By Hugh Holland
Where did fossil fuels come from? Before the last ice age, algae, plants, and animals lived in and around shallow seas. After dying, decomposing, and sinking to the seafloor, that organic carbon material mixed with other sediments and was buried (sequestered) over millions of years under high pressure and high temperature, and transformed into what we know today as coal, oil, and natural gas. Northern Alberta was one of those areas. The proof is on display in museums across Canada and around the world.
The history of the scientific discovery of climate change began in the early 19th century when ice ages and other changes in climate were first suspected and the natural greenhouse effect was first identified. It is now generally accepted that there have been five ice ages or “glaciations” over 2.4 billion years since the earth was formed. Those ice ages were separated by “interglacial” periods in which the Earth was virtually ice-free. Animals breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide. Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen. All living things eventually die and decompose, releasing carbon from their cell structures into the air, soil, and water. Those actions are known as the natural carbon cycle that has maintained a balance for millions of years.
But in the short span of only 100 years, we have dug up and burned most of those sequestered deposits as fuel for transportation, heating, and industry. The resulting emissions have destroyed the Earth’s natural carbon cycle, and like a greenhouse, are trapping ever more heat in the atmosphere.
Climate change is a multi-faceted problem that has unfolded over not just centuries but millennia. We are now well into the third industrial revolution. Since the first revolution in 1800 that introduced coal for steam engines and heating, the global population is up by a factor of 8, the standard of living as expressed in GDP per capita is up by a factor of 9 and together driving global energy consumption up by a factor of 16. The introduction of the internal combustion engine (ICE) in 1900 solved a serious horse manure problem but gradually created an unsustainable accumulation of carbon in the atmosphere.
The global auto and mobile equipment industries have solved that problem with battery-electric and hydrogen-electric cars, trucks, locomotives, ships, tractors, aircraft, and heavy equipment. Ultra-efficient cold-climate heat pumps are now replacing oil and gas furnaces. For the coldest regions, dual-fuel heat pumps operate on electricity 80% of the time. Oil, gas, or electric assists can kick in for 20% of the time.
On December 7, 2023, 192 countries of the world met in Dubai, UAE to increase consensus on how to mitigate climate change. On the same day, a new poll was released in the US saying 75% of Americans, including 50% of Republicans, want meaningful action on climate change. On the same day, Pierre Poilievre’s Conservatives staged a 36-hour sit-in in our national parliament and vowed to stop all other business until the government agreed to “axe the refundable carbon tax” that is in place in 54 countries.
On December 13, after 2 weeks of intense debate and negotiations, 192 countries struck a breakthrough climate agreement, calling for “a transition away from fossil fuels, in a just, orderly and equitable manner, while accelerating action in this critical decade, so as to achieve net zero by 2050 in keeping with the science.”
Although it is not legally binding, “the deal sends a powerful signal to investors and policymakers that the world is united in its desire to break with fossil fuels, something scientists say is the last best hope to stave off climate catastrophe”.
What has made this 30-year journey so difficult is the very uneven distribution of both the causes and effects of climate change. Canada, the USA, and Europe are ranked in the lowest 33% of vulnerability, and China, Japan, and Saudi Arabia are ranked in the middle 33%. India, Africa, and most Island Nations are ranked as the most vulnerable 33%, so they are the most likely sources of out-migration.
Oil production as a per cent of GDP ranges as follows: Libya 56.38%, Saudi Arabia 23.69%, Iran 18.27%, UAE 15.67%, Russia 9.67%, Norway 6.06%, Canada 2.83%, USA 0.61%, UK 0.42%, 0% for 90 countries including Japan, Spain, and Switzerland. Even within Canada, 80% of oil production is in Alberta, 15% in Saskatchewan, and 5% in Newfoundland. In most cases, the areas with the biggest changes to make also have the most means and the biggest opportunities in this emerging era of sustainable energy.
Several enabling strategies were part of the discussions. The IEA (International Energy Agency), the UK, and the US called for a tripling of nuclear capacity. The IEA called for a tripling of renewable energy capacity, double the rate of energy efficiency improvements, dramatic cuts to methane emissions, the establishment of large-scale financing mechanisms to triple clean energy investment in developing economies, and an end to approvals of unabated coal-fired power plants, especially in China and India. A few simple calculations confirm that these strategies can get the job done.
Certainly, Alberta and Saskatchewan have all the expertise and resources needed to survive and thrive in the new era of sustainable energy. The early bird gets the benefits. The late bird gets what is left over.
The past 200 years have been the era of fossil fuels, but with increasing negatives for the world’s climate that are driving up the costs of food, housing, and infrastructure everywhere.
The next 100 years can be the positive era of sustainable energy that reverses all those negative trends. It’s time for all political parties to endorse an orderly transition to all the positives of sustainable energy.
Hugh Holland
Hugh Holland is a retired engineering and manufacturing executive now living in Huntsville, Ontario.
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox so you don’t miss anything!
Click here to support local news
I had to laugh or cry after reading the following from Hugh Holland’s “The world is moving on from fossil fuels”.
“Ultra-efficient cold-climate heat pumps are now replacing oil and gas furnaces. For the coldest regions, dual-fuel heat pumps operate on electricity 80% of the time. Oil, gas, or electric assists can kick in for 20% of the time”.
They can’t be ultra efficient if they only work 80% of the time and what is the point of spending all that money on hardware and installation if your fallback is to use your existing heat systems. Heat pumps may be the way for warmer climates but not here in Canada where they are often supplemented by the good old log fire to generate heat especially in winter when we often have power outs.
OP is in for a shock, the two guys about to replace Biden and Trudeau are both oil guys. The oil will pump again, our economy will roar again and the carbon tax scam will be scrapped (just like Wynne’s cap and trade scam was scrapped by Ford). You’ll have more money and be happy. Deal with it. 8 years of paid media propaganda really fools some of you older folk, its sad.
Bob Braan, many of your comments on energy are not correct. First, you say that since 2018, Ontario power demand has skyrocketed (under Doug Ford). That is not true. In 2018, according to the IESO, usage was 137 Twh, in 2022 it was exactly the same, 137 Twh. This despite the highest population growth rate since the 50’s, growing electrification of all sectors and significant industrial expansion.
You also claim that wind & solar is cheapest. That is only the case for low renewables energy share and is for incremental power only. If you add in the duplicate generation and/or storage costs needed to back up the renewables intermittency, its much higher. You then state that all of Ontario’s future power needs can be met with more wind/solar/energy storage. The IESO, the independent agency that plans our future power, says otherwise. The simple truth is if we are to reach net zero commitments, and adding in future growth, our power system will need to at least double, and possibly triple in size. That estimate comes from energy experts, not environmental advocacy groups. That is also base-load power growth, and today’s renewables are not up to the task. With many of the big nuc plants off line for refurbishment in the coming years, it’s even more critical. Doug Ford understands this, and is listening to the IESO (real energy experts), which he should.
If you want to see what an energy transition future may look like, the EU is at least a decade ahead of Canada, & they are energy insecure, with heavy regulation, higher carbon taxes, etc, and yet still sit at about 70% of primary energy coming from fossil fuels. Their energy costs are 3 to 4 times ours.
The hard reality is you can’t get to net zero through high taxes and heavy government regulation, and the energy transition is going to be very very expensive and take much longer than most environmental groups claim. Done wrong, as the Trudeau government, led by his extremist environment/climate-change minister, is doing, you will hurt many Canadians (the least well-off most) and undermine industry competitiveness and the economy. Remember, we are 1.5 % (and declining) of global emissions.
Pierre Poilievre likely understands all of this. We will see more of his plan as time goes on and the election approaches.
Cheer up, Allen Markle, looks like we are headed toward a mass extinction of the human species because of genomic deterioration. And all the gene tinkering of CRISPR and other technologies will NOT help to offset the problem. All of the world-class human genome researchers know that the problem exists but prefer not to speak of it. Plant geneticist, John C. Sanford, Ph.D., a member of the original “gene gun” team from Cornell University, has written a book for laymen called, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome. He is independently wealthy (as a result of his inventions) and is thus immune to the current politicized climate of science. An advocate of Intelligent Design (he was once an atheist), Sanford believes that the earth is 100,000 years old or less and demonstrates why the genomes of plants and animals cannot have occurred through natural selection. An interesting read.
The proliferation of chemicals in our environment, food and groundwater is the man-made crisis that we need to be concerned about as it has likely sped up the deterioration of the human genome along with that of plants (over 2/3 of all plant species that ever existed are now extinct) and animals.
We are spun lots of numbers and predictions of what we should do and how we should do it, by the same sort of people who got us to the point we are today. We blast and burrow and leave barren vast tracts of our planet in the search for the next wonderful discovery.
Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution our search for power has surged increasingly. In our search we have exploited our rivers, our forests, the very earth beneath our feet. More people and newer products mean we are ever increasing our need to and ability to abuse this Earth of ours.
I suppose we need to provide for the people, but do we demand too much? I’ve seen a copper mine in Arizona that covers almost 11 sq. kilometers. A coal mine in Australia that has raked open 30 sq. kilometers and is only the largest of 5 such sites. We waited half an hour for shunt engines to push loaded cars onto sidings that covered many more sq. kilometers. There is an open pit gold mine in Australia as well that has laid waste to about 52 square kilometers.
The big daddy of the lot though is here in Canada. The Athabasca tar sands are huge open gashes in the land. The liquid toxic waste alone covers over 300 sq. kilometers and is growing. So much so that the government now wants to allow this poisonous soup to be released into the watershed and drained into the Arctic Ocean. Ain’t that a fine example of dealing with a problem?
There are lots of other sites which man has laid waste to and I fear that in this search for the ‘salvation’ of an electric car we will destroy even more. And will it all work? We have numbers spun at us from all perspectives by learned men of all stripes and I’m afraid we won’t really know until we have invested millions and destroyed more kilometers.
I guess it will be good to give up on fossil fuels, the product of ancient and innocent living things. But in the search for these alkali or ‘rare earth’ elements, will we just be replacing one form of pollution with another? And give the number crunchers, industrialists, and engineers more facts to spin at us ’til we’re dizzy.
Maybe a bit of pessimism? You bet. Because I think it’s all a crap shoot. No one can know how it will turn out. We are betting our future on another new thing. Our land, water and air is the ante.
I can remember when gasoline cost $0.26 per gallon. That is about 6 cents per liter!! and that is just in my brief lifetime.
I run a small business. It needs energy to run.
My choices are limited.
I use solar for some electricity but in feed tariff rules are such that more solar at this time does not have a positive economic case.
I use wood to heat some areas. This being a “young” type of carbon really does not have any effect like oil and gas do on the environment. If I did not burn the wood I do, it would die and rot and decompose to release the same amount of carbon, just 20 or 30 years slower. I also save on gym club fees as handling the wood several times on the way to the furnace is good exercise all on it’s own.
Most of my energy needs are met with electricity. A lot of things can only be done with electricity but I’m aiming to increase efficiency with the use of heat pumps just as soon as they get a bit more efficient and (more critically) there is someone available to install them at a reasonable price.
I also use some oil and propane for heat as these systems are a legacy type and there is no easy replacement option on the market at the moment.
I am not convinced that electric vehicles, especially working vehicles other than personal cars, are actually a good or economic or even environmental way to go as yet. Facts are few, knee jerk politics is plentiful.
I’d like to see a lot more talk and proposals for how to recycle all the batteries we are making or planning to make as for sure, every one of these things will have a fairly short and finite life and also for sure, we cannot use new raw materials for all the batteries we shall need and just throw out the old ones.
Increasing energy efficiency and reducing unnecessary use and travel are the two best things we can do right now. Also, expanding, toughening and maintaining our electric grid system cannot be stressed enough. All the lovely “renewable” energies tend to be made some distance from where we need to use that energy and it has only one way to travel and that is on the grid. Also some major high voltage East West lines may allow us to time shift our use and be able to run plants longer at high efficiency or share renewables better.
One thing, probably not hugely popular would be to increase the taxes considerably, both as a carbon and real estate tax, on second, third and more homes owned by the same person or family. Lets face it, one home is all one really needs. A second or third with all the toys and constant commutes from the city and entangled with Air B &B does not make sense environmentally. It must be viewed as a luxury and should probably be treated in some way like boats and airplanes are now taxed. This would reduce the environment load and put the cost squarely on those who can obviously pay more of it. Anyone who can afford an 8 thousand square foot home worth 10’s of millions of dollars should have no difficulty with a little more tax. They could sell their city home, increasing housing availability there and move permanently to their current recreation home and avoid the extra tax in this manner too.
Why do no politicians talk about these options?
Canada produces 1.5% of global carbon emissions, and there is nothing any Ontario government could possibly do that would have a significant effect on the global climate. It’s not what people want to hear, but transitioning to electric cars and heavily taxing the younger generation will not change the world. While it might make one feel good to claim they care about the planet more than others, the difficult truth is that such actions won’t have any impact.It’s highly unlikely that Xi Jinping and Narendra Modi are losing sleep over Doug Ford’s climate policy. They alone hold the key to any hope of significant carbon reduction. Canada, being an energy-rich nation, needs to use its resources responsibly and focus on practical solutions for the next generation, rather than relying on empty platitudes and global abstract milestones.
Poilievre and Ford are true conservative politicians. Their whole game is ‘taxes are bad, liberals are bad’. That is how they campaign, and when they are elected, they generally do nothing (what was Harper’s great legacy again? What is Doug Fords?).
We are being primed with the same stuff for the next election. The have no policy to address climate change (provincial or federal). It is just Trudeau bad, taxes bad. It will likely work again. Ford has a little bigger problem since their is no liberal politician worth attacking in the province. Likely he will join the Trudeau bad chorus like other provincial conservatives.
I suggest we vote for politicians who have solutions to problems that they would like to work on. We could vote for the one with the best soluions. Voting for ‘taxes bad, liberals bad’ does not produce meaningful solutions.
The carbon tax hasn’t reduced our emissions to date. It doesn’t force businesses to pay for their pollution. Instead it gives them the opportunity to pass those costs onto consumer who are then given a rebate by the government to cover the added expense. If the LPC was serious about emissions it would develop a strategy that yields results rather than utilizes public money to cover private industry’s polluting.
Still better than the Cons who refuse to accept the reality we are in.
Doug Ford has made catastrophic changes to Ontario’s previously super green power grid.
Ontario is reversing some of them like Ford is reversing many other mistakes.
1. Oil and gas are being left behind simply because clean and green is cheaper.
“As the Planet Heated Up in 2023, Clean Energy Took Off”
“In 2023, 86% of New Power Capacity in US will come from Renewables, with a Majority of it Solar”
2. Ontario used to be 96% non-fossil fuel power. Now it’s down to 90% since Doug Ford.
3. Demand in Ontario went down from 157 TWh to 132 TWh from 2005-2017 in spite of the population going up due to conservation.
4. Ford cancelled all of the energy conservation rebates in 2018 so demand is skyrocketing requiring billions in new generation.
5. Maintain existing nuclear and add solar, wind, storage and reintroduce energy conservation rebates is the way forward.
“New Solar + Battery Price Crushes Fossil Fuels, Buries Nuclear”
6. “Doug Ford government wants new gas plants to boost Ontario’s electricity system”
Search “This community just threw a wrench into Doug Ford’s plans for new gas plants”
And:
“Giant batteries drain economics of gas power plants | Reuters”
7. “Multiple studies have shown that the province can meet its power needs without building new gas plants, and that solar and wind power, as well as programs that reduce electricity demand through incentives and efficiency, are much cheaper in the long run.”
8. Storage also has the same effect as energy conservation for pennies on the dollar. Pennies.
Ontario is putting in 1.2 GW of storage by 2026. Huge. 5% of demand right now.
Ford is likely not aware or he would cancel the storage projects as well. In favour of dirty gas plants.
9. Ontario is building cheap, green projects again in spite of Ford.
Ford’s meddling with Ontario’s previous super green grid is a catastrophe for Ontario residents and the planet.
If Poilievre was honest he would mention the big carbon tax rebate when he complains about the tax.
He is not.
And the fact many get more back with the rebate than they pay.
Search “If Canada axed its carbon tax — and rebates — this is how different households would gain or lose”
“High-income households would tend to be the biggest winners, lower-income households hurt the most”Search “What if ‘Axe the Tax’ leaves most Canadians worse off?”
It’s a net benefit for lower incomes that Poilievre wants to take away.
The rebate is up to $1,544/year. Depends on province.
While the earth literally burns.
Record wildfires around the world.
Drier conditions due to climate change makes a controllable wildfire uncontrollable.
Poilievre’s solution? Get out the marshmallows and make Smores.
Axe the tax and you axe the big rebate.
You won’t save a dime.
It will likely cost you.
Taking from the poor to give to the rich is a typical Con thing.
Anti-Robin Hood.
Finally many Canadians are wising up and souring on Poilievre.
Better late than never.
From his dishonesty about the carbon tax and rebate, futile antics to stall Parliament and even not supporting Ukraine in a trade deal because it mentions a carbon tax.
Ukraine already has a carbon tax.
Search “Pressreader Poilievre losing steam, poll finds”
“The latest Abacus Data survey…reveals a five percentage point drop in support for Poilievre’s Conservatives, an increase in those who have a negative opinion of Poilievre and a move away from him among those who think it’s time for a change in government.”