Comments on: Peddling GHGs: How much does BC export?

By: Karlin

Karlin — Sat, 15 Jan 2011 18:56:18 +0000

This is a good idea in general, but there are some shortcomings in the solutions suggested.

For starters, CCS [sequestration of CO2] is not a sure thing. The world’s largest CCS experiment in Weyburn Saskatchewan is allready seeing evidence of the main concern with CCS – “will it just percolate up later on?”.

YES – nearby farmer Kerr is hearing blowouts of pressurised gasses and odd foamy stuff and algae growing in the gravel pits. That is most likely the pressurised CO2 coming to the surface.

What is the point in spending $Billions on CCS if the emissions are going to get to the atmosphere eventually?

The other problem is the timeline of “shutting in all of BC’s coal mines by 2015″. That will be a major economic shock, esp. for the coal miners. We need to give them more time, or, we should have started long ago [like about 1990 when the world woke up to the problem of Global Warming]. I do agree that AGW is a worse problem than unemployment for a few 1000 people, but still… How about 2020 as a goal for a gradual phase out of coal exports?

Finally, natural gas is a much cleaner fuel than coal or crude oil, and CO2 emissions would be reduced if we used natural gas in vehicles instead of gasoline, and in power plants instead of coal.

I do, however, appreciate the Dogwood persistence in finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions, and your research into BC coal. We definitely should NOT be opening new coal mines [if some are planned].

By: gudrun

gudrun — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 02:48:25 +0000

I was at Globe 2010 ( a fair/conf in Vancouver) and saw a large number of companies that help with clean-up of the environment, carbon offsets/ traders and get this, even a company that purports to engage in “sustainable” mining.
Seems to me that we would be much further ahead if we didn’t mess up this stuff in the first place…
I just started to read a book: Bozo Sapiens, Why to Err is Human by Michael Kaplan and Ellen Kaplan – so far it is a fantastic read! I highly recommend it – get it from your public library.
\gl

By: Erich Burton

Erich Burton — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 23:07:54 +0000

How about the sickness and malnutrition from dumping de-nutrified food aid to developing countries, driving local farmers out of business!

By: Scott Andrews

Scott Andrews — Tue, 23 Mar 2010 05:34:16 +0000

Yes it makes sense that our GHG emission be higher, but it is the scale to which we emit that is embarrassing. We emit three times the CO2 per person than France does! The days of lining up for the tunnel by yourself in your van or station wagon have to end if we are to preserve our reputation as a progressive global citizen.

Scott

By: JFK

JFK — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 21:18:34 +0000

The small towns that have to drive excessive distance to get to civilization compared to countries that are crammed like sardines with 2 or 3 generations living together in one apartment because there’s no room to build anymore. Then there are acres of cattle, pigs and poultry compared to places that have no place to grow anymore. There are acres and acres of grain to be harvested; Canada is about the world’s fifth largest producer of food which has repercussions on GHG (Canada’s Greenhouse Gas). In a recent Iowa State University of Science and Technology broken down the United States Department of Agriculture report as US importing 5.7% of its food from European Union which is its highest import and then 4.7% from Canada which is its second option for imported food and agriculture has high GHG. Vegetarian used high GHG as a negative for live stock for many years, its nothing new. I’ve heard the oil sand but there claim is GHG: 80% of GHG comes from use of the product rather than production: http://www.kairos-calgary.ca/event20100206Notes.php and considering 80% of GHG comes from the burning of fossil fuel and a country like Canada that is so widely spread out it would make sense that our GHG is a little higher population than other countries like Asia that has no room to move.

JFK
twitter.com/economicblow

By: William Hayes

William Hayes — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 18:21:12 +0000

You have asked a good question, Iglika Ivanova.

My answer: Instead of starting our thinking about resources from a perspective of existing power relations among the nations of the world, we can start from a perspective of existing human needs of the peoples of those nations.

Some one must make the first move. I propose that it be Canada–and B.C..

By: Eric Doherty

Eric Doherty — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 03:49:57 +0000

Sequestering carbon dioxide is unlikely to be feasible on the scale needed to ever again burn fossil fuels on the scale we are now. Or at least we should not count on it.

Most of the coal probably needs to stay in the ground for ever, and the first step is to stop opening new coal mines. Good timing, the Wilderness Committee has a campaign on this – http://wildernesscommittee.org/publication/british_columbia/coal_bc%E2%80%99s_dirty_secret

By: Kevin Washbrook

Kevin Washbrook — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 19:04:40 +0000

This is an important story that needs to be told. BC’s coal exports are a dirty secret that contradict our image as a green leader.

The fundamental truth we need to acknowledge is that if we are to be certain to avoid runaway changes in the earth’s climate, all of the carbon trapped in coal needs to stay out of the atmosphere. Since we don’t currently have any effective way of capturing that carbon, the coal needs to stay in the ground.

By: Iglika Ivanova

Iglika Ivanova — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:08:35 +0000

That is an interesting way of thinking about it.

But how do you propose to achieve equality in consumption or standard of living or what have you among different jurisdictions (provinces, countries) starting out from different resource endowments? Somebody has to export for the people in the resource-poor places to consume.

Granted, the current pattern of exports doesn’t contribute towards equalization of living standards. But penalizing exporters by full GHG accounting at the point of origin may fly in the face of redistributional objectives if it ends up leading to countries only extracting resources for domestic consumption.

By: William Hayes

William Hayes — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 18:07:09 +0000

“When it comes to law and order, we have learned not to crack down on the users of drugs, but focus our efforts on the dealers. So what if it turns out that beautiful BC is running the resource economics equivalent of a meth lab?”

Interesting question.

Quebec might ask a similar question about out-of-province sickness and death that results from exports of asbestos.

The U.S. similarly might ask about the out-of-country sickness and death resulting from exports of cigarettes.