Category: Canada

Anything related to Canada or Canadians

Spying on North American weather

Most weather systems in the Atlantic move from west to east. As a result, the Allies had a tactical advantage during the Second World War. Their weather stations in North America provided information that was useful for making plans in the Atlantic and European theatres of war.

The Germans made a creative effort to alter that balance by secretly planting a weather station in Labrador. The automated station was transported by U-boat and installed under cover of fog. Unfortunately for the Germans, the station only operated for a few days and the U-boat sent to repair it got sunk.

You can see the weather station on display at the Canadian War Museum, which is free on Thursday evenings.

The oil sands in the Obama era

With the election of Barack Obama, Canadian politicians seem to be taking the initiative in raising the issue of future climate change policy in North America. The situation is a complicated one, particularly given tensions between climate change mitigation objectives and aspirations for energy security. A further complication arises because of overlapping jurisdictions. US states, Canadian provinces, and regional initiatives are all working on climate change mitigation. To some extent, this federal government-to-government bid seems designed to supplant that. Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon has expressed the hope that a Canada-US deal could “provide uniformity and supplant the patchwork of plans that are being implemented in various states and provinces.” While uniformly good policies would certainly be a step forward, there is the distinct danger that more innovative and committed jurisdictions will be forced down towards mediocrity, and that time will be wasted as reorganization occurs.

In the end, the oil sands are both a huge financial temptation and a hugely sensitive regional issue. How they end up being treated will have a lot to do with the extent to which national governments are willing to consider overall societal welfare, as opposed to the more volatile interests of specific groups, as well as the degree to which either government is willing to bear political risks in order to achieve their existing mitigation targets. I don’t think it can be realistically argued that current oil sands policy is anything other than selfish and reckless. That is on account of both the near-term ecological damage arising from oil sands extraction and refining, as well as the long-term climatic threats associated with using such dirty fuels.

One element of the Globe and Mail reporting is rather misleading. It says that “the oil sands are comparable to conventional sources of oil, if the companies implement so-called carbon-capture-and-storage technology.” It is a bit laughable to say that two things are comparable, provided an entirely untested technology is instantly deployed in a widespread fashion. Particularly given the falling price of oil, the possibility that oil sands extraction with carbon capture and storage has the potential to be a low-carbon and economically attractive source of energy seems very dubious.

Hard Choices

Edited by Harold Coward and Andrew Weaver, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada is a mixed bag. The chapters vary considerably in their usefulness, as well as their contemporary relevance. Clearly, a lot has changed since the book was published in 2004. Topics covered include climatic science, projected impacts in Canada, carbon sinks, technology, economics, adaptation, legal issues, the Kyoto Protocol, and the ethics of climate change. Of those, the science section has probably held up best.

The most problematic chapters are those on technology and economics. The technology chapter criticizes renewables, boosts nuclear, and promotes the ‘hydrogen economy’ without a great deal of strong analysis or argumentation. For instance, it argues that the costs of nuclear power are almost fully internalized: a very strange position to take given the hundreds of millions of dollars worth of subsidies, loan guarantees, and liability restrictions granted to nuclear operators around the world. The chapter also singularly fails to address the many problems with hydrogen as a fuel. Finally, the assertion that crippling the world economy would be “as deadly as any climate change scenario” underscores the degree to which this volume fails in general to consider the real but unknown probability of a catastrophic outcome that threatens civilization itself.

The economics chapter basically asserts that since the Kyoto Protocol would cost money and not stop climate change in and of itself, we should simply focus on adaptation. It ignores both the fact that international action on problems like climate change (ozone, acid raid, etc) needs to be built up progressively, starting with instruments not capable of single-handedly addressing the problem. Having the international community jump instantly from no legal constraints on greenhouse gas emissions to a regime that controls all emissions in an effective way is asking far too much. The chapter also fails to take seriously the possibility of catastrophic outcomes from unchecked warming. Not all levels of change can be adapted to.

The chapter on ethics is very strange. After a brief secular portion focused on which entities are owed moral duties, it becomes a survey of world religions, arguing that each one sees selfishness as wrong. From this, it is concluded that Hinduism, Islam, Christianity, etc all yield an ethical obligation to fight climate change. A more practical and serious consideration of who owes what to who on account of climate change would have been a lot more useful. Even in terms of comparative religion, the chapter feels rather sloppy. Just because you can point to a few statements about selflessness in the doctrine of many different faiths does not mean they would all come to the same moral position on climate change. All kinds of real moral questions persist: from how much risk it is allowable to impose on future generations, to who should pay the costs of adapting to the additional warming already locked into the climatic system. The chapter fails to shed light on issues of this type.

In the end, I don’t think there is anything in Hard Choices that isn’t said in a better or more up-to-date way somewhere else. For those seeking to educate themselves on climate change, this book is not a good investment of time.

Canada: asbestos booster

Chrysotile asbestos is the only version of the material that is still sold. Nonetheless, it has been judged to post major risks to human health and the environment. As such, it is especially shameful that Canada has been trying to prevent its international restriction, apparently in deference to a few companies in Quebec that still produce it.

The other states seeking to block its inclusion in the Rotterdam Convention are India, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Peru and Ukraine. All its inclusion would mandate is the “prior informed consent” of both exporting and importing states, before the substance is traded internationally. In practical terms, that means the material must be properly labelled and include instructions for safe handling. It also requires that importers be informed of any known restrictions or bans on the use of the material. The Canadian Medical Association has accused Canada of participating in a “death-dealing charade.”

Hopefully, the Canadian government can be shamed into changing its position. The fact that Parliament has spent more than a decade laboriously removing asbestos from its own buildings is a clear sign that they understand the danger.

Population control in the rich world

There is a lot of talk about reproductive choice in the developing world, and it is extremely important. All human beings have the right to engage in sexual activity on the basis of their free choices and have children only when it is their will to do so. It is an important role of the state to ensure that those rights are not violated.

That being said, there seems to be a disjuncture between concern about rising populations in the developing world and environmental problems. All else being equal, more humans tends to mean more threats to the ecosystems that sustain us. Of course, not all else is equal. People in rich states consume dramatically more resources than those in poor ones. This is true in terms of energy resources (oil, coal, gas, uranium), food resources (especially meat), and climatic impact.

Certainly, we should work to give reproductive control to people (especially women) living in developing states. However, given the concerning destruction of the natural world, does it not make sense to reduce policies that encourage reproduction in rich states? I am not advocating mandatory limits on bearing children. I am simply suggesting that it may be prudent to reduce the degree to which taxpayers in general subsidize those who choose to breed. Even with ample fossil fuels, the world is groaning and straining because of the current human population – especially those who live especially unsustainable lives in rich states. When we reach the point where those fuels are depleted – or when we refrain from using them due to climate concerns – energy intensive lifestyles will become even more unsustainable.

Increasing the cost of children may be an important mechanism for improving the welfare of future generations. No child deserves to live in poverty, but parents who choose to reproduce deserve to bear the great majority of the costs of doing so.

Pick your poison: nuclear or ‘clean coal’

One issue raised at the conference I recently attended was this: both Ontario and Germany are in the position where they want to phase out coal-fired power plants. In addition, Germany has decided to phase out nuclear power, whereas Ontario is strongly considering maintaining and expanding existing facilities. In order to phase out nuclear without continuing to rely on dirty coal, one presenter asserted that carbon capture and storage (CCS) on coal plants is the only feasible and politically acceptable option.

Assuming for the moment that maintaining adequate energy supplies in the near-term requires one or the other, which is the more suitable choice? With nuclear, the risks are largely known and the biggest uncertainties relate to costs. With CCS, there are huge uncertainties about cost, alongside big uncertainties about safety, scale, and feasibility. The worst you get with nuclear is a lot of wasted taxpayer money, more nuclear proliferation, contaminated sites, and some accidents. The worst you get by relying on CCS is wasted money, accidents, proliferation of coal plants, and the extension of the high-carbon phase in whatever countries bet wrongly that it will work.

To me, if the choice is exclusively between nuclear fission and CCS right now, it seems that nuclear is the most risk-averse option. That being said, the calculation may change a great deal when you factor in opportunities for conserving power, using it more efficiently, and generating it using renewables. That won’t make CCS more attractive, relative to nuclear, but it may mean we are presented with a less stark choice than was assumed at the outset of this discussion.

Insurance, liability, and climate change adaptation

Yesterday, I saw a fascinating presentation by Dianne Saxe: a lawyer who explained the legal liabilities that could arise as the result of climate change. The particular focus was on the government, and ways in which failure to effectively adapt to climate change could produce a legal risk. For instance, the government might be sued for failing to establish building standards that reflect our understanding that extreme weather events will get worse.

Legal liability and insurance are definitely very important elements of the climate change problem. Insurance companies probably have the most reason of anyone to get the most accurate and precise estimates about the various future impacts of climate change. In a world where mitigation does not occur rapidly enough, they will certainly find themselves with a lot of extreme new risks threatening their profitability: especially given how many of the probable impacts of climate change are included in existing property insurance. Climatic change that produces more intense windstorms is a major issue for you if you insure millions of houses and your policies include coverage for wind damage.

Arguably, the insurance industry and society-wide concerns about liability could be a good motivating force for making society more resilient to climate change. That is especially true when there is an opportunity to create price incentives: charging more (or refusing to offer coverage) for houses in hurricane zones, offering reduced premiums for houses built to withstand projected changes, and so forth. Of course, lots of ethical issues arise in connection with the governmental role. Sometimes, it is quite legitimate for government to step in and mandate that insurance be provided to a certain group, or for a reasonable price. At other times, such interventions undermine the ability of insurers to encourage sensible behaviour.

It will be a very interesting area to watch: both in terms of the commercial decisions taken by insurance companies and in relation to court cases and new precedents that arise.

Carbon capture research

Researchers at the University of Calgary say they have a machine that can extract carbon dioxide from the air at a reasonable cost and using relatively little energy. From what I can tell, the CO2 extracted would still need to be buried somewhere. Even so, if such technologies prove cost effective and scalable, they could potentially play a role in stabilizing climate.

More details are in this PDF. Apparently, the tower can capture 15 tonnes per year of CO2 per square metre and each tonne of capture requires 81 kilowatt-hours of electricity (about $4 worth). Estimated total costs per tonne (including capital) range between $12.80 and $43.80.

NDP opportunism and Conservative concealment

Perhaps the biggest disappointment in this federal election campaign is the opportunistic and irresponsible opposition of the NDP to carbon pricing. It is now extremely clear that global emissions need to fall – both in times of economic strength and weakness. Those in economies with excessive per-capita emissions need to fall soonest and fastest, and Canada has an appalling record in that regard. Cutting emissions in an economically efficient way means establishing a national price for carbon: either through a cap-and-trade scheme or a carbon tax. As such, parties that support a Canadian climate policy that is effective and internationally responsible would do well to either make such a proposal or support one already advanced by another federal party. Jack Layton may be more concerned with social welfare than with the environment, but he really needs to realize that failing to deal with climate change will produce enormous amounts of suffering and that those who will be hardest hit will be the poorest and most vulnerable in Canada, and around the world.

The other big disappointment is the failure of the Conservative Party to publish a platform. It is truly bizarre for a sitting government that is seeking an eventual majority to not publish the details of what they plan to do with the country. It leaves the opposition without the opportunity to comment, and Canadians in general without the opportunity to make an informed choice.

[Update: 9 October 2008]: The platform is out (PDF).