Is the 1.5 C target on the climate emergency still possible?

I’d like to feel optimistic that we can limit the amount of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere but a number of things are conspiring against a target of 1.5 C.

image: DW

Delegates at the recent climate conference in Egypt reflected those conflicting things. Unable to come up with anything positive to say after the conference was supposed to end, they spent extra days just to come up with something to agree on. In the end, a pretty timid agreement, a “loss and damage” fund was established with no money in it.

What delegates at the COP27conference didn’t say was deafening.

They failed to build on the pledges made a year ago at COP26 in Glasgow to eliminate coal. In effect, oil and gas has been given a new lease on life.

They struggled to prevent COP27 from being the conference where the target of 1.5 C dies. But I have to wonder. The target is on life support.

In the face of our conspicuous climate emergency, the target of 1.5 C was supposed to slow the cauldron of ever-rising, heat-trapping carbon emissions. The target refers to the goal, set out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, to limit global average temperature increases to 1.5 C above preindustrial levels.

Most climate scientists agree that allowing temperatures to rise beyond that level will destroy some low-lying countries as polar and mountain ice melts and water levels rise – and even pose an existential threat to the whole planet.

Delegates made no fresh pledges to ramp up their carbon-reduction plans, nor did the final statement call for the phasing down and eventual elimination of all fossil fuels.

Calls at the conference to keep 1.5 alive were futilely repeated. On the day before the official end of the conference, the Brazilian head of climate and energy policy for WWF International, said: “This cannot be the COP where we lose 1.5. … It is in danger, and we need an energy transition fast.”

The Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands said allowing temperature increases to surpass 1.5 degrees would deliver a “death warrant” to his Pacific island country.

One of the things that’s put a target 0f 1.5 C in doubt is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe, on the road to green energy sources, hit a detour. Germany had invested heavily in wind and solar energy with natural gas from Russia as backup.

Now Germany uses coal to generate one-third of electrical needs.

The disastrous effects of a rise in 1.1 C has already been felt. B.C. has suffered from a trio of disasters: wildfires that decimate land and contribute to respiratory disease; the heat wave of 2021 that resulted in the death of 619; the atmospheric river -Canada’s 8th worst natural disaster- cost $675M in insurance losses and $1 billion to repair the Coquihalla.

Twenty seven per cent of the greenhouse gasses that we produce comes from transportation. One-half of that comes from the vehicles we drive to work and to go shopping.

Most discouraging, our car culture is built into society. Suburbs are dependent on cars. Public transit is not an option for many.

We are locked into an increasing consumption of fossil fuels and the concurrent greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s hard to see how we can limit carbon emissions to 1.5 C when the burning of fossil fuels is built into our way of life.

Is the 1.5 C target on the climate emergency still possible?

I’d like to feel optimistic that we can limit the amount of carbon we are pumping into the atmosphere but a number of things are conspiring against a target of 1.5 C.

Delegates at the recent climate conference in Egypt reflected those conflicting things. Unable to come up with anything positive to say after the conference was supposed to end, they spent extra days just to come up with something to agree on. In the end, a pretty timid agreement, a “loss and damage” fund was established with no money in it.

What delegates at the COP27conference didn’t say was deafening.

They failed to build on the pledges made a year ago at COP26 in Glasgow to eliminate coal. In effect, oil and gas has been given a new lease on life.

They struggled to prevent COP27 from being the conference where the target of 1.5 C dies. But I have to wonder. The target is on life support.

In the face of our conspicuous climate emergency, the target of 1.5 C was supposed to slow the cauldron of ever-rising, heat-trapping carbon emissions. The target refers to the goal, set out in the 2015 Paris climate agreement, to limit global average temperature increases to 1.5 C above preindustrial levels.

Most climate scientists agree that allowing temperatures to rise beyond that level will destroy some low-lying countries as polar and mountain ice melts and water levels rise – and even pose an existential threat to the whole planet.

Delegates made no fresh pledges to ramp up their carbon-reduction plans, nor did the final statement call for the phasing down and eventual elimination of all fossil fuels.

Calls at the conference to keep 1.5 alive were futilely repeated. On the day before the official end of the conference, the Brazilian head of climate and energy policy for WWF International, said: “This cannot be the COP where we lose 1.5. … It is in danger, and we need an energy transition fast.”

The Foreign Minister of the Marshall Islands said allowing temperature increases to surpass 1.5 degrees would deliver a “death warrant” to his Pacific island country.

One of the things that’s put a target 0f 1.5 C in doubt is Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Europe, on the road to green energy sources, hit a detour. Germany had invested heavily in wind and solar energy with natural gas from Russia as backup.

Now Germany uses coal to generate one-third of electrical needs.

The disastrous effects of a rise in 1.1 C has already been felt. B.C. has suffered from a trio of disasters: wildfires that decimate land and contribute to respiratory disease; the heat wave of 2021 that resulted in the death of 619; the atmospheric river -Canada’s 8th worst natural disaster- cost $675M in insurance losses and $1 billion to repair the Coquihalla.

Twenty seven per cent of the greenhouse gasses that we produce comes from transportation. One-half of that comes from the vehicles we drive to work and to go shopping.

Most discouraging, our car culture is built into society. Suburbs are dependent on cars. Public transit is not an option for many.

We are locked into an increasing consumption of fossil fuels and the concurrent greenhouse gas emissions.

It’s hard to see how we can limit carbon emissions to 1.5 C when the burning of fossil fuels is built into our way of life.

Advertisement

Canada goes nuclear

Canada is third in the world in replacing fossil fuels with nuclear. France and Sweden have replaced almost all of their fossil-fuelled generated electricity with nuclear power. Now France generates only six per cent of electricity with fossil fuels and Sweden only one per cent.

Darlington Nuclear Plant, Ontario

Canada comes behind France and Sweden in replacing fossil fuels. Now fossil fuels generate 19 per cent of our electricity. Canada has an advantage with hydroelectricity: hydro generates 59 per cent of our total.  Nuclear generates 15 per cent and wind/solar generate 7 per cent.

Ontario is mainly responsible for Canada’s third place position. In 2003, the Ontario government started phasing out coal-fired generators. At the time, coal generated one-quarter of the province’s electricity. By 2014, coal was gone. Now 60 per cent of Ontario’s electricity comes from nuclear plants, not far behind France at 77 per cent (Globe and Mail, June 21, 2019).

Other countries aren’t even close to top three. In the United States, 67 per cent of electricity comes from fossil fuels. In Germany, despite massive subsidies for wind and solar, 55 per cent of their electricity comes from fossil fuels.

Nuclear energy is the most dangerous source of electricity in the world, except for the alternative. Nuclear meltdowns are spectacular but deaths are much fewer than those from fossil fuels.

The explosion at the Chernobyl Nuclear Plant in 1986 killed 50 first responders and will likely kill 25,000 from cancer resulting from radiation. There were no direct deaths from radiation when a tsunami hit the Fukushima Nuclear station in 2011 but radiation from the plant is expected to generate 180 cases of cancer. Fukushima was second largest nuclear disaster in history, after Chernobyl.

The burning of fossil fuels, mainly coal, causes 7.3 million premature deaths annually according to the World Health Organization. Not all of those deaths are from the production of electricity but coal generates 41 per cent of the world’s electricity. Extrapolating those numbers means that coal sourced electricity kills 3 million people annually.

The burning of fossil fuels is the greatest threat to humanity. Our very existence in some parts of the planet is at risk due to climate change.

Misconceptions over nuclear energy abound. One in three Canadians think nuclear power plants emit as much carbon dioxide as burning oil. Almost three in 10 think it emits more. Nuclear energy plants emit no carbon dioxide.

You hear about the nuclear plants that blow up or melt down but not much about the about 450 now in operation, most in the U.S., with 60 more reactors under construction worldwide.

Nuclear plants have their problems. They are expensive to build and disposal of spent radioactive fuel is controversial.

Nuclear power is a taboo topic in politics. I can guarantee that you won’t hear any of the leaders of Canada’s three main political parties even mention the word nuclear prior to the upcoming federal election.

Environmentalists despise nuclear energy as being too risky. Some unions support it, such as the Power Workers Union who placed full-page ads in the Globe and Mail praising nuclear power. Most Canadians, I suspect, would rather not think about it.

Renewable energy welcomes the Alberta NDP

Big Oil might be quivering in their boots at the prospect of having to pay fair royalty rates to the province but the renewable energy sector is looking forward to the NDP in Alberta.

Fossil fuels have had a grip on the province that stifles energy innovation. Renewal energy companies are feeling more optimistic with the NDP. Despite much talk by the previous government, not much happened.

“For six or seven years, the previous government had white papers and round tables,” said Kent Brown, president of Calgary-based BluEarth Renewables Inc. “We were caught in the uncertainty and lack of decision making. The new government has a great opportunity to make some decisions now.”

One of the things holding back the development of renewable energy has been slavish devotion to the marketplace. Yes, free markets are great at determining the price of shoes but energy is a different matter.

Under Alberta’s deregulated electricity market, utilities have no incentive to develop renewable energy says Jared Donald, president of Conergy in Calgary. In Alberta’s energy market, customers get to choose which electricity utilities they want to buy from. With twice as many marketers as there are utilities, there’s no lack of choice. Albertan’s generally select the cheapest utility.

That’s fine for buying shoes as long as the shoes are not choking the atmosphere and threatening the planet. Fossil fuels are not like other consumer items. Alberta currently uses coal for 43 per cent of its electricity and natural gas for 40 per cent.

Jared Donald told the business section of the Globe and Mail that one crucial change the new government could make would be a shift away from the fully deregulated electricity market. Power producers charge fluctuating prices depending on supply and demand at any particular moment. This leaves utilities stuck on fossil fuels.

Deregulated fossil fuel energy means there is little incentive to build anything but the cheapest source, usually new natural gas-fired power plants. Solar, wind and hydro plants have greater up-front costs, and are thus harder to finance under the current regime, even though they require no fuel once they are complete.

“If you are uncertain about what the energy market is going to be, you don’t spend the big capital dollars up front,” Jared Donald. That provides an “incentive to make short-sighted decisions.” It will take government intervention to change the pricing and financing of electricity generation to encourage renewables, he added.

The wind energy industry, too, is keen on expanding in Alberta, but it also has issues with the market pricing of electricity said Tim Weis from the Edmonton-based Canadian Wind Energy Association.

One solution would be for the province to set a “clean electricity standard,” that would force power retailers to sign contracts with some renewable suppliers.

As the province with the youngest population in Canada, Albertans are ready for innovation. Cogeneration plants now produce 31% of needs. While they still use fossil fuels they also use biomass, such as livestock manure, to simultaneously generate both electricity and steam for industrial process. Cogeneration substantially reduces net greenhouse gas emissions.