We get questions

The Centre for Energy’s portal is loaded with factual and statistical information about Canada’s energy system. But we still get questions, like this one.

Q: I understand Canada has the largest peat reserves in the world. Is peat used in Canada for biomass-fuelled electricity generation?

A: Peat consists of partially decayed plant material, such as trees, shrubs and marsh grasses, that accumulates in wetlands where acidic and anaerobic conditions inhibit decomposition. Under the heat and pressure of burial, peat transforms into lignite coal. As the depth of burial increases, over time lignite metamorphoses into higher grades of coal.

At 1,100,000 square kilometres, Canada does have the largest peat reserves in the world, roughly 45 per cent of global supply. Peat bogs are found in every province and territory, with the majority being in Northwest Territories, Ontario and Manitoba. However, Canada does not use peat as biomass fuel for commercial generation of electricity.

There are a couple of reasons for this. Peat bogs provide various wetland functions. They filter water; they provide habitat for animals, and they act as a carbon sink in much the same way forests take up carbon. Dry harvesting of peat involves draining the peat bog, which can significantly hamper, or even destroy, the peat bog’s ability to perform these functions.

Until recently, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considered peat to be a fossil fuel because it is a precursor to coal. However, because peat is formed from growing organic matter and, if properly managed is, according to the European Parliament “a long-term renewable energy source”, the IPCC now places it its own category – not quite biomass but not fossil fuel either.

The fact is, like biomass, peat is carbon neutral. This means that the carbon dioxide taken up by the plant while growing is released after the plant dies. Whether the plant is left to decay or if it is burned, the same amount of carbon dioxide is released.

Peat is used extensively in northern Europe as a fuel for heating and generating electricity, particularly in Finland and Ireland.

A newer harvesting method, wet harvesting, is much less destructive and is being tested in a pilot project in Newfoundland where peat pellets are being used as a power source in a paper mill.

Canada does harvest peat for horticultural use and is a large exporter to the United Sates.

Masdar chosen for IRENA headquarters

The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) has chosen an unlikely location for its headquarters – a mirage in the desert.

Near the city of Abu Dhabi, the carbon-neutral city of Masdar is being built. It will run entirely on solar and wind energy, and allow no cars; the streets will be only ten feet wide. Electric rapid transit will transport people underground and overhead. A solar-powered desalination tank will provide drinking water. The city’s grey water will be collected and used for irrigation. Waste-to-energy plants are in the works. Looking at all of this, it’s no wonder IRENA chose Masdar for its headquarters –it just hasn’t been built yet.

The announcement has raised a few eyebrows and provoked quite a few questions. Is it greenwashing on behalf of a small country with an enormous footprint? Is it insurance for oil companies, if they believe the fossil fuel era is winding down?

Time, as it always does, will tell. Masdar itself isn’t scheduled to be completed until 2012. Until then, construction will be monitored closely by the World Wildlife Fund and BioRegional to verify it walks the sustainable talk.

For what it’s worth, the WWF and BioRegional are optimistic. Both have already endorsed Masdar as a “One Planet Living Community.” That designation means it will only use its “fair share” of resources as determined by them.

That really should be no problem, if Masdar really becomes a zero-emissions, zero-waste city.

Consider Central America

Costa Rica is the happiest place on earth. That is, according to the Happy Planet Index. The HPI measures how effectively nations use resources to give its citizens a decent standard of living, without bankrupting its environment.

The point?

To find out who is living sustainably – and who would need the resources of more than four planets in order to maintain their current rates of consumption. That’s not empty hyperbole, either – looking at you, United States of America.

Unfortunately this year no country was found to be “single planet” living, which is the goal. The HPI gave marks for good, so-so, and bad performances in each category. They also gave an overall good or bad performance rating, with more of a gradient.

Costa Rica ranked higher than any other country for its combination of life expectancy, life satisfaction, and national carbon footprint. Central America and the Caribbean performed very well, representing nine of the top ten. Columbia, surprisingly, was the other one.

While Canada ranked very high in life expectancy and satisfaction, our carbon footprint was in the red. Overall, Canada rated was 39.4 out of a possible 100. According to the study, we would need between two and four planets to continue this way.

Meanwhile, Costa Rica is aiming to be a carbon-neutral country by 2021, getting 99% of its energy is from renewable resources.

What does it do differently? Interestingly, it merged its environment and energy ministries in the ‘70s.

Carbon-neutral colleges

Leadership by example.  It basically means walking the walk and talking the talk. When it comes to action on climate change, college campuses across the US are attempting to do just that. 

…With the help of a former president.  

The Clinton Climate Initiative is helping colleges and universities to improve energy efficiency and reduce carbon emissions with an injection of 1 billion dollars to fund carbon neutral programs.  It’s one component of many in reaching the long-term goal of climate neutrality, but a highly symbolic one.  

The American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) is a partnership of 427 like-minded college and university presidents.  From all 50 states, schools as small as Wells College and as large as Arizona State, they attempt to set short and long term goals towards climate neutrality.  

What are the colleges actually doing towards those goals?  Obviously conditions and challenges vary immensely from state to state, much less from Brown University to Lane College. The funding from the Clinton Climate Initiative is available to the ACUPCC to use how they see fit.

The ACUPCC plans on pursuing both short- and long-term projects toward carbon neutrality. That can mean basic infrastructure upgrades, such as retrofitting inefficient buildings.  Or, it can mean embarking on advanced climate change research.  UC San Diego, for example, is examining how cyberinfrastructure can be used in research universities to create carbon-neutral environments. 

Indeed, the carbon neutral college initiative is passing climate change leadership from one former leader to a generation of future leaders.

Going green goes to Hollywood

It’s no surprise that a Hollywood blockbuster leaves a huge carbon footprint. The lights, the camera, the action all cost energy, not to mention the flights to global locations, lavish studio offices and the multiple takes to get it just right on screen. In fact, the film industry has the dubious distinction of being a top polluter in Los Angeles, second only to petroleum. 

Thanks to A-list stars like Cate Blanchett, George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio and Harrision Ford standing up for the environment, Hollywood is going green and offsetting their carbon footprint.  The most straightforward approach is to tally carbon emissions and plant trees to offset that number. Other approaches include recycling programs, reducing paper consumption by using double-sided scripts and supplying crew members with bikes for on-set transportation.

Recent carbon neutral films include “Evan Almighty”, “An Inconvenient Truth”, and “Syriana”.  Producer Marty Bowen and Director Catherine Hardwicke even shelled out $15,000 to offset the carbon emissions for “The Nativity Story”.

Other members of the industry are taking it even further. For example, The Dave Matthews Band has partnered with a company called Native Energy to offset their carbon emissions for their entire history. With a dose of cool from Hollywood, going green getting is likely to continue as the hottest trend in the consumer mainstream.

Hydrogen 1, wetlands 0

By definition, every “eco-friendly” choice is made between several options. Electric or hydrogen? Wind or solar? The options are daunting, but sometimes the choices we make only highlight the inherent frustration in trying to make any choice at all.

For Olympic organizers, as reported by the Globe and Mail, one of those choices has already reared its ugly head — between zero-emission transportation for Vancouver’s 2010 Olympic Games and the preservation of a “red listed” wetland.

Provided by BC Transit, the 20 buses will run on hydrogen fuel cells that require liquid hydrogen (which, the Globe and Mail article points out, has to be shipped in by diesel-powered trucks). But to build the fuelling station required for the Olympic Games’ so-called “hydrogen highway,” BC Transit is looking to a site on a protected wetland that is only able to be considered because, as a provincial crown corporation, BC Transit is exempt from environmental restrictions that would otherwise halt development.

Ironically, the controversy comes as the BC government is being pressured to adopt a “green constitution” that would ensure new homes built would be carbon neutral. Far from being carbon neutral, the fueling station’s emission-free fuel would come at the expense of releasing further CO2 from the developed wetland, given that research by the United Nations has already demonstrated the CO2 storage capacity of similar areas.

As any politician mired in the current controversy over biofuels and their relationship to food (a proposition that once seemed like a win-win situation) can attest, making the “right” green choice is rarely an easy one. And as BC ramps up to one of the highest profile events on the planet, it’s worth noting that they’ll soon be attracting attention for every choice they make.

Green wine? Thanks, but we’ll stick to reds.

An article in the January 15th issue of the Queen’s Journal describes how Lifford Wine Agency plants a coniferous tree for every bottle of its Plantatree wine sold. Drink one bottle every 23 days says the company, and you’ll be carbon neutral for the year. Maybe it’s the wine, but when we did the math, things got a little fuzzy.

The problem is that each tree absorbs about 0.3 tonnes of carbon in its lifetime – not in a year. Seeing as the life span of your average conifer is around 200 years, that’s not a lot of carbon per year – about 0.0015 tonnes compared to the five-tonnes per year carbon footprint of your average Canadian. At that rate, by our count, you’d have to drink about 3,335 bottles per year, or one about every two and a half hours. Or maybe they sell their wine in 280-litre bottles. Though we’re certainly not suggesting you drink your way to carbon neutrality, the deal does some good for the environment, and maybe a bit more for the wine maker.