Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
David Suzuki

GET UPDATES FROM David Suzuki
 

Canada, Time to Kick Our Coal Addiction

Posted: 03/21/2012 1:21 pm

More than anything else, coal fueled the Industrial Revolution. It was, and still is, plentiful and cheap. It's also always been relatively easy to get at, especially if you don't mind sending kids into mines, endangering the lives of miners, or blasting the tops off mountains.

Coal is an 18th-century fuel source, but we're still relying on it for much of our energy needs in the 21st century. Because it's so abundant and inexpensive, there's been little incentive to switch to cleaner but often more expensive sources.

Burning coal pollutes the air, land, and water, and is a major driver of climate change. Emissions from coal combustion, contain sulphur dioxide, carbon dioxide, mercury, arsenic, nitrogen oxide, carbon monoxide, lead, small particles, and other toxic materials. These cause acid rain, smog, damage to forests and waterways, and a range of serious health problems in humans, from lung disease to cancer.

And, as University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver concluded after comparing the impact of burning tar sands oil to burning coal, "We will live or die by our future consumption of coal." That doesn't mean the tar sands are okay; it's just that there's a lot more coal in the world, and the impact of mining and burning it are more severe.

Weaver stressed that, "While coal is the greatest threat to the climate globally, the tar sands remain the largest source of greenhouse gas emission growth in Canada and are the single largest reason Canada is failing to meet its international climate commitments."

I agree with Weaver that the "world needs to transition away from fossil fuels if it wants to avoid dangerous human interference with the climate system. That means coal, unconventional gas, and unconventional oil all need to be addressed."

Canada uses more than half its coal to generate electricity and for industry. We export about 40 per cent, much of it to Japan and elsewhere in Asia. Canada also imports coal, mainly because it's cheaper to ship it from the U.S. to eastern provinces than from Western Canada.

About 18 per cent of Canada's electricity is from coal, less than the global 40 per cent average, and much less than countries like China, which uses coal to generate about 80 per cent of its electricity. But use varies across the country. According to Natural Resources Canada, "Coal is used to produce about 74 per cent of the electricity used in Alberta, 63 per cent in Saskatchewan, 60 per cent in Nova Scotia, and 18 per cent in Ontario. The coal not used to generate electricity is consumed by Canada's steel, cement and other industries."

Rather than looking for cleaner ways to generate energy, many industrial and government leaders have been touting "clean coal." This means trying to reduce some of the pollutants and CO2 by "scrubbing" them from emissions or by burying them underground in a process called carbon capture and storage (CCS). It can also mean converting coal to gas.

These are inadequate solutions. They don't get rid of all the pollutants. Carbon capture is expensive, mostly unproven, and we don't fully understand the consequences of burying carbon dioxide. The governments of Canada and Alberta have committed $3 billion in taxpayer money since 2008 for demonstration CCS projects, mostly for coal operations, but some for the tar sands. Even with CCS, coal plants would not be required to eliminate their CO2 emissions, just reduce them.

As long as coal remains so inexpensive to obtain and burn, with few or no dollars paid for the environmental damage it causes, it will continue to be used. And that endangers us all. We need leadership on this. As Andrew Weaver said, "The atmosphere has traditionally been viewed as an unregulated dumping ground. There is no cost associated with emitting greenhouse gases. Economists call this a market failure. To correct this failure, a price is needed on emissions."

We are well beyond the 18th century. With energy, it's time to look to the future and not the past. That means finding ways to encourage clean energy development and discourage fossil fuel consumption. Carbon taxes and cap and trade must be part of the equation.

CORRECTION: Last week's column contained information about coal used for electricity in Canada. Those figures, from the Natural Resources Canada website, were not up to date. In fact, Ontario got 2.7 per cent of its electricity from coal last year.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 14
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
03:50 PM on 03/28/2012
I am not an anti environmentalist ,but merely a curious citizen. Can anyone tell me when was the last time David Suzuki had a real job,actually practising the Science that he preaches?,or is he merely a graduate of the Al Gore science Academy where lots of GREEN equals unreproachable evidence. Just wondering.
08:12 PM on 03/23/2012
Instead of grousing about coal pollution perhaps Suzuki should be offering solutions to our electricity problems. Ontario for instance has over 7000 rivers, of as many sizes as you can think off. How many mini- hydro-electric plants could we build on these 7000 rivers with the billions of dollars spent on useless solar panels and the stupidity of windmills that blight the landscape of Ontario. But then Suzuki is in a box and can't think outside of the box of his so called charity foundation.
Secondly Suzuki does not talk about scrubbers that eliminate most of all the carbon emissions from coal fired smokestacks here in Ontario. (The provincial government of Ontario also ignores this fact). I would suggest that Suzuki take his rant about coal to the USA ,to the politicians, to get better technology to remove the pollutants that pollute Canada air. Nope not Suzuki no money in that.
11:09 AM on 03/22/2012
The coal we refuse to burn is exported to China on the cheap. China burns the dirty coal to make wind turbines, and solar panels. China produces expensive wind turbines and solar panels that we are forced to buy, with subsidy support, to make electricity that costs four times the going rate. Currently we have the least expensive electric rates in the world. The misguided push for renewable energy will more than double the cost of electricity.

Economically, China wins, and we lose!

Global Warming continues unabated!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JJJSchmidt
01:04 AM on 03/23/2012
Least expensive electricity rates in the world? Not in Ontario. Perhaps you live in Quebec or Alberta. The price of energy is driving businesses out of Ontario and preventing new business from choosing Ontario to set up. Expensive green power initiatives in an odd way does make Ontario greener. No industry mean no greenhouse gases. Absolutely brilliant!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JJJSchmidt
10:51 AM on 03/22/2012
I'm not sure where Suzuki gets his figure for coal powered electricity in Canada but I suspect it is far higher than reality if you take Ontario as an example. When coal power was a big part of Ontario's power mix it contributed about 25% of the power mix. Today it is less than 10% and typically less than 5% and Suzuki uses a bogus or outdated number of 18%. That data is absolutely misleading and false. Go to sygration.com and see the power mix in Ontario for any given day. Today, March 22nd, the percentage of coal power in relation to the total power mix in Ontario is 3.4%. But to Suzuki I guess we should sound the alarms. If Canada wants to make an impact on CO2 emissions perhaps they should look at finding alternatives to gasoline for our cars.

Before the end of 2014 there will be only two small coal-fired stations left in Ontario, one in Thunder Bay and one in Atikokan. The US is committed to using more coal power and building more clean coal power plants at at time when Ontario is eliminating coal from the power mix. Our atmosphere is shared. All that pollution and CO2 gases produced by our American neighbours don't stop at the US/Canada border. Ontario is fighting a losing battle if it thinks it can battle coal power all by itself.
08:30 AM on 03/22/2012
" I agree with Weaver that the "world needs to transition away from fossil fuels if it wants to avoid dangerous human interference with the climate system. That means coal, unconventional gas, and unconventional oil all need to be addressed." "

There should be little disagreement with this goal. However the question that must be answered is how are we going to do it? What is your plan?

Conservation? LOL

Wind? In whose backyard are you going to put those 800,000+ turbines and where are you going to find the $ 1.6 Trillion to buy them? And how will you manage those periods when there is no wind?

Solar? Well we could probably find someplace to put the necessary 21,000 square Km of panels but again how do you propose to pay the $3 Trillion they would cost. And again, if I am not mistaken, there are regular periods when the sun doesn't shine, what then?

Biofuels? We'd probably have to dedicate most of our agricultural land to fuel production for transportation, but for power generation it only has to be burned.

Nuclear? Canada would need about 475 1GW reactors. How are you going to sell that to the NIMBYs?

Fusion? ROTFL

I guess we'll just have to stick with fossil fuels until they get scarce and let the resulting starvation and wars adjust the population down to a sustainable level.
07:28 AM on 03/22/2012
If you think alternatives are where it's at, check out Rare Earth metal mining and toxic waste. Makes coal look like something you'd get at Whole Foods.
08:49 AM on 03/22/2012
A byproduct of rare earth mining is thorium which has a very long half life and is slightly radioactive. Thorium is also fertile, meaning that it can absorb a neutron and after a couple of decays become fissile U233. There is more energy in trace thorium emissions from coal fired power plants than in the coal itself. There is enough thorium to supply the worlds power needs for over a thousand years. (Maybe by then we will have figured out fusion.)

Here is my plan.
Start a crash, 5 year, program with the US, Britain, and France to develop a factory build-able LFTR.
Start reprocessing spent fuel to extract fissionable plutonium with which to start the LFTRs
After 5 years, build and fuel 50 reactors per year for as long as the plutonium holds out. After that grow the number of reactors by 10% per year.
Once reactors are available, build or have in place Fischer Tropsch plants to produce liquid fuels for the transportation industry. Once there is sufficient electrical energy, we could get the necessary carbon by condensing CO2 from the atmosphere.
In under 100 years we could be completely free of fossil fuels and be carbon neutral.

Or we could let mother nature and human nature reduce the population to more sustainable levels.
10:44 AM on 03/22/2012
I like your plan. Sounds good on paper. Does it need a subsidy for implementation? (Big difference than subsidy for R&D)
12:44 AM on 03/22/2012
I am a Canadian in Appalachia. Life expectancies here are 7 years less than the US average. The falling coal soot blackens car hoods enough for weekly carwashes. Migraines, cancer rates...all seem very high among residents I have met, both rich and poor.
The pressure for change has to be external - North American consumer demand for alternative fuels is one of the only ways to try to change this coal-fixated culture.
Coal companies here dominate via political & economic influence and so can ignore safety regulations (ie. Upper Big Branch), dam up (toxic) slurry ponds directly overhead from schools and towns, buy judges by funding their elections campaigns, and keep out all other businesses that might threaten their upper hand, EVEN OIL AND GAS.
So I appeal to my Cdn. peeps! Some coal companies have better employees/safety/ environmental records, and some people are trying to build up Appalachian natural gas and wind power industries to diversify jobs/the power structure and lower the footprint.
I have no choice here about which electric company I go with: there is only one here. You might be in a position to choose how to source your electric power and be part of the new wave.
1) find out where your power comes from (try Google Earth)
2) go with the more ethical suppliers / lower carbon footprint as much as you can.
The consumer pressure will build, and Appalachians will just have to bend to the market's wishes.
10:04 PM on 03/21/2012
"We need leadership on this". Yes, but good luck finding any genuine adult leadership among the self-interested capitalists and right-wing ideologues pulling the levers of power on this issue.
photo
albertarick
These are questions for wise men with skinny arms
03:49 PM on 03/21/2012
Alberta's Capital Health Authority reports that 10.2% of the population has asthma, a rate significantly above the national average. Could it be that there is a correlation to our use of coal for energy and higher asthma rates? One would think their might be a study. I suppose some might oppose such a study. Hmmm. Time to take stock of our worth as human beings. We as Canadians are not simply cogs in the world energy machine. The decisions being pushed through today, with increasingly smaller numbers of people having their ideas and given credence, have real consequences.
03:29 PM on 03/21/2012
O Canada, what have we done for your glory, mining industries and fossil energy..