Most Amazing Ride Yet

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog
http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

I got to see mom Cooper’s Hawk feeding her chick, right after it hatched. I’m about 120 feet away.

via The Deplorable Climate Science Blog http://ift.tt/2i1JH7O

June 22, 2017 at 08:01PM

PROSPECTS FOR MEETING EMISSION REDUCTION GOALS: THE CASE OF QUEBEC

via Friends of Science Calgary
http://ift.tt/2on3Vep

Contributed by Robert Lyman © 2017

Introduction

Much of the controversy in Canada concerning climate change issues takes place at a very general level. People discuss first whether one should believe those scientists and modelers who predict catastrophic global warming, and second what are the implications of this for the emissions reductions measures, if any, we should take in Canada. A lively debate still takes place on both questions. We might gain more insights by asking, “What if”. What if, for example, Canadians in each province tried actually to meet the official greenhouse gas emission reduction targets already set by governments?

 

The purpose of this note is to explore the possible implications if the residents of Quebec actually had to meet the targets that have been set for them by the federal and provincial governments over the next thirty-three years (i.e. to 2050) and beyond. A thorough analysis of this would require the use of sophisticated econometric models and an enormous amount of data, which I lack. The comments that follow should thus be considered as attempts to offer qualitative insights into the analysis that must be done and the choices that lie ahead.

 

The Targets

The Government of Canada formally has committed to the United Nations to reduce GHG emissions from current levels (722 megatonnes, or Mt, of carbon dioxide equivalent, in 2015) to 622 Mt in 2020 and 525 Mt in 2030. In 2008, former Prime Minister Stephen Harper made a political commitment that Canada would reduce its emissions by 50% or more from 2005 levels by 2050; that would mean a reduction to 369 Mt.

 

The Government of Quebec has made a political commitment to reduce provincial GHG emissions to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. As provincial emissions in 1990 were 90 Mt, this implies a 2020 target of 72 Mt. Quebec has also committed to reduce emissions by 80 to 95% below 1990 levels by 2050. That implies emissions levels in a range of 18 Mt to 4.5 Mt by mid-century.

 

Neither the federal nor provincial commitments include any condition concerning future increases in population or economic activity. The goals are based upon the expectation, one can only assume, that somehow emissions reductions can be achieved at rates that will offset economic and population growth and, in addition, achieve very significant reductions in the emissions intensity of the economy.

 

There is also no official connection between the goals articulated by the two different orders of government. Clearly, for example, Quebec’s 2050 target far exceeds what would be required for the province if the emissions reduction measures contemplated to achieve the federal goal were to be applied proportionately across all provinces and territories.

 

The Current Situation

The most recent data on GHG emissions in Quebec are for 2015. According to Environment Canada, Quebec emitted 80.1 Mt in that year, 11.4% of the Canadian total.

 

Table 1 indicates the breakdown of those emissions.

 

Table 1

Quebec GHG Emissions by Source in 2015
Source	Percentage
Transport	42
Stationary Combustion	29
Industrial Processes	13
Agriculture	10
Waste	6

Source: Environment and Climate Change Canada National Inventory Report, 2015

 

Quebec’s emissions stayed virtually unchanged from 1990 to 2006. Following the onset of the global financial crisis, they declined steadily to 2011, rose briefly in 2012 and then declined again to 2015. Other things equal, they are on a path to meet the 2020 target of 72 Mt. However, a number of background factors may affect this.

 

Quebec’s economic and population growth rate has lagged behind the Canadian average since 1981. From 2011 to 2016, according to Statistics Canada, Quebec’s population grew by 3.3%, compared to 5.0 % for Canada as a whole.  The Quebec Statistics Institute reports that Quebec’s real growth in GDP declined from almost 3% in 2010 to around 1% from 2013 to 2015.  These low rates of population and income growth facilitated emissions reductions. Since late 2015, in contrast, provincial GDP has been rising at a rate above 2% per year.  If Quebec can continue or increase this pace of economic growth, emissions may move higher than forecast.

 

The Potential Implications of the 2050 Targets

The structure of Quebec’s energy economy differs from that of some other Canadian provinces in two important respects. The first is that, unlike most other provinces, the Quebec economy is not based heavily on resource extraction in the form of hydrocarbons development or hard rock mining, although there are some large mines in the province. It is primarily a service economy. The second is that it is blessed with access to large and already developed hydroelectric power resources that have allowed the province to establish an electricity generation system with very low emissions of greenhouse gases. On a per capita basis, Quebec is one of the lowest GHG emissions jurisdictions in the world.

 

This means that the options available for Quebec to make significant additional emissions reductions at low cost are much more limited than in the case of other provinces, and especially the major hydrocarbon producers and users. For example, while transportation-related emissions represent less than 25% of the total in the western provinces and in Canada as a whole, at 42% in Quebec they constitute the largest share. Emissions from large stationary sources and emissions-intensive industry combined constitute 41% of Quebec emissions. If Quebec’s goals are to be met, the cuts must come in these two areas.

 

This will not be easy.

 

Transportation

 

Reducing emissions in transportation is far more complex than the general public believes. The complexity arises from the differences among the surface, marine and aviation modes of transport and from the many ways in which emissions can be affected, including efficiency improvements in existing vehicle technologies, development and market penetration of new technologies, changes in the behavior of vehicle operators, inter-modal shifts and use of alternative fuels. The academic literature and the media are full of positive expectations about the emissions reduction potential of new technologies, but many of these technologies have not yet been developed, and may not be developed for decades.

 

Most transport-related emissions come from surface vehicles. About half come from cars and light passenger trucks (SUVs), a quarter from commercial trucks, 10% from aircraft, 4 % from rail and the remainder from buses, motorcycles, and off-road vehicles, including those used for farming and construction.

 

The recent and near-term trends in passenger vehicle emissions are almost entirely due to the effects of regulation. In October 2010, Environment Canada issued the Passenger Automobile and Light Truck Greenhouse Gas Emission Regulations, which prescribed progressively more stringent annual emissions standards for new vehicles in model years 2011 to 2016. In 2014, Environment Canada introduced even more stringent standards for the 2017 to 2025 model years. Under both phases of light-duty vehicle regulation, the fuel efficiency of new cars will increase by 41% and the fuel efficiency of new passenger light trucks will increase by 37%. In addition, new emissions standards for heavy-duty vehicles (buses and trucks) are expected to reduce Canada’s emissions by about 2 Mt by 2020.

 

These emission reductions will come at a high cost to vehicle manufacturers, a cost that will be passed on to consumers via the prices of the vehicles. The vehicle industry argues that, after more than 30 years of increasingly stringent regulations, it is reaching the limits of current technology. Certainly, the regulations are changing the types of vehicles available to consumers. It is unlikely that Quebec can do anything on its own that would change the fuel efficiency and emissions of North American vehicles beyond what is agreed jointly by the U.S. and Canadian governments.

 

Increasing carbon taxes on gasoline will make driving more expensive for drivers, but experience in Europe has shown that even very high prices will not substantially reduce fuel use. In Norway, for example, gasoline prices were CDN $2.46 per liter in the first quarter of 2017, the highest in Europe, and yet gasoline demand there continues to rise. We would need a carbon tax of $60 per tonne to raise average Canadian prices to that level.

 

The “bottom line” is that the combined effect of regulations and higher fuel taxes will increase fuel efficiency and reduce per vehicle emissions, but as has happened to date, the increasing number of cars on the roads will probably leave emissions stable or very slightly declining. It is extremely unlikely that regulation and taxes will force consumers to abandon their cars altogether, as would be required by an emissions reduction of 80 to 95%.

 

What about electric vehicles (EV)? Electric vehicles are the beneficiaries of both large government subsidies and pervasive media hype. However, a 2010 report by J.D Power and Associates that offered a pessimistic view of EV market prospects has proved prophetic. The study concluded that the combined global sales of hybrids and all-electric plug-in vehicles might total 5.2 million units in 2020, just 7.3% of the 70.9 million passenger vehicles to be sold worldwide in that year. At the end of 2016, global sales just passed the 2-million-vehicle mark, well below the J.D. Power estimate for 2020. This is also far less than the numbers projected by the former Obama Administration in the U.S. and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany. EVs constitute less than 1% of new vehicle sales in Canada. While sales grow every year, they are unlikely to become a significant portion of the total vehicle fleet for at least 20 years, and perhaps much longer.

 

John Lawson, one of Canada’s foremost transportation economists, has studied the potential for reducing emissions through modal shift (i.e. encouraging passengers or freight movers to switch from high-emission modes of transport to lower-emission modes). The results may be surprising.

 

• Doubling of intercity train passenger travel would actually increase emissions slightly, because of the low occupancy rates of trains.
• Doubling of intercity bus travel would reduce emissions, but only by half a megaton to 2020, because traffic is so limited.
• Doubling of urban passenger travel by transit (a very ambitious goal) would only save 2.53 Mt in all of Canada by 2020.

 

Municipal governments are already struggling to make the transit capital expenditures they consider necessary to alleviate congestion, and they hardly have the funds needed to double the capacity of the current systems.

 

There are even more limited prospects for massive reductions in freight transportation through inter-modal shifts. Trucks are the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in transportation. Shifting 10% of freight from trucks to rail is considered a significant goal, as businesses prefer trucks for their flexibility; unlike rail, trucks can pick up and deliver freight to many destinations. If a 10% shift from large trucks could be achieved, this would only reduce emissions in all of Canada by 0.42 Mt in 2020.

 

Environmentalists celebrated when a two-seater all-electric aircraft won a race in Europe, beating conventional piston-driven models, and a solar-powered plane flew around the world. The subsequent media coverage rarely mentioned that in both cases most of the aircraft’s weight was the battery, or that it took the solar plane a year to make the trip because of problems with its battery. There are a number of ways to improve the fuel economy of commercial aircraft and these are now being pursued by the international civil aviation industry. The idea that long-distance commercial jetliners could be powered by battery packs, however, lies more in the realm of Jules Verne than in serious aviation planning. The only way to drastically reduce GHG emissions from commercial passenger and freight aircraft is to restrict, indeed possibly ration, their use. This was actually proposed in an early version of the Canadian Green Party’s Platform posted online prior to the federal election of 2015, but it was wisely dropped in the final version. Severely limiting commercial flights in Quebec to meet the 2050 target, of course, would have the double benefit of sharply reducing emissions in the hotel and restaurant industries.

 

Stationary Combustion Sources and Emissions Intensive Industries

 

These sectors of the economy include many of the industrial plants that consume large amounts of oil, natural gas or coal. Across Canada, the firms are mostly in industries related to mining and metals fabrication, petrochemicals, automobile and truck manufacturing (and related parts manufacturing), iron, steel, cement and pulp and paper industries, among others. In the period 2005 to 2012, emissions in these sectors declined, partly due to the effects of the economic recession.

 

As in other sectors, there are opportunities to improve energy efficiency and thereby reduce GHG emissions in Quebec’s emissions-intensive industries. However, reducing total emissions to the range of 18 to 4.5 MT would lower Quebec’s per capita emissions to a level similar to that of Somalia today. Without radical measures, there seems no way to so transform the provincial economy in 33 years, or even in 60 years.

 

Environment and Climate Change Canada publishes the names of the large facility GHG emitters in Canada. There are almost 80 in Quebec, of which the following are the 10 largest:

 

 

To say the least, closing these plants to achieve the emissions reduction target would have important regional implications within Quebec.

 

Conclusion

Quebec likely will meet its 2020 emissions reduction target. As increasingly more demanding targets are set, they will be much more difficult to attain. Indeed, it is not clear what set of policy measures could be implemented to achieve the 2050 goal.

 

The most comprehensive policy instrument would be a revenue-neutral carbon tax. The tax regime currently being implemented by the federal government, however, would only raise carbon taxes to $50 per tonne (equivalent to 11.5 cents per liter of gasoline) by 2022. The former National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, in a 2012 report, estimated that a carbon tax of at least $300 per tonne (equivalent to $1.30 a liter of gasoline) would be required to meet a 2050 goal of a 50% reduction in Canadian GHG emissions. The more ambitious Quebec goal of an 80% to 95% reduction would probably require a much higher tax. The political acceptability of carbon taxes may well depend on whether they are fully recycled into the economy through reductions in other generally applied taxes.  Quebec politicians, like those in other provinces, seem very unlikely to pass up the opportunity to spend a revenue windfall on a wide range of favoured projects and groups. In this and many other ways, politics seems likely to undermine the 2050 target.

 ~~~~

 

Facility	City	GHG Emissions   (kt CO2e)
Valero Refinery	Levis	1414
Suncor Refinery	Montreal	1202
Aluminerie Alouette	Sept-Iles	1128
Usine de Bouletage	Port-Cartier	979
Rio Tinto Fer et Titane	Sorel-Tracy	907
Usine Arvida	Saguenay	848
Usine Alma	Alma	842
Cimenterie de Saint-Constant	Saint-Constant	818
Aluminerie de Becancour	Becancour	814
ArcelorMittal	Contrecoeur	752

via Friends of Science Calgary http://ift.tt/2on3Vep

June 22, 2017 at 06:08PM

W Hudson Bay polar bears won’t have an early breakup year, according to sea ice charts

via polarbearscience
http://ift.tt/1oHvY57

There is still a huge swath of highly concentrated thick first year ice (>1.2m) over most of Hudson Bay this week (19 June 2017) and even in the NW quadrant (the closest proxy we have for Western Hudson Bay), the weekly graph shows levels are greater than 2016, when WHB bears came off the ice in good condition about mid-July. All of which indicates 2017 won’t be an early sea ice breakup year for WHB polar bears.

There is thick first year ice (>1.2m, dark green) in patches along the west coast in the north and south. Thick first year ice also extends into Hudson Strait and Baffin Bay, with some medium first year ice (0.7-1.2m thick, bright green) along the central and southern coasts of WHB.  Note the red triangles incorporated into the thick ice of Hudson Strait in the chart above: those are icebergs from Greenland and/or Baffin Island glaciers. A similar phenomenon has been noted this year off northern Newfoundland, where very thick glacier ice became mixed with thick first year pack ice and were compacted against the shore by storm winds to create patches of sea ice 5-8 m thick.

Compare the above to what the ice looked like last year at this time (2016 20 June, below). There is more open water in the east this year (where few WHB bears would likely venture anyway) but less open water around Churchill and Wapusk National Park to the south than there was in 2016:

We won’t know for several more weeks if most WHB bears will come ashore at about the same time as last year (early to mid-July) or whether they will be in as good condition as they were last year (because winter conditions may not have been similar).

But so far, sea ice conditions are not looking as dire as the weekly “departure from normal” chart (below, 19 June 2017) might suggest (all that “less than normal” red and pink, oh no!!):

In the NW quadrant of Hudson Bay (the closest proxy we have for Western Hudson Bay ice levels for data produced by the CIS), the weekly graph for 18 June shows levels are below average for that date but not by much — and virtually 50% of the region is covered in ice. So, 2017 ice levels are still greater than 2015 and 2016 in the NW sector, neither of which were especially early breakup years for the WHB polar bear subpopulation.

Using an area more similar to the official boundaries of Western Hudson Bay to define sea ice, panel B in the graph below (middle), from de Castro et al. (2017), you can see that breakup of Western Hudson Bay sea ice came on about the same date in 2013 as in 2010, and 2009 (no data presented for 2012). The dates were only slightly earlier for 2006, 2007, 2014, and 2015 but 2002,  2004, 2008 and 2009 were more like pre-1995 dates.

Only 1999, 2003, and perhaps 2011, were very early (before day 170 or 19 June) — a date we have just passed.

Using de Castro et al.’s definition of WHB breakup confirms the conclusion of Lunn et al. (2016) that there was no trend in breakup dates from 2001-2010 — and extends that pattern to 2015.

Bottom line

As breakup was later in 2016 than it was in 2015 — and 2017 is on-track to be similar to 2016 — there is no basis for any shrill “polar bears are doomed” prognostications for 2017 unless the bears come ashore in poor condition due to the late freeze-up last year and/or deep snow conditions over Hudson Bay in late winter (which are not monitored over the ice), as late winter Churchill storms suggest may have occurred.

In other words, if some polar bear struggle to survive this year it will be due to challenging winter conditions over Hudson Bay, not early breakup of the sea ice.

While it is certainly true that the overall trend in time onshore for WHB polar bears since 1979 has declined, the lack of a continued trend since 2001 is not what was expected or predicted, especially given the marked decline in global sea ice levels that occurred from 2007-2015 (Crockford 2017), and the predictions of how devastating such low levels of ice would be to polar bears in areas like Hudson Bay that have only seasonal sea ice.

Compare ice coverage at 20 June, 2017 to 2013

For 2017:

Last year (2016), most WHB bears came off the ice in excellent condition in mid-July:

And in 2015, by 20 June there was open water well south of Churchill in WHB:

And 2014:

And 2013:

References

Castro de la Guardia, L., Myers, P.G., Derocher, A.E., Lunn, N.J., Terwisscha van Scheltinga, A.D. 2017. Sea ice cycle in western Hudson Bay, Canada, from a polar bear perspective. Marine Ecology Progress Series 564: 225–233. http://ift.tt/2lruEp5

Crockford, S.J. 2017. Testing the hypothesis that routine sea ice coverage of 3-5 mkm2 results in a greater than 30% decline in population size of polar bears (Ursus maritimus). PeerJ Preprints 19 January 2017. Doi: 10.7287/peerj.preprints.2737v1 Open access. http://ift.tt/2jB2S8i

Lunn, N.J., Servanty, S., Regehr, E.V., Converse, S.J., Richardson, E. and Stirling, I. 2016. Demography of an apex predator at the edge of its range – impacts of changing sea ice on polar bears in Hudson Bay. Ecological Applications, in press. DOI: 10.1890/15-1256

via polarbearscience http://ift.tt/1oHvY57

June 22, 2017 at 05:53PM

Brexit Costs: EU Commissioner Proposes EU-Wide Climate Tax 

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

Taxing the weather – EU member states may have to cough up climate dues as part of the cost of supporting the seemingly insatiable Brussels bureaucratic machine.

Due to Brexit and other new commitments, the EU will soon be short of € 25 billion, reports The GWPF.

EU Budget Commissioner Günther Oettinger, therefore, wants to introduce new revenues for the EU in form of a climate tax.

In addition, he wants to take Brexit as an opportunity to remove not only Britain’s EU rebate but similar discounts for other EU member states.
“When the British leave, the rebate negotiated by Maggie Thatcher falls away; I want to use this opportunity to cancel all discounts, including those for Denmark and Germany,” Oettinger told SPIEGEL.

“After the departure of the British, we are likely to be short of at least € 10 billion a year,” he said. “I can imagine that half of this sum can be saved, and the remaining members will divide the other half among themselves,” the EU Commissioner said.

Germany, for example, receives a discount on the additional costs incurred as a result of the British discount.

But it’s not just Brexit that is causing a hole in the EU budget. EU members states are facing many new tasks such as in defense, development aid or the safeguarding of external borders. The additional financial requirement of these new commitments is estimated to be 15 billion euros.

This is why Oettinger intends to present a discussion paper on the future financing of the EU next Wednesday which will include proposed cuts in existing funding programmes. Apparently, cuts in the agricultural budget, which is still amounting to almost 40% of all EU spending, are being considered.

Oettinger also wants to open up new sources of income for the EU. To this end, EU member states are to transfer part of their tax revenues to Brussels.

“One consideration is to use the topic of climate protection and to transfer the taxation of EU CO2 credits to the EU,” Oettinger said. “These CO2 credits are based on European legislation, but they have so far gone to member states.”

Source: Brexit Costs: EU Commissioner Proposes EU-Wide Climate Tax | The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop http://ift.tt/1WIzElD

June 22, 2017 at 05:15PM