of Affordability and Utilities
15-Nov-23 Letter to Ministers Schulz and Neudorf
Renewable Energy and Land Use Planning
The undersigned energy and conservation organizations make the following general recommendations to the Government of Alberta on a number of critcal issues concerning land use and renewable energy in Alberta. These overarching recommendations complement further specific recommendatons our organizations may make as part of the Alberta Utilites Commission Inquiry into the ongoing economic, orderly and efficient development of electricity generation in Alberta.
- Need to accelerate and grow renewable energy [...]
- Complete overdue regional planning under the Alberta Land Stewardship Act [...]
- Address gaps in Alberta’s protection of nature [...]
- Need for consistent and fair treatment across all land uses [...]
We urge you to move quickly to lift the damaging pause on renewable energy approvals while addressing these critical gaps in Alberta’s approach to natural resource management that apply to all land uses. We request the Government of Alberta commit to completing land use planning, updating Alberta’s approach to conservation to be consistent with increasing expectations for protection of nature, and work to ensure consistent decision-making across all resource sectors. Our organizations look forward to meeting with you to advance these issues. We trust these major themes will be reflected in deliberations of the Inquiry.
For the complete letter, click ... here.
Air Heat Pumps in Lethbridge
There has been a lot of media attention given to the topic of air heat pumps as a means of transitioning from fossil natural gas to electricity for heating our buildings. Unfortunately, like most technologies, the benefits of air heat pumps depend on the climate and the source (and cost) of electricity. Evaluating an air heat pump installation in Halifax or Edmonton or Lethbridge will likely show different results. What the are the results for Lethbridge?
An air heat pump is like an air conditioner. An air conditioner takes heat from inside a building during the summer months and moves it outside the building. An air heat pump works in reverse; taking heat energy from the outside air and moving it into the building. The efficiency of transferring this heat is called the Coefficient of Performance (COP). For example, if it takes 1 unit of energy (in the form of electricity) to deliver 3 units of energy (in the form of heat) to your home, the COP is 3. Because there is less energy available in cold air than hot air, the COP decreases (becomes less efficient) as the outdoor temperature decreases.
SAGE has compiled representative climate data for Lethbridge based on hourly temperature readings over the past ten years. The coefficient of performance (COP) for an air heat pump over a range of outdoor temperatures was derived from recent research. In some climates a heat pump is all you need to heat and cool your home. In colder climates, a hybrid system is often recommended where the air heat pump is used as much as possible and either direct electric heating or natural gas heating is used during periods of cold weather – our analysis will assume a system using only electricity.
Using a representative home that requires 100 GJ of heating energy each year, the results are as follows: A home with a natural gas furnace will consume 117 GJ at an efficiency of 85% to produce 5900 kg CO2 of emissions at an energy cost of $575 (ignoring variable extra charges). An equivalent home with an air heat pump and direct electric heating backup will consume 8600 kWh of electricity to produce 4640 kg CO2 of emissions at an energy cost of $1050. The best-case conclusion for an air heat pump in Lethbridge today:
- the air heat pump will reduce emissions by roughly 21%, and
- energy costs will increase by $475 (ignoring fixed and variable extra charges).
These are the unadorned numbers. You may access our detailed assumptions, references and calculations on the SAGE website at sage-environment.ca
The important factors that effect this evaluation include the current prices of energy and the current greenhouse gas emissions per kWh of electricity generated in Alberta. Alberta has reduced its emissions embodied in electricity considerably over the past couple of decades with the phasing out of coal-fired generation. As the province continues to capitalize on the opportunities for renewable energy, the greenhouse gas emissions for electricity will decrease, making air source heat pumps ‘greener’.
But the message remains that reducing your energy consumption is always the most effective way to reduce emissions. Lower your indoor temperature a degree or two in the winter. Heat the rooms you are actually using to comfort levels (rather than the whole house). And seal your windows and doors to stop the leakage of heated air.
So, should you buy an Air Heat Pump in Lethbridge? With current rebates, the costs are similar to a new or replacement central air conditioner for your home. Choosing an air heat pump would give you some fuel-flexibility in the future and an opportunity to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
For the full analysis, click ... here
Purple Air - Air Quality Map
Monitoring air quality provides an important indicator for avoiding unhealthy activity outdoors. Sources of air pollution in the Lethbridge region might include intensive feedlot operations, dust from roads and (with greater drought) agricultural land, particulates from transportation (particularly from diesel engines), and more commonly smoke from forest fires.
From the Purple Air website, the following snapshot shows trends in air quality based on particulates with a colour indicating differently levels. In the screenshot, below, the orange colour suggests that "Air quality is acceptable. However, there may be a risk for some people with 24 hours of exposure, particularly those who are unusually sensitive to air pollution."
Currently Lethbridge and region have only a couple of air monitoring stations. As air pollution becomes more of an issue given increasing risks of drought and wildfire smoke, better information would be useful.
Roadside Optical Vehicle Emissions Reporter III
(A Survey of On-Road Light and Heavy-Duty Vehicle Emissions)
From the Executive Summary:
Roadside Optical Vehicle Emissions Reporter (ROVER) III emerged as an outcome of a 2015 to 2017 CASA project that examined non-point sources for emissions reduction opportunities from the transportation sector.1,2 Based on the 2014 Air Pollutant Emissions Inventory, the on-road transportation sector was projected to be:
- A large source of nitrogen oxides3 (NOx, particularly from heavy-duty diesel vehicles, followed by light duty gasoline trucks);
- A source of hydrocarbons (HC, particularly from light-duty gasoline trucks); and
- A source of particulate matter (PM2.5, particularly from heavy-duty diesel vehicles).
For the complete report, click ... here.
30 August 2023 Letter Published by The Lethbridge Herald
Greenhouse Gas Emission Crisis Warrants Lifestyle Change
Humans with their industrial achievements must make decisions which are in the long term interest of life for all species. Humans are adding more greenhouse gases (GHG) mainly carbon dioxide and methane to the atmosphere than ever before. The best data- based studies indicate that these emissions are impacting climate and life on the globe.
The Paris agreement signed in 2015 within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, committed signatories to maintaining global warming to well below 2.0 C above pre-industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit this increase to 1.5 C. Water supply and food production are the issues. A reduction of some 30 billion tons of GHGs emissions is required in the next 10 years. There are 195 country members of this Framework that are parties to the agreement.
To achieve this climate control we need to create an infrastructure which replaces coal, oil and natural gas with energy produced with wind, sun, hydro, nuclear, hydrogen, heat pumps and batteries. In 2022 87 per cent of Alberta’s total electricity production was derived from fossil fuels as was all the energy for transport, heating and farming.
To construct this infrastructure for renewables, nuclear energy, transmission lines and mining for source materials will require massive amount of energy.
This amount of energy cannot be provided by “green eEnergy” (solar, wind, hydro), nor by nuclear power within the next 40 years (communicated by Cosmos Voutsinos).
How do we meet our energy demand and reduce fossil fuels? Our lifestyle options have to change quickly. We know what we have to do. Can we globally cooperate and act on it?
We are left with two choices:
1. Emit even more GHGs with fossil fuel to produce the required alternative energy within 40 years. This will have predictable negative consequences to the climate, life and our lifestyle. What will be the effect on water and food production?
2. Speed up the reduction of the use of fossil fuels and GHG emissions with drastic negative impacts on our lifestyle.
We got only a taste of that in the COVID-19 year, 2020. We have created a GHG crisis which cannot be countered without impacting our lifestyle. GHG emission is a crisis if we do not respond to it.
The future has arrived. Good news: We will just come down from our high lifestyle to meet the conditions we have created: More good local living.
August 21, 2023 SAGE Comment
Pausing Renewable Energy Projects in Alberta
Recently, the UCP government decided to pause the development of renewable energy in the province for seven months. Though there have been a series of excuses tested for public acceptance, the UCP seem to have settled on the need for better planning of the electricity grid to accommodate intermittent electricity production. Though there have been other reasons floated from end-of-life restoration of land and aesthetics, the two main issues appear to be: grid stability and transmission capacity.
Electricity is a carrier of energy that is used to do work or provide light and heat. It is important to note that electricity is not a primary form of energy. As such, it is unlike primary energy sources like hydropower, nuclear power, wind and solar power, and fossil fuels like coal, oil & natural gas. Electricity is a technology that moves energy from where it is generated (using primary sources) to where it is used. The ‘grid’ is a web of transmission lines that accomplish this task, with large lines at the point of generation and becoming smaller as they fan out to the users dispersed throughout the province.
The grid can only hold the electricity that is being used at any single moment. If demand increases, the grid begins to be drained, so more electricity must be generated to meet the increased demand and prevent a brown- or black-out. If the demand decreases, less electricity must be generated. It is the job of the grid operator (AESO) to accomplish this balancing act. They typically do so by operating large plants that provide a steady base load, and then chase the varying demand with reserve generation that can respond quickly to changes. AESO provides a glimpse of the Alberta grid on their website: ets.aeso.ca. It is important to note, that the current grid has significant back-up reserves in the event large generating facilities (like coal and natural gas generating facilities) go off-line.
Wind and solar power are considered intermittent in operation because wind speed can vary dramatically over a period of time, as can the solar energy reaching the panels. This adds complexity to the grid, as the operator must respond not only to changes in demand, but must also respond to changes in generation. This is a challenge. (https://ippsa.com/wp-content/uploads/IPPSA-NEWS-Thought-piece-on-net-zero-affordability-reliability-and-market-design-Feb-21-2023.pdf)
Reportedly, the UCP government has said: “The Alberta Electric System Operator asked for us to do a pause to make sure that we could address issues of stability of the grid,” but it seems that they did not communicate this with AESO before already deciding to pause new renewable energy projects (https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2023/08/14/alberta-premier-offers-up-contradictory-versions-for-imposed-wind-and-solar-pause/). This is because it does not appear that AESO was having problems maintaining a stable grid with the current input from renewable sources.
There are many regions in the world who maintain grid stability with much higher inputs of renewable energy (https://e360.yale.edu/features/three-myths-about-renewable-energy-and-the-grid-debunked). If Alberta is not able to manage a 17% net-to-grid renewable input, today or in the foreseeable future, it would more likely be due to a lack of investment in operation technologies and transmission capacity, which is the responsibility of the Government of Alberta to upgrade. In other words, grid stability requires planning and investment by the government, and the failure to do so would amount to either willful ignorance or incompetence.
There have also been some concerns raised about providing backup generation for intermittent renewable electricity production. Recent research on existing systems suggest: “a level of between 30 and 50 per cent share of variable renewable energy sources such as wind and solar can be easily accommodated without any further back-up.” (https://reneweconomy.com.au/much-storage-back-high-renewable-grids-need-60710/). Attributing all back-up generation to renewables and ignoring the existing back-up for fossil fuel generation plants is misleading.
Traditionally, the grid is structured by generation at large centralized facilities and distributed to its dispersed users. The transmission lines get smaller as they spread out. Renewable energy technologies are more decentralized, with facilities being built where there is adequate wind and solar resources - from rooftops to large ‘farms’. These locations may currently have inadequate transmission capacity. The application process for renewable energy projects should be of ample duration, however, to allow for the installation of suitable transmission capacity for each installation. Proper planning may also allow for the government to provide direction to the renewables industry on the optimal locations for these projects to better utilize existing or planned transmission capacity. To send a negative market signal to an industry with $3.7 billion worth of projects being planned and promising 4500 jobs (https://cleantechnica.com/2023/08/08/alberta-halts-new-renewables-because-they-were-too-successful/) is simply not justified by government foot-dragging on providing adequate transmission capacity to the grid.
To be charitable, planning is good. And we should be grateful that the UCP has recently discovered the importance of it.
It doesn’t take much imagination to anticipate the many future challenges of transitioning energy from fossil fuels to lower-emission sources. Take for example transportation. Roughly 400 petajoules of energy is consumed in Alberta by the transportation sector, almost all of the energy comes from oil. To convert this completely to electricity (for electric vehicles) assuming a 30% conversion efficiency for internal combustion engines, would amount to 33 terrawatt-hours of electricity. Alberta generated 76 terrawatt-hours in 2019. Therefore, transitioning transportation from fossil fuel to electricity would require increasing the grid capacity and generation by almost 50%. Much of this may be met through renewable energy technologies, but current discussions suggest a growing reliance on the rapid development of nascent, unproven technologies like small nuclear and carbon sequestration and storage. The challenge of reducing emissions may be further exacerbated with home and industrial heating shifting from natural gas to electricity (using heat pumps. These simple examples indicate the extreme importance of planning.
Better ways to meet this challenge might be to reduce demand and to manage demand. Reducing demand speaks for itself – curtailing the luxury consumption of energy. Luxury-focused carbon taxation has been suggested for emission reduction and equity issues (https://www.cell.com/one-earth/pdf/S2590-3322(23)00261-0.pdf). Managing demand means making our demand more stable, and flattening the ups and downs of electricity demand that AESO must manage in its operation. A more stable electricity demand means that less capacity is being held in reserve to chase fluctuations. Demand might be flattened by dynamic storage technologies. Demand could also be managed by creating price tiers with cheaper electricity being available when demand is lower; and the reverse, as demand increases, so would the cost. More drastically, demand may also be managed by prioritizing users who receive the electricity when they need it, while denying other users at the time.
In summary, pausing renewable energy projects for seven months sends signals of uncertainty to the energy market (‘picking winners’ in the parlance of neoliberalism); it indicates a lack of commitment in meeting emission goals to preserve a functioning society (and ecosystem); and it suggests a level of incompetence in meeting government responsibilities to a growing industry in the province. The lack of communication with AESO and with the renewables industry before the decision to pause is astonishing.
Nonetheless, this is also an opportunity for the Government of Alberta to demonstrate its commitment to the principles of planning, public engagement, and the precautionary principle more broadly in the future. It is a good time to begin planning for ecosystem health and the enduring prosperity of our region.
23 August 2023 Letter submitted to The Lethbridge Herald
Precaution & Planning are Good
The decision by the UCP government to pause the development of renewable energy in the province for seven months is mystifying. Though there have been a series of excuses tested for public acceptance, the UCP seem to have settled on the need for better planning of the electricity grid to accommodate intermittent electricity production. One has to wonder what amount of planning (required for the transition to a low-emission grid) has actually been done by successive governments over the past quarter-century, the span of time since it has been known that global emissions must be reduced to net-zero by 2050. Nevertheless, that this notion has only recently filtered through to the UCP government is dismaying. That it was so sudden a revelation that a pause of renewable energy development was initiated without consultation or planning with the industry is nothing short of astonishing.
But, to be charitable, planning is good. And we should be grateful that the UCP has discovered the importance of it.
Planning might have been useful when the UCP government rescinded the Coal Policy endangering our water quality, or decided to close or privatize a number of provincial parks. This government may have applied the precautionary principle more broadly to the expansion and management of untreatable tailing ponds, or been more vigilant about the growing problem of orphaned oil and gas wells and associated uncontrolled methane emissions.
Even today, this government is granting approximately $300 million towards a 200,000-acre irrigation expansion project in southern Alberta. An extremely large expansion in a semi-arid region with a limited (and diminishing) amount of water available to households, communities and the industries, as well as rivers, relying on it. Expanding water demand with diminishing supply is simply untenable, and one glance at Lake Mead and the dry mouth of the Colorado River will tell you that more storage doesn’t create water. In the spirit of precaution and planning, it would be a good time to pause this project until a proper environmental impact assessment has been completed with robust modelling of water flow trends in a warming world. Already, we do not meet instream flows needed to maintain the health of our rivers and riparian areas.
A cynic might say that the pause in renewable energy development to allow for planning was simply political intrigue. Others might say incompetence. For some, both. SAGE, however, is more generous in its perspective. We look forward to the UCP government employing the principles of planning, public engagement, and the precautionary principle more broadly in the future.
It is a good time to begin planning for ecosystem health and the enduring prosperity of our region.
8 February 2023
Clean Air Strategic Alliance: Potential to Reduce Nitrous Oxide Emissions in Alberta
A new report by the Clean Air Strategic Alliance (CASA) identified potential options to reduce air pollution in the province and presents stakeholder perspectives on those options. This project was initiated because of anticipated exceedances of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) that may occur if no action is taken to reduce nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions.
For more information, click ... here.
For the full report ... here
8 February 2023
... However, there is a risk that if the proposed investment tax credit for hydrogen is poorly designed, it could be used to subsidize fossil-hydrogen technology - which is incompatible with Canada’s climate commitments - or inadvertently impact the availability of more cost-effective and reliable climate solutions. This would risk locking Canada into a fossil-based economy and divert funds from effective, cost-effective decarbonization measures that align with limiting global temperature increases to 1.5°C. If the objective of ramping up clean hydrogen production is to avoid exacerbating the climate crisis, then a clean hydrogen definition must be compatible with the Paris Agreement’s net-zero goal by 2050.
For the complete letter, click ... here.
An open letter to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau from 200 conservation,
environmental and social justice groups with hundreds of thousands of
supporters in Canada on the opening of the 44th Parliament
From the letter:
... We must put in place stronger actions to cut greenhouse emissions. And we
must deliver a comprehensive plan — with timelines and targets — to halt and
reverse nature loss by 2030 and bring nature to full recovery by 2050.
Your platform commitments to establish new protected areas, reverse nature
loss, support Indigenous-led conservation, and restore and enhance wetlands,
grasslands and peatlands offer a strong foundation, and resonate across the
platforms of other major parties. To be effective and meaningful, implementation
of these commitments needs to advance climate action, biodiversity conservation,
Indigenous rights and social and racial equity. ...
For more information, click ... here.
Published in The Lethbridge Herald
25 August 2021
Voters need to make the right choice for environment,
The first international effort to understand the impact of releasing massive amounts of carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere from the burning of oil, gas and coal was published in 1990. Over thirty years later, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change continues to publish the synthesis of climate research based on the efforts of thousands of scientists worldwide[1]. The latest report continues to tell the same message as previous ones, only with much greater clarity. It’s not looking good. We are in the midst of a climate emergency with an ever-diminishing amount of time to respond meaningfully.
What does a climate catastrophe look like? If you haven’t heard, it is quite grim - even for wealthier nations accustomed to simply buying what they need. The recent IPCC report says that CO2 levels are higher than they’ve been since before the emergence of hominids 2 million years ago. These greenhouse gases trap a lot of energy in the lower atmosphere. Energy is heat. Climate is shifting northward bringing with it a higher number of extreme-hot days. Hot air carries more moisture which can cause more extreme rain events, and more frequent and prolonged droughts. Weather extremes reduce food production, as witnessed across the prairies this summer. Secure food production is fundamental for maintaining a stable society.
The extra heat energy will continue to melt snowpack and glaciers, affecting natural river flows and threatening reliable water sources for irrigation, intensive livestock operations, and industry. Coniferous forests are already stressed and replanted clear-cuts will fail to thrive in this warming climate. Dry forests burn, adding even more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Diminished forests hold less water for instream flow needs and late-season human uses. Plants and animals that cannot shift with the climate to which they have adapted will go extinct[2]. New disease and pest vectors will thrive, introducing further challenges to ecosystems on which we rely[3].
There is more: diminishing arctic ice, disrupted ocean currents, rising sea levels, greater storm surges and inundation of coastal cities and farmland, ocean acidification, and a massive loss of fecund coral reefs. The IPCC report is rich in details of the interrelations and impacts of climate disruption within our ecosystems - it is science. Said more directly, it is warming almost everywhere, it is warming rapidly, it is going to get worse before it gets better, and it will only get better if we reach ‘net zero’ carbon emissions as soon as possible.
To achieve this with some modicum of international fairness is a daunting task. The scientists are not sugar-coating the risks of our continued indifference to greenhouse gas emissions. As one scientist has said[4]: “There is nowhere to run, nowhere to hide.” And, ultimately, we are all in this together (except, maybe, for a few billionaires hiding out in their prepper-villas in New Zealand[5]). A fundamental shift of this magnitude will require global cooperation and abundant financing. But there are individual acts that have a collective impact, too. Waste less food, buy durable goods you really need, reuse and recycle, turn down the thermostat, plant a tree.
The best thing you can do in the near future that could make a difference: vote for a decision-maker willing to act. Join SAGE this fall in asking what our municipal and federal leaders will do for our collective future and a stable climate.
SAGE is a leading voice for a healthy and sustainable community.
[1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-cycle/
[2] https://www.worldwildlife.org/press-releases/half-of-plant-and-animal-species-at-risk-from-climate-change-in-world-s-most-important-natural-places
https://www.pnas.org/content/117/8/4211
[3] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature.2013.13644
[4] https://www.ctvnews.ca/climate-and-environment/un-climate-crisis-report-warns-there-s-nowhere-to-run-nowhere-to-hide-1.5539596
[5] https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley-billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand
Published in The Lethbridge Herald
04 June 2021
Getting Serious About Global Warming and Climate Change
The Canadian Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act (Bill C-12) recently passed second reading in parliament. Though the science of climate change has been well established since the 1980s, and the first consensus report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was published in 1990, there has been little achieved globally to meet the necessary zero-net-emissions of greenhouse gases by 2050. This is also reflective of the Canadian response, as we have neglected to meet any emission targets these past three decades. We are speaking here of a ritual of failure.
What does ‘net-zero’ really mean? To use a house as an example, ‘net-zero’ would mean that your home would generate as much energy as it uses (for heating and electricity). To accomplish this in a home, you would first try to minimize wasted energy (turn off those lights, and turn down the thermostat when you are not at home). You might then invest in improved efficiencies, like better windows, insulation, and high-efficiency furnaces and water heaters. To achieve net-zero, you would then invest in solar panels (or buy ‘green’ electricity) to provide the remaining energy consumed in the home.
Net-zero for a whole country is manifestly more complicated. A national framework would work roughly like the home – reduction, achieve efficiencies, and shift to renewable energies. But it gets more complicated when carbon offsets like sequestration and Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) are introduced. Carbon offsets allow companies or whole sectors of the economy to pay other companies to reduce emissions or sequester carbon in the soil or underground.
On a personal level, for example, one might decide to fly to Europe on vacation. Your share of the flight would produce 0.11 kg CO2(eq) for each kilometer. A round trip from Calgary to London (14,000 km) would produce about 1500 kg CO2(eq). Through a carbon credit process, you would now pay a company who has permanently removed (sequestered) that amount of carbon from the atmosphere, or a company that has purchased a more efficient technology that has prevented carbon emissions to the atmosphere. The result is a net-zero emission of greenhouse gases.
On a larger scale, whole industries that find it difficult to reduce their carbon emissions may pay other industries for sequestering carbon, or implementing technologies to reduce carbon emissions.
As an example of carbon sequestration, a farmer might be credited with carbon offsets for agricultural techniques that keep more carbon in the soil. The farmer could then sell these credits to a company that produces emissions – the sequestration in one area balances the emissions in another (the result is ‘net-zero’). Other schemes might include tree planting (biosequestration) or technologies that remove carbon from a smokestack or directly from the atmosphere. In general, carbon sequestration allows for some continued use of fossil fuels, as long as the equivalent amount of carbon is removed from the atmosphere.
Similarly, Clean Development Mechanisms (CDMs) allow a Canadian company to pay for the emission reduction on behalf of another company (anywhere in the world), with Canada getting credit for the reduction. It might benefit the emerging economy by lowering pollution, and it would be less expensive for the Canadian company compared to other available options. This extra complexity, however, requires more bureaucracy to validate and account for carbon offsets, and it allows for wealthy nations to continue business-as-usual emissions and meet targets by simply buying it – a carbon indulgence.
Obstacles and concerns around carbon offsets include ‘additionality’ (assessing if the carbon offset scheme is something that otherwise would not have been done) and ‘permanency’ (to be sure what is taken out of the atmosphere remains out). There is a concern about ‘carbon leakage’ where a country off-shores polluting industries to less developed countries, which doesn’t really reduce global emissions, but makes one country appear to be making gains at the expense of another. From the perspective of international trade, if one country has more opportunities for carbon offsets (or if they are not aligned with global emission reduction targets), they may have an unfair competitive advantage. This would require complex negotiations and possibly confrontational tariffs. Some sectors of the economy will have more difficulty reducing emissions than others, affecting profitability and future investment decisions, and possibly creating shortages in important industrial or building supplies. The costs of reducing carbon emissions may also fall more heavily on developing nations or the poor within developed countries, allowing unequal advantages to those who can afford to pay for carbon offsets. In a word: Complicated.
Bill C-12 is an aspirational effort to set an accountability framework and targets to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The legislation proposes that the federal Minister set five-year targets beginning in 2030 to achieve net-zero by 2050. The Minister is expected to meet international commitments with an emission reduction plan based on the best scientific information available. If it sounds loosey-goosey, it is. The Climate Accountability Act is short on details, but obliges Canada to plan a framework for climate action. It is a first step. And it is an important first step.
It is an important enough first step that Bill C-12 requires non-partisan support and thoughtful improvement before the Third Reading in parliament. And it will need effective plans to be developed over the following six months to achieve targets while transitioning good jobs to a future economy. As we have learned by ignoring this issue for three decades, the longer we wait that harder it will be. As Ecojustice has said: “Net-zero by 2050 will ensure Canada’s fair share contribution to keeping global temperature rise below 1.5 C.”
The representative for Lethbridge, Rachael Harder may want to hear from her constituents on this topic before Third Reading of Bill C-12. SAGE has been a leading voice for a healthy and environmentally sustainable community since 1984.
Climate Action Network
High-level recommendations for Bill C-12, the Net-Zero Emissions Accountability Act
EcoJustice
A strong climate law for Canada – Answers to your questions about Bill C-12
Carbon offsets:
Can you really negate your carbon emissions? Carbon offsets, explained.
Carbon offsets: Worth buying to fight Climate Change?
<a href="http://sage-environment.org/?p=539#Inde