By Don MacKinnon
President
Power Workers' Union

Al Gore's film has had a significant impact on the climate change debate. However, there are some other "inconvenient truths" that can't be ignored when Canada's decision-makers are deciding how to reduce our greenhouse gas(GHG)emissions.

A growing, competitive economy underpins a solid standard of living, which in turn provides the means by which our environmental protection is funded. Finding the right balance between sometimes competing economic and environmental goals is the real challenge. Failure to find the right balance can lead to poorly conceived actions with worse effects than those targeted.

Canada is routinely criticised for its CO2 emissions and failure to live up to its Kyoto commitment. However, any new emission reduction plan should start with a realistic assessment of our GHG contributions (2.4 percent of the world's human-generated CO2 in 2002), the national circumstances that influence them and the strategic options available to us.

It is also imperative that we understand the impacts on our economic future. The transfer of Canadian expertise and technology to help other countries reduce emissions deserves particular attention. We also need to learn from experiences in other jurisdictions like Europe. The proposed Canada Clean Air Act, 2006 appears to borrow from their successes. It would shift Canada's current approach from one that is voluntary to a regulatory one based on energy efficiency and emission reduction targets for industry and transportation. A slate of programs would support the regulatory agenda.

Ontario's approach to GHG emission reductions provides a good example of what not to do. During the 2003 election campaign, and without prior analysis, Ontario's current government committed to close its coal stations by 2007 (now 2014 by regulation). A combination of conservation, renewables and natural gas is being relied upon to provide the replacement generation. Coal station closings are seen as an easy way to reduce smog and GHG emissions.

But the government's own agencies have repeatedly presented the plan's risks. Replacement generation has been delayed by NIMBY opposition and growing global competition for materials. Significant uncertainty exists regarding conservation's contribution and true costs. Wind power integration costs keep rising and the impacts of intermittent operation are still being studied. Meanwhile, the province's economy is in trouble due in part to rising energy costs - almost 30 per cent higher since 2003, with another 60 per cent to 70 per cent increase forecast by 2015.

The lower cost, less risky, proven option to finish retrofitting the stations with clean-coal technology continues to be ignored. Co-firing of CO2 neutral biomass (wood pellets and wheat shorts), something already tested successfully at Ontario's coal stations, shares a similar fate. It is ironic that this same government is helping Dofasco switch fuels to a new pulverized coal injection system to reduce operating costs and maintain jobs. A further irony is the government's research contract to the Atikokan Bioenergy Research Centre to study co-firing coal with peat. By 2014, we won't have an operating coal plant.

Ontario's plan offers no insurance besides increased reliance on energy imports from higher emission U.S. coal plants. It is naïve to think that Ontario's coal closure policy will cause a rush of clean-coal retrofitting activity by U.S. operators. And even if they retrofit, their electricity will cost less than ours. Has Ontario forgotten that its closest competitors are right next door?