Alberta fighting division with division

Since the federal election in October 2019, there has been a clear increase in separatist sentiment in Alberta and other parts of western Canada. I recently blocked Wexit ads on Facebook because I was getting sick of them.

Many feel like we're under attack by the federal government and other provinces. Across our country, our health and quality of life are quite dependent on fossil fuels, and a significant chunk of that comes from Alberta. Yet in 2017 Justin Trudeau said, "We can't shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out." Even though he backpedaled on that comment, it gave many Albertans the impression that he doesn't care about our jobs and prosperity. The federal government passed laws that many in the resource industry think will make it harder to get resource projects done. And they created a national carbon tax.

So Albertans get the impression that Trudeau is against us, he has numerous scandals involving questionable ethics and competence, and then much of the rest of the country re-elects him. Yes, his party is reduced to a minority, but the balance of power is held by other parties that want more restrictions on fossil fuels, and the Bloc Quebecois that appears openly hostile to Alberta.

Justin Trudeau says he's been trying to build unity nationwide, but we've become more divided.

But as Albertans, we should not fight division with division.

First of all, let's acknowledge that human-caused climate change is serious and we need to work toward net-zero global carbon emissions in the coming decades. If you read through my Facebook feed, it's no secret that I support major action on this.

When people predict bad things in the future, the worst predictions are rarely right. In this case the worst predictions are human extinction or even the extinction of all life of earth, and I (with my limited understanding of the subject) consider these extremely unlikely. But predictions of 100 million premature deaths this century, even more in coming centuries, and accelerating extinction of other species are not the worst predictions; they represent mainstream science.

If you or someone you love works in the fossil fuel industry, it is certainly hard to support government policies that would eliminate these jobs in the coming decades. I get it. Renewable energy development, retrofitting of buildings, and transportation infrastructure construction will create many jobs, but I understand the fear of forced change. People don't know if change will help them get ahead or leave them behind.

For all of Justin Trudeau's faults, he actually brought in the most pro-Alberta climate policy of all the parties that support a carbon tax. The rebates all go to the province that the money came from; since Alberta has the highest per-capita greenhouse gas emissions and hence the highest costs, we get the biggest rebates. If everyone in Canada simply got the same rebate, that would be another net flow of money out of Alberta. The Liberals are also the only party to support both a carbon tax and a new oil export pipeline so that we can get a better price for our oil while we can still sell it.

As for the economic effects of a carbon tax, I challenge you to find a jurisdiction that has had a carbon tax for several years where the economy has done badly. I'll mention Sweden as a success story--it has the highest carbon tax on earth, and its economy has done just fine in that time.

When we get criticized for pipeline building, oil sands mining, and stuff like that, let's not pretend that cutting the emissions from our oil production or converting our coal power plants to natural gas is enough. Yes, let's talk about the progress we've made, but let's be just as vocal about our commitment to achieving net-zero emissions in the coming decades.

As a province and as individuals, let's:

• Invest in much more renewable energy, grid energy storage systems (pumped storage hydroelectricity is just one option that doesn't need a single new invention), and maybe nuclear power.
• Finish converting our coal power plants to natural gas.
• Invest in carbon capture, both from industrial stacks and from the atmosphere. (Carbon Engineering has a promising technology to convert atmospheric CO2 to hydrocarbon fuels. If it can run on 100% renewable energy, then it would produce carbon-neutral hydrocarbons.)
• Produce oil as cleanly as we can, to sell to the world for as long as they use oil.
• Actively work toward net-zero CO2 emissions by 2050 (with a possible exception for industries exporting to countries that haven't achieved net-zero emissions by then).
• Diversify our economy so that when the world won't buy our oil--or anyone else's--we still have a strong economy.
• Support political candidates who show strong integrity and leadership skill, and support the kinds of policies (in many areas, not just climate change) that you think are a good idea. Speak out against hypocrisy, abuse of power, and neglect for our future.
• Don't insult people we disagree with especially if they're motivated by love and compassion; respond intelligently and respectfully. (I'm getting tired of the insults directed at Greta Thunberg on Facebook.)

The coming decades will bring an unprecedented level of change to the world. Much of it can be positive. Do we want to isolate ourselves and become an economic also-ran, or do we want to work with the rest of Canada and the world to meet this challenge head-on?

Emissions intensity

Last week I talked about the possibility of a carbon tax to encourage greenhouse gas emission reductions. Today I'm talking about another controversial subject in emission reductions: emissions intensity. And once again, I am assuming the majority of climate scientists are correct--human activity is causing climate change. If you disagree with that, feel free to say so, but I am not prepared to debate it.

The Alberta government wants industrial polluters to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions intensity (emissions per dollar of product produced) rather than their absolute emissions. This is controversial because it allows growing companies to actually increase their total emissions while the world actually needs reduced total emissions. (Actually, the world needs reduced CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, and that's going to take some major reductions in total emissions.)

Assuming most scientists are right, I would agree that we need absolute reductions, but I think requiring each company to reduce its emissions intensity is a good way to divide up the responsibility. If every company needed to do absolute reductions, it would take a lot of the flexibility out of our economy. If a company comes up with a newer, much more efficient way to produce something, expanding their production could actually be good for the environment because their more-polluting competitors could lose market share. Requiring absolute emissions reductions would make this more difficult. It would also make it hard for companies to respond to changing demands from consumers.

Another example: as it gets harder to find conventional sources for oil, we're getting more development of the oil sands and other less conventional oil sources. These sources need more energy, so they pollute more. I hope we can reduce our dependence on oil, but as long as there's so much demand for oil, the oil sands will have to expand. The emissions intensity of oil sands plants will have to decrease, but we can't expect overall emissions from oil production to decrease.

This situation also shows that each of a company's activities should probably be treated separately (for example, oil sands should be considered separately from conventional oil) in evaluating emissions intensity. Also, we don't want companies expanding their low-polluting activities just so they can get away with doing nothing to improve their high-polluting activities.

One question I have: is emissions intensity a good way to divide up reduction targets for countries, provinces/states, and individual people? This would seem to favour the rich over the poor, because the rich can pollute more. Or maybe it would prevent introducing a new barrier to development in poor places. And maybe it is unrealistic to expect absolute emissions reductions in places like Alberta, in the short term. I already mentioned some reasons for oil sands expansion. That's happening because of increased demand and decreased supply of oil from other places. That's not Alberta's fault. Yes, we need to produce the oil as efficiently as we can, but we can't be expected to reduce other places' demand for oil. Or is this favouring a rich province while holding back the poorer ones?

Carbon tax

With all the talk about climate change and the provincial premiers' conference, I thought I'd weigh in on one issue within the climate change issue: a carbon tax.

I'm not going to address the question of whether or not human activity is causing climate change. It's a very complex subject that I haven't studied in much depth, so for the sake of this post, I'll boldly assume that the majority of climate scientists are right. (A side question: since evangelical Christians are typically taught to be skeptical of the theory of evolution, and sometimes the big bang theory and modern geology, does that make us more prone to doubting other theories--not contradicted by any common biblical interpretation--believed by the majority of scientists? Is our desire to trust God actually making us think we're smarter than everybody else? That seems arrogant, and arrogance doesn't jive well with Christianity.)

So, is a carbon tax a good idea? Some say it would unfairly pick on Alberta's oil industry, but I'm sure the demand for oil won't go away for a while, and it seems selfish to value the economy of our little province over the livability of much larger parts of the world holding many more people. And it might work better than existing regulations. Right now in Alberta, companies are expected to cut their emissions (or is it emissions intensity?) by a certain amount or face fines. If that's the main incentive to reduce emissions, there's less incentive to cut emissions further. Yes, many emissions cuts come from saving energy, which is an incentive itself, although maybe not a big enough one, considering how emissions keep increasing. And some ways of cutting emissions may not save money at the same time. If we tax all emissions, then there's always an incentive to cut emissions further.

Of course, if we're shifting taxation criteria more toward emissions and away from income, we'll need to make sure this system isn't tough on the poor. But I'm pretty sure we could come up with something.