| Climate change has become the cause célèbre of the environmental movement. Global in scope, its potential consequences reach all nations of the world. It is the perfect environmental cause. Unlike disappearing spotted owls or Amazon rainforests, climate change can't be blamed on someone else, and it can't be shrugged off. The issue has been gaining momentum; it has become the keystone Canadian political issue in recent months, and more and more it's developing into the de facto number-one environmental issue. Increasingly, alarming reports about the state of global oceans and fish stocks and the protection of individual endangered species have taken a back seat to the global span of climate change.
There is no doubt that climate change is an issue to be taken seriously. As the scientific consensus around global warming strengthens and as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statements warn of its potential effects with increased certainty, it is simply necessary to begin working towards a solution. Certainly, the Canadian government (both the Liberals, who signed Kyoto and shirked it for years, and Conservatives, who dawdled further until public opinion seemed to spike) should have acted sooner to protect Canada's reputation as a country that leads in creating global solutions. Are we, however, becoming blind to other issues in the clamour for Canada to push towards our Kyoto targets?
The Conservative government's recent action on air emissions has been highly criticized for not doing enough, and it is more than likely to anger the other Kyoto signatories who have taken more significant action. However, the ramifications of the Conservatives' current emissions plan could already be quite serious.
An unintended consequence of the fight against climate change is a resurgence of interest in generating energy from nuclear fission. While nuclear power isn't a favourite of environmentalists, it generates electricity without generating carbon dioxide. Looking to meet growing energy demand without the accompanying emissions, and in the face of rising hydrocarbon prices, many nations are beginning to look more favourably on nuclear power. While it may potentially be part of the climate change solution, the ramifications of storing spent nuclear fuel are still unclear. Many countries are working on facilities to store nuclear fuel deep below the earth’s surface, but a successful project has yet to be completed. Whether these facilities will be able to protect the radioactive material for the necessary – and incomprehensible – 100,000 years is something no one can say with certainty.
Talk of building a nuclear facility has been bouncing about the Alberta oilsands industry for the past year or so as a solution to high gas prices and as a means to reduce greenhouse gases. The issue was raised again this month at the Alberta Tories’ annual general meeting. To date, the idea of using nuclear energy to power oilsands production has not been considered in earnest, but under the new climate change plan, industry is going to have to begin reducing the carbon dioxide it generates for every barrel of oil it produces, and that corresponds to an added cost for burning hydrocarbons. Faced with this added carbon charge, corporations that were considering nuclear as a potential economic option to high gas prices will find added incentive in the new carbon costs.
Another means of generating carbon-free energy is through hydro-electric projects. Large-scale hydro dams have long faced environmental opposition for their ability to alter rivers and surrounding land, but it is "small-scale" hydro that is currently raising interest. While much smaller than conventional dams, small hydro still requires the damming or diversion of considerable amounts of water from rivers or streams, but because these projects are considered both small and renewable many of them do not require environmental assessments. Small hydro has the potential to be a vast source of renewable energy, but the environmental impact of diverting water from hundreds of rivers and streams is something that shouldn't go unassessed.
One of the new federal climate change plan’s main actions is to pump $2 billion annually into ethanol and other bio-fuels (see "Strange Brew," by David P. Williams, Viewpoint, April 26-May 02, 2007). Ethanol fuel produced in North America, mostly from corn and grain, is far less efficient than the sugar cane derived ethanol that has become such a large part of Brazil's fuel stock. Many studies show that ethanol takes nearly as much energy to produce as it contains. Also, these subsidies will go towards an already heavily subsidized agricultural sector, taking away from the development of nations (such as Brazil) from where Canada could acquire cheaper ethanol. The push to generate ethanol will also take corn and grain intended for food and turn it to fuel. While reports differ (often depending on the interests of those conducting them), large percentages of Canada's farmland will be needed to make any material impact on greenhouse gases.
Canadian society, with its cold winters and resource-heavy economy, is one of the world’s most energy intensive. As one of the world's highest per capita emitters, Canada should take a greater role in curbing climate change. However, Canada's high need for energy means that the move to reduce carbon emissions will not be easy. Options such as nuclear, small hydro and bio-fuels will have to play a part generating the energy we need. These options may be the right solution for Canada and Alberta, but they all carry costs and consequences that should be assessed. Canada did not get off to a quick start meeting its Kyoto obligations, but sprinting to catch up may not be the best solution. |
Copyright ©2007 FFWD. All rights reserved.