Air Quality, Energy & Climate Change

Index:

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)

(Back to Index)

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

(Back to Index)

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.

(Back to Index)

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

(Back to Index)

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.

(Back to Index)

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.


(Back to Index)

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.

(Back to Index)

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.

(Back to Index)

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.

(Back to Index)

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

(Back to Index)

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.


(Back to Index)

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.


(Back to Index)

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

(Back to Index)

 

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.

Bill C-12: An Act respecting transparency and accountability in Canada’s efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2050

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?

What are carbon offsets?

(Back to Index)



What is Renewable Energy?

The challenge is to reduce the enormous amount of fossil energy we use and replace it with cleaner energy. Pollution has an enormous impact on human health and the integrity of natural systems, so less of it is better for everyone. Renewable energy technologies convert energy from inexhaustible sources into electricity. The energy source in the case of solar panels (photovoltaics) is the sun, whereas the energy source for wind turbines is the velocity and mass of the wind. Conventional energy sources include fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas. Nuclear fuel is also non-renewable.

Renewable energy technologies require fossil energy to manufacture (as 90% of world energy consumption is currently derived from fossil fuels and renewable energy technologies are not yet made from renewable energy – though this is the long-term goal). The process of manufacturing renewable energy technologies result in various forms of pollution including those from steel production, concrete production, plastics production, and electronics production. This is no different, however, than the pollution from manufacturing conventional energy technologies which require similar materials (steel, concrete, plastics, and electronics), but includes pollution from their fuel sources like oil and natural gas refining and coal production.

Another very important concern that might relate more to renewable energy technologies is the land-use where they are sited. Installing solar panels or wind turbines on grasslands has the potential of disrupting natural ecosystems. It is better to use brownfield sites (land that has already been used for industrial activities), or in the case of solar, built environments like rooftops and parking lots, for the installation of renewable technologies.

It is clear that reducing energy consumption is always the best choice to reduce pollution.

The main reason for installing commercial-scale renewable energy technologies is to reduce pollution compared to conventional fossil-fuel technologies. To do this, the renewable technology must generate more energy when compared to the energy consumed in their manufacture (and to install and maintain). Every 1 unit of fossil energy invested up-front in the renewable energy technology permits more units of energy to be delivered from the sun or the wind.

The more technical term for this is EROEI: Energy Returned over Energy Invested. A technology must have an EROEI greater than 1. If it is less than 1, that means you have used more energy making the technology than you will generate in the life-cycle of the technology. A contemporary example of this is fusion, which currently uses more energy than it generates.

Here are some examples of EROEI:

In the case of solar, the energy it takes to manufacture a square meter of panel is 1150 kWh. A kWh, or ‘kilowatt-hour’, is the same unit of energy in which you purchase your electricity. In Lethbridge, a square meter of solar panel will produce about 225 kWh of electricity each year. If the solar panel lasts its expected lifespan of 25 years, it will produce 5 times more energy than it took to manufacture it. That is an EROIE of 5.

Similarly, the energy it takes to manufacture a common 2-megawatt wind turbine is almost 2.8 million kWh. The wind turbine will produce about 3.5 million kWh each year for an expected lifespan of 20 years. Generally, a wind turbine will produce 25 times more energy than it took to manufacture it, for an EROEI of 25.

The EROEI is a useful way of evaluating the energy balance for technologies or even fossil energy sources. For example, it currently takes 1 unit of fossil energy to produce 20 units of fossil energy in conventional oil production. Unconventional oil production, like bitumen production which requires large volumes of steam generated from natural gas, has an EROEI typically lower than 4. This is a main reason why bitumen receives a much lower price per barrel on the market.

What is Renewable Energy?

Today, it is a process of making fossil fuels more productive. Take one unit of energy from a fossil fuel, use it to make a renewable energy technology, and generate 5 to 25 times more energy over time. Because you are increasing the efficiency of the original unit of fossil fuel, you are creating smaller amounts of pollution per kWh of electricity produced.

To expand on this concept, one unit of fossil fuel can be burned to make steam to generate electricity (at an efficiency of about 35% for coal, and as much as 50% for natural gas). This same fuel might be burned to make a renewable energy technology which, in turn, will generate energy over time. The same amount of fossil-fuel is burned in both cases, creating the same amount of pollution. The renewable energy technology will, however, produce many more times the amount of energy over time, so the pollution is, in essence, diluted. Less pollution per energy produced is the result. The following example shows how the emissions per kWh of electricity is reduced over time, compared to the fossil technologies that currently comprise the Alberta electricity system.




The caveat!   

Renewable energy technologies have to be installed in locations that maximize sun or wind exposure, and all of the electricity generated must be used. To take the example of solar panels, if the panel is installed in a location that is shaded part of the day, it will not produce at its maximum potential. This means that the pollution created up-front is not going to be diluted as much over time. It is an important concept, as it is possible to make more pollution than conventional sources using poorly located renewable technologies. Maximizing the potential also requires a well-designed and operated electricity system (grid) that will receive electricity when it is generated and provide electricity when it is needed. If the electricity using renewable technologies is produced when it is not required, it is wasted. The electricity grid must become a shock absorber for intermittent generation from renewable technologies.


Global societies have recognized the undesirable side effects of fossil fuels (coal, gas and oil). First, the reduction of energy use is the most effective means of reducing pollution. Second is using the energy more efficiently: replacing fossil fuel electricity generation with renewable energy technologies improves efficiency and reduces pollution. It will take a monumental effort to assign our remaining fossil-fuel allowance to manufacture and install renewable energy technologies in an effort to vastly reduce fossil-fuel consumption in the future. And there will be significant challenges in designing and operating an electricity grid based on intermittent sources: a combination electricity storage and managing electricity demand by industry and households will be required. It is likely that natural gas generation will be required in Alberta as a back-up when demand exceeds generation.

In summary, when one wonders what renewable energy is today, think of it as improving efficiency (making more energy from each unit of fossil fuel energy), and think of it as a means of reducing pollution.

We live in a full world: renewable energy technologies are an existing way to do better and begin to reduce our environmental impact. 

 

GreenHouse Gas Fact Sheet
PDF FORMAT

(Back to Index)



What are your emissions?

We hear in the media a lot of talk about greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, but few of us know how we contribute or how to calculate them for our own lives. And since it was probably this New Year’s Resolution to learn, cut this out of The Lethbridge Herald and attached it to the fridge door!

Now, dig out your solar powered calculator and your utility bills (or phone your provider) and follow along:

Home heating (natural gas):
Add up the GJs on your bill and multiply this number by 0.056 for your tonnes of GHGs.

For example, for a house that uses 120 GJ of natural gas over a year:
120 x 0.056 = 6.7 tonnes of GHGs.

Note:  The average home in Alberta uses roughly 120 GJ of natural gas. This also includes the energy required to heat domestic hot water (DHW) and for your natural gas barbeque or gas range, if you have one. The amount of natural gas you purchase reflects the amount of energy your home loses to the environment (mainly in the winter). This depends completely on the temperature of your home, the temperature outside, and how well insulated your home is.

Reduction:  The best way of reducing your natural gas consumption is to lower your thermostat, particularly when you are not in the home. A home will heat up quickly when you return and turn up the thermostat, or you may install a programmable thermostat if your coming and going is more predictable. You may also keep your home cooler and wear a sweater and slippers, put a heavier blanket on the bed, or heat only the rooms you are using (closing the vents a little in the rooms you are not typically spending time in).

Myth: that cooling and re-heating a home takes more energy than the amount of energy saved. This is simply not true, though homes made of concrete or other high heat capacity materials may take longer to heat back up.

Electricity:

Add up the kWh for the year and multiply this total by 0.000688 for your tonnes of GHGs.

For example, for a house in Alberta that uses 7200 kWh of electricity over a year:
7200 x 0.000688 = 10.2 tonnes of GHGs.

Note: the emissions from electricity depends on what technology-mix is used to generate the electricity to begin with. Alberta is roughly 50% coal-generated, with 40% being generated from natural gas, with thermal efficiencies ranging from 30% for some coal plants to 50% for some natural gas plants.

Reduction: Electricity consumption in a typical home is dominated by the refrigerator and the freezer. Not running additional refrigerators or freezers in the home is an easy approach to reducing electricity consumption. Allowing the home to heat up a bit in the summer before running an air conditioner is a good way to save energy and, of course, turning off lights and devices when not in use can help. Remote-controlled devices should be put on a switch that can be shut off – some research has indicated that as much as 10% of a home’s electricity consumption is what is called ‘phantom load’ – the energy used to keep televisions and stereos ready to switch on with the remote control [i].

Driving (gasoline):


Multiply your gas mileage by the number of kilometers you drove in the past year and multiply by 0.0024 for your tonnes of GHGs.

For example, for a car that uses 12.1 litres per 100 kilometers driving 15,600 km last year:
12.1 x 15,600 / 100 = 1890 liters purchased. So, 1890 litres x 0.0024 = 4.5 tonnes.

For a return trip from Lethbridge to Calgary: 12.1 litres per 100 kilometers driving 450 km:
12.1 x 450 / 100 = 55 liters purchased. So, 55 litres x 0.0024 = 0.13 tonnes
Did you need to make this trip? Could you have planned to travel with other people going the same way?

Reduction: Cars range widely in performance, so a better performing car can reduce your emissions substantially (and the cost at the pump). If you don’t need a large vehicle or truck, consider a smaller vehicle for around town. Planning car trips to include a number of chores, rather than going out multiple times is an easy way to reduce mileage. And keeping your car well maintained, including tire pressure, can help improve your vehicle performance. And, maybe, once in a while, try walking or biking instead of driving. Lethbridge has extensive plans to improve bicycle and pedestrian trails in the city.

For individual emissions, you can divide these numbers by the number of people living in the home or travelling in the car.

Food is tricky, but important:
Assuming you eat about 2600 calories a day, and according to Canadian statistics we waste about 40% from farm to fork.

(Interestingly, 20% of this is lost in our homes – for more information go to wasteless.ca).
Our food is responsible for about 2.5 tonnes per person for a Canada Food Guide diet.
This may be lower if you eat less meat or waste less food.

Note: Food is tricky because it depends a lot on how much you waste, where your food comes from, how it was grown, how it was transported and stored, and what your diet is comprised of [ii].  Generic data on the fossil energy embodied in our food can be useful, but it takes some context to know what is best for you at your location.

Now, what about your flying holiday?


Google the flying distance between your home and your destination. Let’s say Lethbridge to Madrid, which is a 15,700 km return flight. Multiply this total by 0.000111 for your individual GHG emissions. In this example, 15,700 x 0.000111 = 1.7 tonnes.

Emissions for other popular destinations (return) using Air Miles Calculator:

Lethbridge to Puerto Vallarta: 6600 km = 0.7 tonnes

Lethbridge to Toronto: 5200 km = 0.6 tonnes

Lethbridge to New York: 6300 km = 0.7 tonnes

Lethbridge to Hong Kong: 21,600 km = 2.4 tonnes

Lethbridge to Sydney, Australia: 26,400 km = 3.0 tonnes

Adding it all up, with two people in the home, the personal GHG emission is just about 15 tonnes per year.


This number would actually be a little low, as it does not include the emissions in the production and transportation of all of our consumer items.

The published number for Canadians is 16.7 tonnes per year which includes everything inside and outside our homes. By comparison, the United States is 15.7 tonnes per person; China is 7.7 tonnes; European Union is 7.0 tonnes; and India is 1.8 tonnes.

It is important to consider both individual emissions and the sort of emissions that come from countries. In general terms, individual emissions reflect the level of affluence, which can be controlled. But it also reflects things that are less controllable like the climate you live in, and the way the urban environment was designed, including long driving distances between home, work and play.

A country’s emissions become more important as governments dictate the incentives and disincentives to reducing emissions, and the type of economies developed (high energy product