If you take a look at GHG emissions across Canada, it is evident that we are the black (coal and bitumen covered) sheep of the family. Big brother Ontario’s emissions rank second, however, they have 3.5 times the population, and take a look at the economic slackers in the Maritimes.
The Government of Alberta, attempting to shed its image of being the black (coal and bitumen covered) sheep of the family, released ‘Alberta’s Climate Change Strategy’ a couple of years ago. It is quite an attractive publication, with pleasing type sets, a sleek layout; and chockfull of colorful close ups of lady bugs, pine boughs, and dewy leaves. But, its overly-polished appearance made it seem more like a marketing tool, rather than a serious environmental-economic strategy.
The document seemingly outlines Alberta’s three-pronged approach to reducing GHG in the province to 14% below 2005 levels by 2050. 1. Conservation & energy efficiency, 2. Greening energy production, and 3. Carbon capture & storage. However, it doesn't take much effort to see that it's really hoping and preaching a kind of put all of your eggs in one basket kind of solution. According to the strategy, 70% of the GHG reductions will be achieved through Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS).
I do not want to debate about whether CCS is cost effective or feasible on a massive scale, and I am certainly not an expert in regards to the energy and water requirements of such technology. But even the strategy only mentions of one upcoming CCS project in Alberta, which is expected to capture 220,000 tonnes of CO2 annually. Hence, in order to fulfill the 139 MT reduction target associated with CCS technology by 2050, another 630 CCS projects of similar scale would need to be implemented in the next 40 years - an average of 16 per year.
This brings us to the two other pieces of the strategy, “conservation & energy efficiency” and “greening energy production".
With respect to improving conservation and energy efficiency, Alberta implemented new regulations mandating industrial facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of CO2e per year to decrease its GHG intensity by 12%. For instance, if a widget factory currently puts out 100 kg of CO2e for producing one widget, in the future, it can only put out 88 kg of CO2e per widget.
The reductions can be achieved in three ways:
1. The widget factory changes its equipment and/or processes to become more efficient
2. The widget factory pays into a provincial ‘Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund’ at a rate of $15 per tonne of CO2e, which is really just a carbon tax.
3. The widget factory buys carbon offset credits from an unregulated facility (i.e. a facility that emits less than 100,000 t of CO2e per year) that reduces GHG emissions through voluntary activities.
So what is a carbon offset credit?
Carbon offset credits can be generated when a facility conducts an activity that goes above and beyond the industry and regulatory standard, while saving GHG emissions. For example, whether you agree with it or not, the standard waste management practice in Alberta is to landfill. When biodegradable waste decomposes in a landfill under anaerobic conditions, methane and carbon dioxide are generated and are eventually released to the atmosphere. If this waste is composted rather than landfilled, the majority of the carbon that would have otherwise have been released as GHG is now tied up as stable organic matter (i.e. compost). By accounting for and comparing the GHG emissions generated from landfilling vs. composting, the quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions become the carbon offset credits.
The Edmonton Waste Management Centre has quantified and sold over 200,000 tonnes of carbon offset credits derived from its composting operations over the past 3 years. In another two years, we will be able to generate additional offset credits from the new waste-to-biofuels facility, as there will be net GHG reductions from the displacement of conventional fossil fuels with biofuels, as well as, avoidance of landfill gas generation. (Currently at work, I'm actually developing the quantification calculator that we will be using to quantify the offsets from the biofuels facility)
To ensure the veracity and rigor of the quantification, only activities with quantification protocols approved by Alberta Environment can proceed with quantifying and the subsequent selling of their offsets (There are currently 29 approved protocols covering a number of activities in the agriculture, waste, renewable energy and transportation sectors). In addition, upon completion of the offset quantification, the information must be verified by a third party consultant, such as a chartered accountant or professional engineer.
Another strength of the system is that any given offset activity can only be valid for a maximum of 8 years, before it undergoes review to determine whether it is still an appropriate offset activity. For instance, as composting operations become more prevalent in the future, at some point it becomes the new norm and should no longer be seen as an environmentally progressive activity, suitable for carbon offsets. This seems like a sensible way to encourage continuous improvement and spur on new and better methods of reducing emissions.
In 2007, approximately 1 million tonnes of offset credits were traded in Alberta; and this figure jumped to 2.7 million tonnes in the following year. As more and more protocols are approved, trading is only expected to increase. One criticism of the current system is that the “penalty” or alternative of paying $15 per tonne of CO2 to the Climate Change Fund is set too low, and drastically undervalues the importance of energy conservation. Since the rate is set at $15 per tonne, carbon credits can never be priced more than $15, as there would be no incentive for the regulated facilities to use offset credits rather than just pay into the fund. But, for now, $15 per tonne is better than nothing, right?
Either way, should this scheme fail or get scrapped for some reason, the only immediate repercussions will be that some big oil and utility companies have wasted millions of dollars for nothing. Oh well. At least we still have carbon capture and storage to fall back on.
Sources:
2008 Alberta Greenhouse Gas Emissions
http://environment.alberta.ca/0915.html
Alberta Carbon Offset Regulation and Policy Development
http://carbonoffsetsolutions.climatechangecentral.com/policy-regulation/alberta-legislation-regulation-and-policy-development
Alberta's 2007 and 2008 Total Offset Summary
http://carbonoffsetsolutions.climatechangecentral.com/policy-regulation/alberta-offset-system-review
Alberta’s 2008 Climate Change Strategy
http://environment.gov.ab.ca/info/library/7894.pdf
List of Approved quantification protocols
http://carbonoffsetsolutions.climatechangecentral.com/offset-protocols/approved-alberta-protocols
No comments:
Post a Comment