Mayor Watts can’t imagine a clean alternative to coal
“It’s all well and good to say, ‘Don’t mine for coal ever again, don’t ship coal ever again.’ But what are the alternatives? If you’re going to ask to have these things banned, then you need to have an alternative. So what does that look like? That’s the missing piece with all of this.”
- Mayor Dianne Watts, March 8 2013, Globe and Mail
The war on carbon is at our doorstep. The plan to export American coal through Surrey Fraser Docks to Asia is one of 14 carbon bomb megaprojects that threaten to put the world on a path to a 6 degree increases by 2100. That would take us well beyond the internationally agreed limit of a 2 degree increase. Only by stopping this fossil fuel project, and others, like the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines, can we have any hope of slowing climate change.
The threat is quite real. Even at a 3 degree increase, New York City will face knee-high flooding, the world’s coral reefs will be acidified, Italy, Spain, and Greece will become heat deserts, corn and wheat yields will decrease by 40%, hurricane intensity will increase by 30%, and 40% of species on Earth will be at risk of extinction.
Climate change is an enormous problem that often seems beyond our capacity to influence. However, there has never been a clearer opportunity for us to choose our future. We have the capacity to stop the export of coal to China. What we do at the local level has never mattered so much.
Becoming a coal exporter is so clearly against the supposed sustainable future of Surrey. In fact, if flies right in the face of the praised Sustainability Charter, a document introduced by the Mayor that codified all city-making decisions through a triple-bottom line lens. If the City is truly changing its way, there is no more powerful choice it can make than denying the Port’s coal plans.
But to do so, we need leaders who understand the severity of climate change. In stating that she cannot imagine an alternative to coal, in a province fuelled by hydro and a City building a geothermal energy system, Watts is clearly not up to the challenge. How serious can we take her commitment to changing Surrey’s growth patterns or embracing transportation alternatives if she endorses us becoming a coal exporter.
Surrey has a choice to make. Either it can be complicit in the worst global disaster facing our species, or it can draw a line in the sand and embrace a bright, green future. It cannot do both. I would suggest Mayor Watts show some leadership and choose where she stands.
Paul Hillsdon is the Founder and Editor of Metro604.com. He lives in Surrey and is proud urbanist championing light rail, separated bike lanes, mid-rise walk-ups, and third places. He tweets @paulhillsdon
-
Mayor Watts isn’t wrong in that there really aren’t any alternatives to coal in terms of making steel. Allowing this coal port here isn’t going to fly against the Surrey sustainably charter… it doesn’t make Surrey the unsustainable one in all of this, because Surrey isn’t the one that has the coal to export and wants to export it in the first place – that would be the United States.
If this port cannot be built in Surrey, it’s going to be built somewhere else – potentially not in Canada, because this is to export coal that comes from America. If the expansions are built here, they could (in the meantime) benefit the local and Canadian economy and provide money for investment into other purposes that could indeed help the environment, such as competitive transit to reduce auto use + emissions. Citing climate change as the sole reason to oppose the construction of this port will present you with a rather weak case.
On the other hand, transporting this coal by rail and the coal dust risk and creation of congestion issues, as pointed out by Vancouver’s Mayor Robertson, are very legitimate concerns regarding coal exports here
Now, the solution to this part of the global environment problem is not going to happen through local advocacy, and arguing about this port may just prove a waste of energy. What we REALLY need to advocate for is the reduction of coal exporting and coal burning, which is bigger than on a local scale. We should encourage the federal government to advise other countries/lead by example to pursue alternatives to making more steel (i.e. more steel recycling), encourage/help invest in more emissions-free electricity in countries that burn coal for power – initiating a transition that ends when these countries no longer burn coal for power (so it may be used more productively for steel), and encourage more development into clean coal technology (carbon capture & storage) such as is being lead by the U.K.
-
Above basically said what I was going to say. The point though about recycling more steel is not entirely valid a counter just due to the fact that in North America, the #1 recycled material is actually steel. We recycle more steel per year than aluminum, paper, glass and plastic combined actually.
The issue with steel though is what it is used to construct and the longevity of such projects. Take buildings and bridges for example. You build a steel bridge, building, heck battle ship even, and you require a lot of steel. That steel in turn will last 30-100 years. So even though we recycle a huge amount, the fact the population of the planet is increasing simply means you will always need to make new steel.
Recycling though cuts down energy use a huge amount though so you’re on target there.
Secondly your point about environmentalism is the point I make constantly in the debate vs this project and vs projects like the pipeline. I can buy the local environmental impact and am completely for the discussion of such things like oil spills, pipelines breaking, and in the case of coal, the dust blowing around into the air.
But when things enter into the utopian environmental argument, I start to glass over and you lose me because as you pointed out, it will still be shipped. If it isn’t exported from here from our ports (and let’s face it the coal port is actually in Delta, not Surrey.. Surrey’s stake is just a railway going through the city not the port itself), it will be simply exported from somewhere else. So in the grand scheme of things us saying NO to the export of resources simply means a hit to our pocket book.
It is more pronounced when it comes to oil being exported because it will 1) still be exported, 2) we will not gain any economic benefit and 3) oil prices will still go up and we’ll pay more money with no benefit to our economy meaning we’re 4) poorer.
Do we need to move away from burning coal for power generation? Absolutely. Personally I think the answer to fossil fuel for power generation are 1) hydro where you can [though it can have more local destruction to the environment than people give credit to aka flooding and changed migration patterns], 2) solar/wind [where possible, not everywhere can do this unfortunately], and 3) nuclear power [with its waste fuel fallouts pun intended].
But stopping the coal export is in my opinion going to have no affect on the entire global environmental outlook anyway. And let’s face it, we still don’t know how much we are contributing to the increase in temperature. We _are_ participating I don’t dispute that, but the Sun itself has gone through a huge increase in activity the past 50 years and is now starting to calm down. If you look at temperature charts, the global average temperature has actually dropped a bit the past 4 years. It has increased in some areas (like the continental US which saw record droughts last year) but it has decreased in some areas like here in BC where we’ve had lower average yearly temperatures the past 2 years now. BC has even seen record rainfall in areas. I was in Vanderhoof a few years back and in the fall they had to have the Kenny Dam open raising the Nechako a good 8-12 feet above normal for that time of year simply because they had so much rain water the dam was full and nearing emergency levels.
Was the first time in decades it has been that way up there.
Not to mention the amazing ski seasons we’ve had in BC the past 5 years or so now.
What this all means is that when the discussion moves to predicting 100 years in the future, I kind of cry because we can’t predict weather 5 days in the future with more than 75% accuracy. So honestly we need to be heading towards sustainability I don’t argue that point, but not instantly. It took us 100 years to get here, while it clearly can’t take 100 years to get back to sustainability (not that the world was sustainable 100 years ago we just had very little technology), it isn’t going to happen in 1 year and projects like this would benefit our economy.
As long as those coal cars are covered I am happy. Export it all. Coal, oil sands, trees, electricity, you name it. That’s BC’s economy. If we export no resources we will be bankrupt unfortunately.
-
I also forgot to mention geothermal when it comes to home construction. You can save a LOT in long term power and heating costs with geothermal construction. Unfortunately there is a cost up front and in Vancouver’s high housing market, people often make the decision with their present day pocket book and skip on such “luxuries” as they tend to be classified in.
So Surrey is on the right track with several of its initiatives like the district power in taking geothermal to the next step and using thermal recovery from things like industrial buildings, air conditioners, and even sewer lines.
At the same time though, for every 10,000 houses you fully kit out to be as sustainable as technologically possible these days, it takes 1 factory in China to completely counteract those gains.
The dark side of me actually feels having a 6C increase in temperature globally, causing mass reductions in human population globally may actually be a good thing in the world. The Earth will survive. More species of creatures have gone extinct in the past than exist today a million fold so life will go on. Even if 40% of species are wiped off the Earth, in 50-100,000 years they will be replaced fully.
It really just is humanity that is at danger and our way of life. The environment, Earth, and life is safe. Heck in the dinosaur millennia, the Earth was considerably hotter than it is even today and had more Oxygen. Stuff survived then and a massive asteroid hitting the Earth didn’t make a dent on the long term “life” equation. So I’m not worried about the planet.
It’s just us. Will humanity survive with 6+ degrees Celsius over 100 years? Absolutely. Will 7 billion humans survive? Probably not. Is that a bad thing? Unfortunately, probably not. Will humanity be wiped off the Earth? Highly unlikely. Even if we went up 20C globally.
-
“What this all means is that when the discussion moves to predicting 100 years in the future, I kind of cry because we can’t predict weather 5 days in the future with more than 75% accuracy.”
There’s a key misunderstanding of the difference between climate and weather I would like to correct here. Weather and climate are very different; climate being defined as the weather averaged out over 30 years. Climate is very stable and predictable; weather is the opposite. Predicting the weather is like standing knee-deep in water and trying to predict how high the next five waves will be – not easy. Predicting climate is like predicting the tide 30 years from now – it’s something we can easily do with great accuracy.
It’s also true that this coal terminal project is not a one-year deal: it’s a project that will last ,many many years, and continue to contribute to emissions both locally and internationally for the entire lifespan. That, and its contribution to B.C.’s economy is relatively minor – the United States mines the coal, the United States gets most of the benefit (as well as the drawbacks that come with coal mining).
Paul is right to point out that it’s projects like this one that prevent the world from halting climate change before the warming reaches 2 degrees Celsius, which both scientists and governments have agreed is too much. Anything above that is likely to cause serious harm to our civilization, way of life and economies, much more harm than will be caused by turning down a coal export project, or even by halting all coal mining in B.C. If we are going to reach that goal, we have to act now. Not in five years or 10 years. Yes, we have to turn off the tap almost immediately. It’s hardly easy or fun, but it’s what’s necessary to avoid the economic and ecological crisis that comes with climate change.
-
-
She is absolutely correct. Coal remains the most affordable and reliable energy supply and on a global scale it will only go up in usage: http://www.geonomicinvesting.com/coal-prices-historically-low-and-ready-for-rebound-1401/. I am sure that we would all theoretically love to live 100% on green energy- but who can afford it?
-
Great article Paul. I am glad to see that the citizens of surrey are standing up and opposing this corrupt behavior. There is a reason that the World Health Organization has declared silica dust from coal as a deadly carcinogen. What i find bizarre is that this is all to allow Pattison to ship his cheap dirty coal from Montana and Wyoming to China. And why is he hauling it through Canada? Because all of the exisiting american ports have shut him down and now even the new port he is proposing to build just south of White Rock at Cherry Point is not looking viable with all of the local oppostion in the states. The other part of that story is that in the states they expect him to spend his money to build the infrastructure to ship his coal from his mines but here in BC the politicians will give him money from the public purse to build the infrastructure he needs. The whole conversation about the tunnel is a good example of that. Just in case you are wondering the right option of the six options that have been floated by the government is the new bridge…because that will allow the larger coal ships to travel up the river to South Fraser Docks to load the dirty, carcinogenic coal from Montana and Wyoming…something that the americans won’t let him do. If we are going to allow this to happen we may as well rip up the sustainability charter and declare ourselves committed to immediately killing people from exposure to this carcinogenic coal dust and to the melting of the planet.
I really feel sorry for the people in White Rock. There won’t be much that is white on the hillside when they start seeing kind of volumes of trains that are being proposed. Can you imagine what three hours of coal trains will be like? And all because the americans won’t allow this to happen in their own country with their own coal so we get it here. Something very wrong with this picture. If there ever was a wrong to stand up to and oppose this is it! For the city of surrey to do this to its citizens is shameful…ross
-
Oh, if BC or Surrey politicians are actually going to encourage the building of the coal ports here through blackmail, then that changes everything.
-
-
If we believed what Mayor Diane and commenter Jesse above have said, we’re in big trouble.
Agreed, China with its current rampant development needs coal and other fossil fuels to keep the dragon fed. But there is evidence China is now terrified of climate change with the increasing number of dire reports from climate scientists because it may lead to a 40% decrease in food production by mid-century. They are now talking about instituting a carbon tax on their own economy to slow it and its huge emissions down. Gwynne Dyer’s latest column touches on this issue.
To state that the average temperature dropped in the last four years is myopically counterintuitive to the fact that 2012 was still in the top nine hottest years since record keeping began in the 1880s. Moreover, each year of the 21st century has ranked among the 14 hottest on record.
According to a peer reviewed paleoclimate study published in the respected journal Science on March 7th, the late 20th Century and early 21st Century is the hottest period in 11,000 years and has successfully countered an approaching ice age. This article confirms hundreds of similar studies over the last decade that have a trajectory, as Pete McMartin said in a recent Sun column, that proves that the global warming math is relentless.
With climate, unlike daily weather, the long view is what really matters. To use anecdotes and conjecture about variations in regional weather completely avoids the inconvenience of accepting that the way we have conducted business on a planetary scale is subject to millions of local acts. Oh, maybe four degrees warming by 2100 will turn out okay in some regions, and so what if a billion or two die in the process as long as is ain’t my family? As long as we can enjoy a small number of jobs and tax revenue from industry here today who really cares?
Well, civilization and the notion of ‘economy’ evolved with great efficacy in a remarkably stable climate for the past 7,000 years where the average variation never exceeded a degree or so on average. The climate window within which humanity has survived is actually very small and based on a very fine balance between many conditions. Here we are, still well under the two degree limit and the glaciers in the Rockies have already lost 35% of their mass (since only the 70s). Prairie rivers (you know, where the cities and a lot of irrigated agriculture the three provinces get their water) will lose an estimated 50% of their flow by mid-century according to U of A hydrologists. And the Arctic Ocean ice melt has already exceeded estimates that were set for 2050, and therein the heat already absorbed by the open dark water causes massive high pressure in winter which destabilizes the jet stream patterns and therein causes weird weather all over. Add even the small ocean temperature rise so far and you’ve got more Sandy’s being bounced like a pinball off a misaligned jet stream.
Diane and Jesse also missed the fact that the humongous stores of frozen methane in the Arctic permafrost and under the continental shelves have already showed signs of release during just the last ten years of ocean warming in the Arctic. That is one of the most dangerous tipping points of all because once methane, a GHG with 23 times the heat-storing capacity as CO2, starts offgassing the warming will grow exponentially. Four degrees? That is a very, very dangerous world because four will quickly lead to six, then eight, then ….
At less than two degrees warming we could very well have pounding rain and floods for months in winter punctuated by 40-degree weeks in summer and the resultant mass burn off of the North Shore forests, only to have the mountain soil wash into our reservoirs by the next winter. Richmond, Delta and the Port of Vancouver – including Surrey’s proposed coal terminal, will likely be inundated by the sea especially during high tides. Richmond already has a salt water infiltration problem from below; the soft soils there and in other low lying areas will not support the weight of higher dikes ans will sink.
We have a planetary problem today that will manifest itself very acutely locally tomorrow. The mayors had better get their act together, because local and regional policy is where the most effective solutions may well evolve given the intransigence and willful ignorance of our federal politicos.
-
Some of the comments above suggest that if we didn’t export coal to Asia we wouldn’t have steel, which is an important construction product.
Codswollop.
High strength steel uses less than 2% carbon (often a fraction of 1%) as an alloying agent, which traditionally comes from coking coal. Anything more than 2% and you’re into brittle cast iron with very little ductile strength. There are many other metals and chemicals that can be alloyed with iron ore to produce high strength steel, and Canada is a supplier (or has minable resources) of a lot of them.
With a dose of 21st Century R&D (perhaps funded by a national carbon tax) it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out a way to produce low-carbon heat to melt metal and conduct other industrial processes (e.g. making Portland cement) without burning fossil fuels. Electric induction furnaces are already in place in many smelters and foundaries, and these could be powered by base load renewable clean energy like hydro, tidal (with backup during predictable ebb tides), deep geothermal (e.g. tapping the heat from the lava domes 2,000 metres below our abundant hot springs) or nuclear.
With the right policies heavy industry located in the Port of Vancouver jurisdiction and elsewhere on the coast powered by low emission renewable sources could arguably provide more permanent jobs, tax revenue, economic multipliers and orders of magnitude more value-added products than any transfer facility for fossil fuels could ever equal.
-
Isn’t it time to be a bit more daring and to imagine other possibilities? Surely we can’t keep doing the same things and expect different results, assuming that we are all noticing the degradation of our environment and the depletion of our natural resources.. We are mortgaging the futures of our children and grandchildren to our limited vision.
Comments