By
Friday 13 July, initial policy changes and a
throne speech of the new Conservative
government in Ontario were completed. The
Ontario cap and trade program for carbon was
ended. Like those in Quebec and California,
the program aimed to curb industrial
atmospheric gas production causing global
warning. The CEO and Board of the majority
publicly-owned electricity company Hydro One
resigned en masse under populist threats about
excessive pay to the CEO. The Globe and Mail,
traditionally Conservative-friendly, felt this
had been a good Board, that it would be hard
to replace, that the associated costs of the
change to the Board were substantial, and that
the effect on electricity costs and on the
problems of Hydro One would be minimal. Similarly,
the
Globe was not sympathetic to the cancelling of
758 wind and solar contracts that were well
under way, or the end to subsidies on electric
vehicles. There will be cancellation costs. At
the end of July, as the filing date for
municipal candidate nominations arrived, Ford
announced a change in election boundaries and
a cut in number of councillors for Toronto
from the expected 47 to 25. Cuts were made to
the mental health budget. As August arrived,
it was announced that the guaranteed basic
income pilot study, a study that all parties
had promised to run for its 3 years, was
cancelled. No doubt more cuts are coming to
pave the way for the doctrinaire tax cuts that
disproportionately benefit the rich.
In
this sweep of big diversions, I wanted to look
again at the human survival issue of global
warming - as Ontario ends the gas taxes, the
renewable energy initiatives and the cap and
trade policy. I wanted to get a layman’s
perspective on where Ontario fits into causing
the potentially catastrophic global warming
now underway. I found US Environmental
Protection Agency EPA data for 2016 and
Canadian government reports for
the year 2014 with some provincial breakdown
and sources for greenhouse gases.
In
2016, China and the US respectively produced
23.4% and 14.7% of overall world emissions,
nearly 40% between them. Canada was number 10
on the list of producers. It produced 1.6%.
However, the Canadian population is roughly
1/10 of the US population. So, per capita,
Canada contributes a bit more to the global
warming problem than the US. Ontario accounts
for around 40% of Canada’s contribution.
Next,
I wondered where Ontario’s greenhouse gas
production comes from. A report of 2014
emissions compared with 1990 emissions is
instructive:
1.Transportation:
34.5% of the total for Ontario, from burning
fossil fuel for cars, trucks, ships, trains,
and planes. The transportation sector’s
production has grown 28% since 1990.
2.
Industry:
30% of the total, primarily from burning
fossil fuels for energy, as well as emissions
from chemical and physical reactions producing
goods from raw materials. Industrial emissions
have fallen by 20% since 1990.
4.
Commercial and Residential:
20.5%, primarily from natural gas burned for
heat, and the use of certain products that
contain greenhouse gases. Despite increases in
energy efficiency there has been an increase
of 28% since 1990 from population growth and
increasing floor space.
5.
Agriculture:
5.9%, from livestock such as cows,
agricultural soils, and rice production. These
are relatively stable since 1990.
6.
Waste: 5.5%
contributed by the methane released from
landfill sites. Waste emissions have risen by
20% since 1990. Cities like Toronto have 10
year plans to respond.
7.
Electricity: 3.6%,
down by 76% since 1990. Natural gas provided
almost 9% of Ontario’s electricity in 2014.
The other 91% per cent of Ontario’s
electricity generation was low carbon:
nuclear, hydro, wind and solar, with a small
amount
of biomass. In 2014, electricity was the
smallest greenhouse gas producer of any major
sector in Ontario as a result of the move from
coal-produced electricity in Ontario.
In
the United States, Land Use and Forestry is
reported as an “offset” reducing total US
greenhouse gas emissions by 11%. Land areas
can act as a sink (absorbing CO2) or they can
act as a source of greenhouse gas emissions.
Managed forests and other lands have absorbed
more CO2 from the atmosphere than they emit in
the US. This may be relevant for Ontario too,
but it is not reported.
For
Ontario, the two big contributors to
greenhouse gases are transportation and
industry. Transportation is the biggest. A
layman assumes this is a sector of greenhouse
gas production calling for new initiatives.
Premier Ford’s cutting the cost of gasoline –
essentially subsidizing greenhouse gas
production – is not a moral way to proceed.
For
the Industry sector, the just-removed Ontario
cap and trade market was a way of applying
pressure on industry to reduce production of
greenhouse gases. Note it was not a tax. It
preserved freedom for different corporate
initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas
production. Those that couldn’t cut could buy
credits from other corporations that could cut
more. This works like the US reported Land Use
“offset” to gas production. Without some
government action of this sort, industry will
go where profits are to be made without regard
to greenhouse gas. Removing this program is
not a moral decision unless an alternative to
the cap and trade market is put in place for
this big producer of Ontario’s greenhouse
gases.
In
Ontario, the number 3 contributor is
buildings, including commercial, institutional
and residential. They contribute 20% of
greenhouse gas production. So programs that
will cut gas use in buildings are useful –
things like a “carrot”, promoting alternatives
like geothermal heating, and a “stick”, carbon
tax, can work here.
Globally,
agriculture and cattle-rearing are around 11%
of the total of greenhouse gas production. The
Ontario figure is around 6% compared with 9%
for the USA. All sectors can be encouraged to
help, but this sector is a smaller problem in
North America.
Transportation
means
subways, buses, cars and trucks. Public
transportation is helpful. Another useful big
move here is from the Federal government.
Canada sets Greenhouse Gas emissions limits
for new light duty vehicles by regulation.
These require a 5% annual reduction in CO2 per
mile for passenger cars from 2017 to 2025.
Fleet averages for light trucks tighten 3.5%.
Yet this doesn't go far enough. It doesn't
make a big impact on the size of cars sold. A
good fraction of cars purchased are SUVs that
consume more gasoline even though the
annual reduction in gas consumption goes
on year by year for new cars.
The global need to use less gasoline does not
reach down to buyers through national and
provincial governments. And the auto industry
enjoys a kind of public welfare. The public
purse had to bail out several major automakers
not so long ago. Parts of the industry only
continue in Ontario because they are
subsidized by government in some manner. Many
have to be begged to keep producing their
vehicles in Ontario. A lot of money is then
spent by automakers on advertising because
advertising sells. And
auto advertising bombards the public with ads
for SUVs and expensive cars. These bigger
vehicles happen to be where profits are to be
made. Without the vehicles that make profits
auto makers might move somewhere else with
their jobs. Something has to give here if the
auto part of the transportation sector is to
more seriously reduce greenhouse gas
emissions.
Cutting
greenhouse gas emissions from the auto sector
is not a technical problem. The obstacle is
the current shape of the economy. Cars exist
that would allow greenhouse gas production to
be better than halved. Five years ago when I
bought my Toyota Prius car my real actual gas
consumption fell by half compared with my
former modest vehicle. Prius now uses even
less gasoline. Moreover, the car currently
sells without a government subsidy. Can’t
electric cars and hybrids be made in Canada?
Can’t they make a profit?
It
is time for a more serious transition in the
economy to one where much less greenhouse
gases will be produced. We could subsidize and
promote companies with real fuel economy
vehicles with the money we have been using to
pay automakers to stay in Ontario building and
selling the cars that make them profits. And
confront car gas consumption in a determined
way that communicates with buyers.
License
fees might be a symbolic start. Modest cars
with proven lower gas consumption, say 6,l per
100 km, could be granted a very low annual
licensing fee. Successive significant
licensing fee increases would apply to
vehicles with proven higher gas consumption
levels. It would at least communicate the
problem of greenhouse gas production in the
transportation sector to the public. Beyond
this, the cost of a gas guzzling car should be
such that it significantly reduces the level
of its sales and we should face down the issue
of whether we want our government to
subsidize, as it now does, auto production
that contributes more to greenhouse gas
production than is currently technically
necessary.
A
transition to electric cars and trucks would
make a big dent in transportation sector
greenhouse gas production. That is not
far-fetched, but would take time. Electric
vehicles deserve some forms of promotion even
if not the financial purchase cost subsidies
that Premier Ford just removed. People seem
intrigued by electric cars. (Join the crowd
looking at the Tesla cars in Yorkdale Mall.)
Unfortunately the auto industry and its
newspaper car-page journalists tell us that we
don’t really like electric cars. Limited
infrastructure for quickly charging a vehicle
is a legitimate worry for potential electric
car owners, but the cost of using electricity
is way less.
Maybe
the introduction of an infrastructure for
electric trucks would be less problematic?
Trucks go from an industrial depot to an
industrial depot where charging stations could
be introduced. Trucks also follow major routes
with periodic truck stops on them. Again,
set-up for charging stations should not be
overwhelming. Drivers need to take significant
periodic rest breaks so charging the truck
could take place. So perhaps we should think
of an initiative first for electric trucks.
There has been little talk about the potential
of doing some use of sticks and carrots to
encourage changes here. Maybe we could use our
automaker welfare monies to promote a pilot
project with a major truck maker like Volvo,
to manufacture electric transport trucks.