The Fight Against Climate Change – 25 Actions

As is noted in the introductory paragraphs of the document, this all started rather innocently after an intense discussion we had within my book club one evening mid 2019.  The debate that emerged resulted from a re-read we chose to do of James Hansen’s 2009 seminal tome on global warming, Storms of My Grandchildren.  We concluded, after a lot of discussion, that the country (and world) must focus on actions, not more diagnosis. 

Then we thought “what could we do to influence the public debate”.  What if we sent a letter to the editor of a major newspaper signed by these 12 “older white guys” (professionals, mostly retired), who consider themselves reasonably current and sensible, with our own carefully thought out action plan suggestions.  As it was me that made the suggestion, they assigned me the task of preparing the letter. 

I soon found out that such a letter was exceedingly naive.  Cutting global emissions is a very complicated process and any action plan cannot be described within the constraints of a letter.  It can also be prone to language that quickly loses people. 

So this letter became the over 3400 word article you see attached.  While it says there are 25 actions plans, some of the actions are an amalgam of many possibilities within a general category.  An effort was made to keep the language jargon-free; an attempt has been made also to avoid footnotes and too many references so it doesn’t become too academic. 

And it’s not surprising that, while there are certain actions we as individuals can take, the major solutions lie in the realm of public policy, making it even more important to follow our original instincts to put these ideas out for public debate to potentially influence that public policy.

The final action is a critical one.  There is the potential if we don’t find common ground, that resolve will stiffen in the various staked-out camps.  Uncompromising (and even doctrinaire) positions, however “right” or political could potentially undermine some of the sensible directions we must take to effect change.

We are a men’s book club.  Our twelve members live in the Metropolitan Toronto area (and as far out as Peterborough).  We’re “old white guys”, professionals (doctors, lawyers, businessmen), reasonably current with today’s issues, and sensible (well, we think so!)

Recently we chose to re-read James Hansen’s seminal tome on global warming, Storms of My Grandchildren.  While first written in 2009, we wanted to use it as a refresher to remind us of the key issues around environmental issues.  We had a good discussion but finished it with some unease, concluding that what is not needed at this time is further diagnosis.  The reality of significant climate change is upon us and supported from so many competent studies and people.  The objective should be clear: the world must cut global emissions to become carbon-neutral.  

There is significant evidence that to do nothing will be disastrous for the environment, but importantly, for the economy as well.  It was our feeling that the focus should turn to practical actions that can be taken globally, not just to stop but to reverse global warming.  So, while Canadian oriented, here is our attempt to distill the things that can be done down to a “top 25 to do” list. It’s our “call to action” for this worldwide problem.

1. Tax carbon.   Carbon pricing is the most honest and the least economically damaging means to lower greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.  It combines the unique advantages of governments and markets.  It can be progressive and revenue neutral, and protect business competitiveness.  Without carbon pricing, fossil fuels – which are abundant, portable, and energy-dense – have too great an advantage over the alternatives. Without carbon tax, the tax payer pays for cost externalities, i.e. the damage that GHG does, rather than carbon emitters, whether industry or citizens.
2. Regulations to reduce GHG are needed.  Governments need to set rules (and provide incentives) to entice people and industry to invest in initiatives to take full advantage of incoming disruptive technologies along with reducing GHG.  For starters, demand less wasteful consumer technology, e.g. vehicle fuel-efficiency standards; expedite movement to electric vehicles (internal combustion engine is 17 to 21% energy efficient; the electric motor is 90 to 95% efficient); expedite network expansion of fast (or level three) chargers; greater use of bio-fuels such as ethanol (a bridging solution); lead on self-driving vehicles (at both the industrial and consumer level); car sharing; bans on incandescent light bulbs, etc.  Effective tax regimes must also recognize the revenue implications of digital currencies, the evolution of automation and remote working.  Regulations will be secondary as carbon taxes can make them redundant.  However selected regulations can work; witness the success of the 1987 Montreal protocol to phase out chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs); the earth’s protective ozone layer is finally healing.
3. Phase out coal-fired power plants. There should be no ambiguity here.  (See nuclear and LNG for alternatives plus some limited hydro possibilities.)
4. Fourth-generation nuclear power plants should be developed and brought on-line as quickly as possible.  Nuclear power is the world’s most abundant and scalable carbon-free energy source.  It’s the ultimate in density.  It’s extremely safe.  Fourth-generation plants deal with the nuclear waste issue, as they are capable of burning about 99% of the uranium waste from earlier generations of nuclear power plants.  They have long (50 year plus) life spans.  Hansen says the world can’t get to climate stabilization without nuclear. France agrees: nuclear supplies 76% of their electrical energy supply.
5. Continue incentives to expand solar and wind (plus tidal and geothermal) power sources.  A major disruption will commence as the cost of solar photovoltaic (PV) technology continues its decline (and new business models proliferate, e.g. 3rd party financing to make it easy for consumer rooftop adoption) and reaches the point when the unsubsidized cost drops below the transmission cost.  A complement to solar PV is concentrated solar power (mirrors heating a fluid producing steam to power turbines).  Among its features is that it is relatively easy to integrate into the conventional grid.  Wind developments are moving quickly: it takes less than a year to build a wind farm; newer designs have slower blades; examples are producing success, e.g. Denmark now supplies greater than 40% of its electricity needs with wind.  But face the reality that wind and solar demand huge tracts of land, defying the densification process that is friendliest to the environment.  Where favourable geographic conditions exist, continue development of wave, tidal barrages and tidal stream technologies.  Of geothermal, less than 7% of the world’s potential is being tapped.   
6. Electric storage investment research and development is essential to make renewables effective.  Electricity has to be used as soon as it is produced.  Batteries to store small amounts have been around and electric car batteries are improving.  But a key problem is at large scale, or grid level, that handles high power and has a long service life.  Large scale storage on the grid will reduce peaking power needs (e.g. buy at night and sell when need for “peakers”).  Investments need to be made or encouraged.  (One such research development is already taking place at MIT.)
7. The world needs to purge existing CO2.  Even if GHGs are zeroed by 2075, the world would still be on course for risky warming, as what’s already emitted will remain in the atmosphere for a very long time.  The options run a broad range: transition from deforestation to reforestation plus afforestation (see solution #13); reversing tillage and wetland destruction; restoring coastal and marine habitats, etc.
8. Carbon capture and storage (CCS).  Hand in hand with purging CO2 goes capturing and storing what is currently being emitted.  The technology exists.  There are currently 22 large-scale CCS projects worldwide.  There are technologies that can scrub CO2 from the smokestacks of fossil fuel plants and pump it into the earth’s crust.  The Quest CCS project near Edmonton announced last October that it successfully stored one million tonnes of CO2 deep underground in its first year of operation.  CCS facilities can fund themselves in the future by using the CO2 they capture to make new products, e.g. fertilizer.  There is a combination called BECCS – bioenergy with carbon capture and storage – which has been called climate change’s “saviour technology”.  Note: while the average Canadian footprint is high due to our high demand for transportation and heating, along with resource industries that are energy-hungry, it’s useful to recognize that because of our hydro and nuclear infrastructure the Canadian power grid produces less CO2/unit of energy generated than most other countries.  The proportion of Canada’s total electricity production that is drawn from non-emitting sources is 81%.
9. Encourage the exploration, production and use of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to replace coal.  It is more environmentally friendly as it burns cleaner (still CO2, but lower), is safer to store (if a leak, it simply evaporates) and has a lower operating cost (equipment running on LNG is virtually maintenance-free) than other fossil fuels.  The LNG that heads out to the world (a lot of it will go to China) will replace coal plants.  The International Energy Agency has forecasted that by 2040 worldwide LNG demand will grow by 45% over 2016; Canada has the resources to help meet that demand. 
10. Employ cogeneration strategies that put otherwise-forfeited energy to work.  Capturing excess heat or thermal energy generated during electricity production can be redirected to heating/cooling nearby homes and offices.  In Denmark and Finland cogeneration makes up a significant part of electricity production largely because of its use in district heating systems.  In that regard employ district heating or cooling (DHC) systems where a central plant channels hot and/or cool water via pipes to many buildings.  Waste heat can be used from coal-fired power plants; biomass should replace coal in future.
11. Building/retrofitting efficiency standards.  For example, develop zero-carbon building design standards (go beyond LEED standards to Zero Energy Buildings – ZEBs) that can be scalable financially and can be replicated (solar roof panels that can also feed the local grid; green (or “cool”) roofs; solar water heating; electric vehicle charging stations; living walls of plants; LED lighting; heavy insulation; natural light; smart windows/smart glass; smart thermostats; geothermal systems to heat/cool; heat pumps, etc.  Note: the building sector worldwide uses 32% of all energy generated and half that is air conditioning and heating.)
12. Transportation efficiencies.  This would include broad strategies that enable such actions as development of and transition to public transit systems where energy payoffs are attractive; utilization of bus rapid transit (BRT); high speed rail (where sufficient population density).  Includes  moves within cities for walk and bike initiatives, etc. (27% of local trips in the Netherlands are done by bike vs 1% in the U.S.)
13. Restoration and rehabilitation of tropical forests (which used to cover 12% of the world’s land; now just 5%).  Protect primary old growth forest.  Protect coastal wetlands which are “unsung carbon sinks”.  (Over one-third of the world’s mangroves have been lost.)
14. Water management improvements both in use of water, and in leaks to water distribution (“non-revenue water” which increases electricity demand).  There are many helpful strategies: low flush toilets; water-efficient washing machines; low flow faucets; changing use habits; capturing rainwater; utilization of moderate low level distribution pressure, etc.
15. Recycling metals, glass, plastic, rubber, paper, etc. to avoid landfilling emissions and hydrocarbons to manufacture them when alternatives are found.  Half of paper products are used once and then to scrap.  Instead of releasing methane as it decomposes in a dump, paper can be reprocessed.  This reduces water, spares forests and results in fewer bleaches and chemicals.  S.C.Johnson has introduced concentrate refills for their cleaning products to reduce plastic waste.
16. Management and disposal of refrigeration and air conditioning units.  This is the top global warming solution referenced in the 2017 book edited by Paul Hawkin, Drawdown – The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming.  Avoiding leaks and destroying refrigerators at end of life is essential.  Even after the CFC and HCFC phase out, huge volumes remain in circulation.  Their replacement chemicals, primarily hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), while having no deleterious effect on the ozone layer, warm the atmosphere many thousand times greater than that of carbon dioxide.  An amendment to the Montreal Protocol mentioned above was signed in 2016 to phase out HFCs but the disposal problem (when 90% of the refrigerant emissions occur) will persist. 
17. Harness organic waste as an energy source through sealed tanks or anaerobic digesters.  Organic waste emit methane gases as they decompose and create a warming effect a great deal stronger than CO2.  The digesters can reduce demand at a household level for wood, charcoal and dung or reduce fossil fuels at an industrial level.  In addition to reducing GHGs, they reduce landfill volumes and water-polluting effluent.
18. Educating girls and family planning.  These two tactics were very high in the solutions recommended in Drawdown.  It has been demonstrated that there is a direct link with carbon emissions.  Both strategies curb population growth.  It also implies education of males to accept and encourage these actions.  Education also equips girls to face the impact of climate change.  
19. Pursue strategies that put a premium on obtaining more benefits from less matter and energy decoupling productivity from resources (the so called “premium on density”).  Choose crops that are bred to produce more protein and calories with less land, water and fertilizer.  It is estimated that large scale animal agriculture produces more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.  Digital technology is helping dematerialize the world by enabling the sharing economy (reducing need for cars, tools and bedrooms that sit around unused most of the time; it is estimated that cars are parked 96% of the time).  Lifestyle incentives and information on reduced meat, eggs and dairy consumption need to reach a broader audience.  Go more veggie!
20. Fund a national energy efficiency research lab for energy efficiency.  Support by governments, industry and universities will facilitate focused research by candidates who become experts on energy efficiency.  As the president and CEO of the Royal Bank said recently, a “reasonable amount of carbon revenue needs to be invested back into clean energy technology and production”.   A national research lab would work cooperatively with existing initiatives, e.g. Alberta’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund as well as the Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance (COSIA).  The chain a hydrocarbon follows from extraction to consumption is a complicated one and full of efficiency possibilities.  Renewable technology is open for discoveries.  One focus might be on the issue of waste heat.  It is estimated that of all the energy used only one-third goes to its intended use (driving, manufacturing, etc.); two-thirds is lost in waste heat.  
21. Accept personal responsibility.  Besides moving towards a more plant-based diet by eating less meat, some obvious ones include: car choice (electric/smaller; currently in N.A. 60% of auto sales are SUVs and the pick-up truck growth has accelerated); vacationing locally; walking, biking and public transportation when we can; bundling our buying into a single trip; reducing online ordering (the chain of CO2 that connects a product manufactured in China to our doorstep is astounding; this includes the power devoured by data centres that now use around 2% of the world’s electricity); growing some of our own food; being less wasteful with our food production and consumption (a recent study found that 58% of Canadian food production is wasted); the many actions that can be taken within our homes (appliance choice; insulation; turning off  the “standby modes” on our computers and appliances; temperature/air conditioning controls – and reduction).  We can join citizen action groups in our local communities to influence local government and individual citizen strategies.  One such program is the Partners for Climate Protection (PCP) administered by the Federation of Canadian Municipalities.  Individual action can inspire others with the effect cumulative.
22. Political involvement.  Because major actions come down to politics, we conclude any action plan has to address the obvious: some political parties (provincial; federal) get it and some don’t.  Within our club our past voting habits run the gamut, so we either have to a) change our voting allegiance to parties that get it or, b) attempt to internally influence public policy positions of our personal party choices.  Locally, focus should be directed towards city and municipality/county governments.  Canada already has good climate policy in place, much of it gathered under the banner of the Pan-Canadian Framework on Climate Change, a 2016 co-ordinated federal-provincial plan.  We have two excellent, even great, examples of provincial climate policy.  Ontario phased out coal-burning power plants in less than a decade creating what the Ontario Power Authority sates as “the single largest greenhouse gas reduction measure in North America”.  In 2008 B.C. introduced a carbon tax.  Gasoline use is down by more than 10% per capita and emissions have shrunk 5% while the province’s economy has steadily grown.  Sadly Ontario is now headed in the wrong direction.
23. Re-engage the United States.  A primary focus for the world is to bring the U.S. back into the global action plan.  As Derek Burney, Canada’s former ambassador to the U.S., said in a recent Globe and Mail article, “without re-engagement, if not leadership, from the United States, and without real commitments from other major polluters, no cure will work”.   He said further that this should include addressing “legitimate concerns about the Paris Accord’s current deficiencies – e.g. the non-compliance of every Group of 20 country – and to demand more precise commitments from major polluters.  We should jointly undertake emission reductions on our shared continent without giving a competitive advantage to either partner”.
24. Solidify belief in the problem.  A tricky issue is behind the opening assumption we made; climate change is happening.  Well, not everyone in society believes that.  The fact that major reductions in fossil fuel combustion need to occur has been known for quite some time.  But strategies by businesses with petroleum interests (the Global Climate Coalition in the US, for one) have emphasized the “uncertainty” in the scientific data about climate change.  In 2017, polls found that 90% of Americans did not know that there was a scientific consensus on global warming; furthermore one-third say they never even talk about the issue.  In addition to this there is an issue regarding the cost/benefits timeframe.  Quoting Wm. D. Nordhaus in his book Climate Casino to illustrate the dilemma, “When we make investments to reduce emissions these costs are largely paid in the near term.  The benefits in the form of reduced damages from climate change come far into the future.”  So we need to be seeking out and supporting institutions, intellectuals, scientists, public figures and media that can be believed and that can influence public opinion.  One such initiative is having an impact: through the Climate Reality Project trained volunteers have delivered presentations about the science and impacts of climate change to over 11 million people worldwide.  
25. Compromise/find common ground.  Finally we have to recognize the dynamics of the contrasting positions between those who feel the extreme urgency of the future consequences of not acting immediately and those who don’t either believe or don’t want to act.  It’s going to take a large dose of talking about the issues, “being reasonable” and seeking common language.  If the competing philosophies clash with no intention of compromising, neither view will prevail.  Even within our book club we have important differences in these suggested actions; to arrive at the above we needed to talk about and then find common ground.

A prime example, on the question of compromise, relates to the conflict in this country surrounding pipeline development.  There is some urgency in bringing to a head the locked-in Canadian crude issue by building a pipeline(s).  If this is not resolved, and sincere compromises made, important sectors of Canadian society may not be amenable to certain key energy solutions.  Even in our book club we could not get 100% agreement on this particular issue.  A strong hold-out insists that crude demand can be reduced by restricting pipeline construction.  The rest feel it’s fundamental that focus be placed on the demand side of the energy equation recognizing that within our free enterprise system, supply is developed to satisfy demand.  (It also assumes that governments resist the attempt to over-ride market forces and set artificial pricing mechanisms.)  

It is forecasted that hydrocarbons, as a global commodity, will continue in high demand for many more years, until conservation/replacement strategies take hold.  (Besides, there are those that challenge the probability of scientists discovering anything as remarkable as hydrocarbons in terms of the combination of low-cost, high-energy density, stability, safety, and portability, and that solar and wind technologies are beginning to reach the boundaries of physics.)  The reality of continued hydrocarbon demand is important as it leads to a stand-alone economic argument to be made for building pipelines in Canada to both meet eastern and western Canadian demand and sell worldwide.  Alberta crude sells at a deep discount vs. the world price because of limited pipeline capacity to move our crude to tidewater.  Rail is filling in the gap – with increased risk and carbon emissions, and significantly higher costs.  (This needs to be emphasized: pipelines don’t increase demand and pipelining what is being used anyway reduces environmental consequences of rail.  As the Globe and Mail stated in its May 2 editorial, “Trans Mountain’s long imprisonment in limbo is doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in B.C., or across the planet”.)   

At the same time Alberta is selling its oil to the US at a huge discount, Eastern Canada is buying over 800,000 barrels/day from the USA, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Norway and Nigeria.  As consumers of hydrocarbons (gasoline, heating, air/train/boat travel, plastics, etc., etc.) we would prefer to be buying Canadian.  The reality is that building another pipeline – east or west – will not affect worldwide demand.  As an important aside, it certainly can’t make environmental sense to drill for oil in the Middle East, pipeline it to their ports, tanker it 10,000+ kilometres across the ocean, and then deliver it to Canada, when we have it right here. 

As citizens we can act personally on some of the above actions.  As a country we can demand political action on the rest.  But act we must, as the environmental clock is ticking, and the consequences will not be pleasant.  As Albert Jacquard, the French geneticist said, “The very essence of man is being aware that tomorrow will exist, and that I have the power to influence it.”