Wildly unpredictable weather, rising sea levels, tropical storms and drought – the effects of climate change are diverse and increasingly ubiquitous. Whether it was the flooding in the Philippines last fall or snowstorms presumed improbable in Eastern Canada, global warming is in the headlines and on everybody’s lips, no matter where in the world you are living. According to the UN’s weather agency this decade is on track to be the hottest since record-keeping began in 1850; 2009 has been the fifth-warmest year ever recorded.
But the collective global response necessary to avert disaster is being compromised through slow political processes, legislative red tape and the reluctance of governments – particularly Canada’s – to collaborate.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s hesitation to attend negotiations at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen and the country’s embarrassing environmental record have been met with disapproval at home and abroad. The issue has tainted Canada’s image on the international stage and continues to spark debate throughout the provinces.
Carbon capture and storage
In Saskatchewan, much of the debate about how to respond to climate change centres on a fairly new technology, carbon capture and storage. Carbon capture and storage is a way to diminish fossil fuel emissions by keeping carbon out of the atmosphere. The carbon dioxide is captured, separated from other gases and transported away from the source through a pipe. It is then stored underground or pumped into oil and gas reservoirs that are nearing depletion to enhance oil recovery, drastically reducing carbon dioxide emissions.
Concerns
There are still a lot of unanswered questions about carbon capture and storage technology. The underground carbon could affect groundwater chemistry, for example. And there’s the danger of leakage – highly concentrated carbon may pose a risk to human, animal and plant health in the surrounding area if a leak did occur. And besides, if the technology is used for enhanced oil recovery, it may not actually serve to reduce greenhouse gases.
According to Dr. Malcolm Wilson, director of the International Test Centre for carbon dioxide capture at the University of Regina, many concerns come from misunderstandings about carbon capture and storage, like that the carbon dioxide released into the air during capture is dangerous to human health. “All the emissions that take place from the capturing are pretty well non-toxic,” he said in a telephone interview from Copenhagen, where he was attending the UN climate change conference.
The huge price tag on carbon capture and storage is another source of debate. According to an article in Earth Magazine, “constructing a state-of-the-art coal-fired power plant designed to efficiently capture carbon dioxide costs at least a billion dollars. Retrofitting existing plants with carbon capture technology is less expensive initially, but it significantly reduces the plant’s efficiency, making the equipment prohibitively expensive to operate in the long run.”
But choices need to be made. “It’s a manageable expense… one we have to bear,” Wilson said. “It’s all a matter of scale and perception,” he continued, pointing out the much larger environmental return on investment from carbon capture and storage (removing thousands of tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere) to that from a hybrid car (a much smaller investment for a minuscule reduction in comparison).
Government on board
The Saskatchewan government has supported the technology from the beginning. The first commercial carbon capture and storage project in the world was stationed in Weyburn in 2007 and was co-founded by Wilson. This project is currently the world’s largest carbon capture and storage project, garnering international attention, and it continues to squeeze more use out of the oil field it was built on. About 28,000 barrels of oil are pumped out per day – 18,000 barrels more than would be produced without using carbon dioxide.
Excited by success in Weyburn, the federal government has earmarked $650 million for carbon capture and storage projects. The Saskatchewan government hopes to secure $100 million of this for a joint project between the province and Montana. This project would see carbon dioxide from a coal-fired power plant in southern Saskatchewan piped to Montana and stored underground. Right now, Montana is trying to obtain funding from the Obama administration to uphold its end of the bargain.
While this massive project is put on hold, the issue of carbon capture and storage remains hot in the province. In September 2009, 150 scientists from 18 different countries attended a workshop in Regina to discuss the future of the technology. Around the same time, Brad Wall welcomed three U.S. officials, including the ambassador to Canada, to view Saskatchewan’s carbon sequestration technologies – being dubbed “Canada’s Carbon Diplomat” by some media.
There is clear government support on both the provincial and federal levels for carbon capture and storage as a means to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. However, many climate change experts are skeptical of the technology’s long-term value.
Putting a price on carbon
Dr. Jeremy Rayner, head of the political science department at the University of Regina, described carbon capture and storage as “putting a lot of eggs into a basket which may not turn out to do the job we hope it would.”
While he does not see the technology as an effective solution to climate change, he says it may buy researchers the time to develop other, more sustainable sources of energy. This may be particularly beneficial in Saskatchewan, which according to the Saskatchewan Environmental Society, has the second-highest greenhouse gas emissions per capita of any jurisdiction in the world.
Climate change specialist for the David Suzuki Foundation, Ian Bruce, cautions against adopting carbon capture and storage unless it is coupled with strong legislation to limit emissions.
“Putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions has been shown to be one of the most effective means of spurring clean energy solutions,” he said.
Indeed, a study published by the David Suzuki Foundation and the Pembina Institute in October 2009 shows that “a significant price on greenhouse gas emissions applied across the entire economy, combined with strong complementary regulations and public investments, will enable Canada to reduce its net emissions to 25 per cent below the 1990 level by 2020.” The report lists carbon capture and storage as one of five key emission reduction opportunities, but emphasizes the need for the federal government to “implement far stronger policies than it has proposed to date.”
The study concludes that greenhouse gas emissions can be significantly reduced while maintaining national economic growth. But since Alberta and Saskatchewan’s economies depend heavily on the coal-fired electricity and petroleum sectors, which emit enormous amounts of carbon dioxide, putting a price on emissions would hinder economic growth in those provinces.
This worries Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall. “If we end up in North America with levies that go to government as a tax, then I have a big issue with that,” he told the National Post in December.
“That’s a transfer of wealth. All that money should be poured back into finding answers. If cap and trade goes to anything other than renewables or technology research then it is not environmental policy but a tax,” he continued.
On the other hand, carbon capture and storage could present a “win-win” situation, Saskatchewan energy minister Bill Boyd told the Canadian Press – “a win for the environment, a win in terms of the economics of it and certainly a win in terms of the enhanced oil recovery, which in turn again fuels the economics of it.”
But according to Bruce, the eagerness of politicians to support carbon capture and storage without simultaneously implementing a capping system or carbon tax hinders the movement to find a logical, sustainable means to reduce carbon emissions.
Rayner agrees. “The system won’t change unless we put a value, in this case a negative value, on greenhouse gas emissions. If we don’t, we will go on as usual for as long as possible,” he said.
In the meantime, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow; the nation ranks first among the G8 for increasing emissions.
This is 3 times now that i’ve happened upon on your website in the last three days while searching Yahoo for absolutely unrelated things. Kinda funny. Keep up the good articles!