FROLITICKS

Satirical commentary on Canadian and American current political issues

Aug 7

When It Comes toTackling Climate Change, Trump is Nowhere to be Found

by bcurry

In the latest move, the Trump administration has decided to no longer fund in fiscal year 2026 the Orbiting Carbon Observatories, which can precisely show where carbon dioxide is being emitted and absorbed and how well crops are growing.  A free-flying satellite launched in 2014, the mission has become an important source of greenhouse gas data for scientists, policymakers and farmers.  Experts said the administration’s move is just another one designed to eliminate funding aligned with other actions aimed at cutting or burying climate science.  NASA employees are currently making plans to end the missions.

This move is no surprise given that you have a president and a governing party that believes climate change is a hoax.  You have a president who has greatly weakened the programs of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designed to use science to understand the impacts associated with climate change and those that support counter measures.  There are also policies aimed at stimulating the coal industry, oil and gas exploration, mining and lumbering in national parks, and attacking regulated greenhouse gas emissions in the automotive industry.

Back in a January 2025, reports noted that President Trump was stocking the EPA with officials who have served as lawyers and lobbyists for the oil and chemical industries, many of whom worked in his first administration to weaken climate and pollution protections.  Lee Zeldin, Mr. Trump’s choice to lead the E.P.A., has little experience with environmental policy. He was expected to fulfill Mr. Trump’s fire hose of orders directing the agency to cut regulations.

This year, the world has seen a greater number of extreme weather events than ever before.  The U.S. and Canada alone have had to cope with drought caused by heat waves and a lack of normal precipitation, resulting in some of the worst wildfires and potential crop failures in our time.  Flooding, tornadoes and major hurricane activity have become more prevalent, causing enormous property damage and multiple deaths.

The sad fact is that one could see this coming, especially after Trump’s first term in office.  The U.S. emits around 40% of the world’s greenhouse gases.  Without a sustained and committed support by the U.S. to tackle the issue of climate change and its consequences for our planet, the situation will simply get worst.  Maybe, this is exactly what climate change deniers want?

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump US

Leave a comment »
Jul 3

Trump’s Current Energy Policies Just Don’t Make Sense

by bcurry

There is no more clean and renewable federal energy support in the U.S.as a result of Donald Trump’s most recent policy actions.  In his first term as president, he imposed tariffs on imported solar panels, whereby American companies opened or announced plans for new U.S. solar panel factories, thereby reviving a manufacturing business that had largely withered away.  Now, those same companies, particularly in solar manufacturing, are concerned that the attack on clean energy, especially solar and wind, and increasing support for fossil fuels will mean a potential disaster for the continued growth of the industry.  Indeed, it has been reported that Mike Carr, the executive director of Solar Energy Manufacturers for America, concluded that the administration’s policies would give the entire solar manufacturing industry over to China starting in 2027.  The shift has been particularly jarring in Texas and other Sun Belt states.  For example, renewable energy companies had announced plans for $64 billion in new investments in Texas, mostly for solar and battery storage projects, when Washington passed the Inflation Reduction Act in August 2022. 

On the other hand, the oil and gas industry is counting on the administration’s help to keep oil and gas prices higher in order to increase exploration and lower fracking costs, and subsequently their profits.  With a strong desire not to offend the president, one has to remember that the oil and gas industry apparently spent more than $75 million to elect Trump.  Interestingly, the U.S. also relies heavily on Canadian oil in particular, which American refineries combine with domestic crude to make gasoline and diesel fuel.  For this reason, there is much industry anxiety around the tariffs on Canadian oil currently set at 10 percent.  This and cross border pipeline discussions will certainly dominate trade talks between the two countries.

Trump’s declaration of a national energy emergency — paired with other executive orders — amounts to a promise to test the limits of presidential power to ensure demand for fossil fuels, including coal, remains robust.  It’s a sharp reversal from his predecessor’s agenda, which aimed to push the nation away from fuels that are primarily responsible for climate change.  In addition, Trump’s efforts to support coal during his first term were no match for cheap natural gas that ultimately out competed coal in the market.  U.S. coal consumption reportedly declined more than a third during Trump’s first term.  Coal extraction is clearly no longer economically viable.

Studies have also shown that any restrictions on renewable development would increase electricity prices over the next decade in both Canada and the U.S., and potentially leave thousands of homes without electricity during extreme weather events.  For this reason, Canada is continuing to promote the expansion of clean energy, including that produced by nuclear and wind and solar.  On the other hand, the demand for electricity continues to increase due to new high tech needs, including those related to transportation and artificial intelligence.  Canada, unlike the U.S. under President Trump, is still committed to tackling the adverse effects of climate change by attempting to lessen our reliance on fossil fuels and by reducing our green house emissions.

Solar energy and wind power are much more capable of having electricity provided in a more decentralized and efficient way by being located closer to the sources of need, without the requirement for costly long-distance transmission infrastructure.  This more mobile asset can reduce the initial costs of electricity production and in turn the costs of delivery to consumers.  Not surprisingly, the current shift has been particularly jarring in Texas, a Republican state and the nation’s top wind power producer, second only to California in solar energy and industrial battery storage.  Moreover, the Trump administration’s energy policies just don’t make sense, adding to the inflationary cost of electricity for consumers and to the costs associated with the evident extreme consequences of climate change.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change Donald Trump Economy Energy New Technologies Oil and Gas Oil and Gas Technological Change Trading Relationships US

Leave a comment »
Nov 9

Environment Was Barely Mentioned By Presidential Candidates

by bcurry

Despite being the hottest issue on our planet at this time, issues concerning the environment were barely mentioned by either presidential candidate during the debate or while campaigning.  Indeed, what we heard was a continuous slogan about “drill baby drill” and the need to increase the output of the American oil and gas sector. 

It has just been announced that this was the hottest year on record.  Across the U.S. and Canada, one has had to deal with extreme weather events, including hurricanes off the gulf states, wild fires in California, New Jersey and Alberta, drought across all American states except Alaska and Kentucky, flooding across the North-eastern states, heat wave records this past summer, etc., etc.  This left Americans and Canadians with billions of dollars in damages, especially to communities and their infrastructures. 

Nearly 200 countries will gather next week for the U.N. climate summit, COP29, in Baku, Azerbaijan.  As usual, reaching a consensus for a deal among so many can be difficult.  29

China produces the most energy from climate-warming fossil fuels and also from renewable energy sources.  China retains the developing country designation in U.N. climate negotiations that began in the 1990s.  As such, it says the United States and other industrialised countries should move first and fastest with climate action.

The world’s second largest emitter and largest historic emitter, the United States, comes to COP
29 following an election that will put Donald Trump back in power in 2025.  Trump’s victory has reduced the chance of a strong deal on a new global finance target, or an agreement to increase the pool of countries that should contribute.  President-Elect Trump has promised to again pull out of the 2015 Paris Agreement and has labelled efforts to boost green energy a “scam”.

The most immediate concern will be over how the least developed countries will cope with the impact of recent severe weather patterns associated with climate change, including those in Africa, South and Central America and in Asia.  Moreover, this group’s 45 nations are also highly vulnerable to climate change but have contributed little to it. They are asking for significant funding from developed countries, preferably in the form of grants. They also want more money to flow into the loss and damage fund.  The question of how to deal with potential migrant movements from these countries will also have to be dealt with.

Both Canada and the U.S. are failing to meet their emissions reduction targets set out in 2015.  There is a real danger that both countries will return to supporting the fossil fuel sector in order to meet short-term economic goals.  President-Elect Trump has made it very clear that he wants to see more fracking across the U.S., and federal lands and protected areas will be more open to drilling.  He is particularly non-supportive of renewable energy initiatives and will cut back a number of federal programs and policies in support of that sector.  Canada, and Alberta in particular, will more than likely seek to encourage the U.S. to import more of our oil and gas with new pipeline construction, something denied by previous Democrat administrations.  Even Kamala Harris changed her position on limiting fracking in order to garner the support of states such as Pennsylvania.

All of these developments tend to lessen one’s optimism about finding ways to reduce greenhouse emissions, despite a lot of unsubstantiated rhetoric by industrialized countries.  When Americans were polled and asked which issues were the most important to them in the election, the environment and climate change was way down the list.  They obviously gave more import to the immediate state of the economy, jobs and immigration.  Once again, the issues surrounding climate change will have to take a back seat to such issues, despite growing concerns over its evident impact on our lands, agriculture and the oceans.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Donald Trump Presidential Election 2024 US

Leave a comment »
Nov 13

Environmental Groups Cut Programs as Funding Shifts to Climate Change

by bcurry

When it comes to non-profit environmental groups, many of us are familiar with Greenpeace because of its activist actions from time to time which capture the attention of mainstream media and the authorities.  However, in both Canada and the U.S., there are numerous other lesser known groups that have concentrated on more specific environmental issues.  For example, in the U.S. you have such groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), The Sierra Club, Defenders of Wildlife, the Environmental Working Group, the ClimateWorks Foundation and the Union of Concerned Scientists.  For a long time, such groups focused on particular environmental issues such as nuclear power safety, environmental toxins, and nearly extinct wildlife or threatened species in North America.  However, in recent years there has been a significant shift in donor contributions to nonprofits fighting climate change, leaving some of the both nations’ biggest environmental organizations facing critical budgetary shortfalls in existing programs.

According to a survey released in September by the Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy, global spending to fight climate change by environmental groups and other nonprofits reached $8 billion (U.S.) in 2021, most of it in the U.S. and Canada.  Reportedly, leaders of some legacy environmental groups now largely agree that climate change, given its wide range of increasing global effects, is the top priority.  Since these organizations depend extensively on funding contributions from different sources, including from some of the world’s richest individuals, they have had to realign their goals to reflect policies and practices designed to tackle specific concerns around climate change.  This also means increasing support for government and industry initiatives promoting green technologies, including those related to solar, wind and thermo energy projects.  Even nuclear energy appears to be making a comeback as an additional means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  For example, the NRDC is eliminating its longstanding program promoting nuclear safety and cleanup as its donors focus on the climate crisis.

Facing unsustainable budget deficits, some of the largest non-profit environmental organizations are being forced to announce layoffs among their staffs.  This will result in the lost of a good deal of environmental expertise and program support for some time to come.  In addition, younger donors now tend to increasingly support those initiatives targeting climate change.  After all, younger people really view that climate change is the most immediate challenge affecting their lives in so many ways. 

The shift in priorities is also reflected in government policy, with climate change winning the lion’s share of some agencies’ budget increases. The number one strategic goal among declared priorities in the U.S. Environment Protection Agency’s list of seven priorities in its five-year strategic plan is to tackle the “Climate Crisis”.  The use of the term “crisis” is an important recognition of our need to focus on climate change sooner rather than later.  Interestingly in Canada, formally known as Environment Canada, the department’s name was recently changed to Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC).  ECCC is the now the department of the Government of Canada responsible for coordinating environmental policies and programs, as well as preserving and enhancing the natural environment and renewable resources.

Environmental groups, like governments, have no choice but to adapt their policies aimed at tackling the consequences of climate change, both short-term and long-term.  There is only so much donor funding available in both countries, and failure to adapt could result in their eventual demise.  Somehow, marketing of existing programs and policies have to be reoriented to tie into climate change issues in some way.  No organization is immune from the current shifts in peoples’ priorities in the environmental field.  Unfortunately, failure to effectively adapt could eventually mean their very extinction.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Aug 18

Environmental Crisis for Governments Only Heightened by the Impact on People

by bcurry

This has been a summer of extreme weather events followed by natural disasters such as flooding and wildfires — not only in North America but globally.  Whether we’re talking about wildfires near Yellowknife in Canada’s Northwest Territories or the devastation in Maui’s seaside community of Lahaina, everyone agrees that this year so far has been the worst one on record for wildfires.  In addition, one has the flooding throughout the American south and northeast, and the earlier floods that greatly damaged Halifax and its surroundings in Nova Scotia, Canada.  In several cases, we were not adequately prepared for the consequences of such extreme weather patterns involving droughts and severe storms, often a deadly combination.  Severe storms are frequently followed by or include tornado activity, which also has proven to be deadly in many cases.

Those of us who live in regions which for the most part have avoided such calamities should be thankful for what we have, and not complain about poor vacation weather or extreme heat.  Even lengthy periods of extreme heat can be deadly as witnessed in the southern U.S. and west coast of Canada.  Yes, we will complain of smoke flowing in from our wildfires.  However, while poor air quality at certain levels can be hazardous to our health, we can do something ourselves to mitigate the impact.  The same cannot be said for those directly facing wildfires, flooding and tornadoes. 

Then there are the enormous costs to all of us as a result of natural disasters.  In the case of Maui, damage estimates already range in the 6 to 7 billion dollars U.S.  The current evacuation of Yellowknife’s population, some 20,000 people, involves the largest single airlift of people in Canadian history.  Fighting the wildfires across Canada will amount to hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars.  For individuals in high risk zones for natural disasters, the cost of insuring their property has gone sky high.  In some cases, insurers are even refusing to insure many properties in such areas.  Food costs will also increase as a result of the negative impact of climate weather on farming and agriculture in general.  Certain harvests will certainly be affected this year, including grain, fruit and vegetable crops.  Then there is the immediate impact on tourism dollars, such as in Lahaina where tourism represented about 70 percent of their local economy.  Nova Scotia has also seen a significant downturn in tourism as a result of the earlier wildfires and recent floods.

Let’s not forget the physical and mental toll on individuals facing such disasters.  Many are losing their homes and places of employment.  The consequential stresses will increase demands on our health care sector.  Then there are those on the front lines, especially those fighting wildfires.  In Canada, four individuals working in related fire services have already died this past spring and summer.  The health and moral of first responders is probably at an all time low.  There is also the impact on our military, who often are asked to help in rescue missions, flood prevention and with logistics for evacuations.  The Canadian military is already stretched thin because of international commitments, all this adding to additional costs that they have to bear.  

While many of us sit and complain about poor weather for vacations, we should remember that there are our follow citizens who are greatly suffering from the impact of natural disasters on their communities.  As I have argued in the past, governments, industries and non-profit agencies, such as the Red Cross, need to adapt in a timely manner in the face of continuing challenges associated with the eventuality of more extreme weather events.  Failure to do so will only result in more costs, both economically and on a personal level.  For now, affected communities will require our continuing assistance and support.  Those of us who are fortunate enough to avoid such disasters need to stop complaining and find ways to support these communities and their people.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Jul 14

Severe Weather Patterns Topping News Headlines This Summer

by bcurry

Never have I seen as many news headlines about the weather both in Canada and the U.S. then this summer.  Severe droughts in Arizona and California, flooding in the Northeast states, tornadoes throughout the mid-West, extreme heat waves through the southern states, extensive flooding in Vermont and New York State, etc., etc.  A day doesn’t go by when some form of extreme weather event occurs in both countries.  Dry conditions throughout British Columbia and Quebec led to a record number of wildfires during the spring, creating clouds of smoke which not only permeated Ontario and Quebec, but also as far away as New York and Chicago. 

For most governments — local, state/provincial and federal — the consequences of extreme weather events have been enormous.  Not only are people dying as a result of extreme heat, flooding and wildfires, but homes, businesses and infrastructure have been severely damaged or destroyed.  This has resulted in the insurance industry having to re-examine the impact of an increasing number of compensation claims, often in the billions of dollars.  In the near future, insurance companies will be withdrawing from more high risk areas.  Where insurance continues to be offered, the premiums will be such that few people will be able to afford them.

Most scientists are attributing the extreme patterns as being a consequence of “climate change” and the continued warming of the planet.  Most would also agree that it would take extraordinary measures by countries to slow down the current progression of subsequent impacts.  For the time being, societies will have to make significant changes in order to adapt to this new reality.  Such adaptation will not take months, but years and possibly decades.  Every day, targets developed through bodies such as the United Nations become less and less credible.  Rapidly moving away from our dependence on fossil fuels to more green energy sources is increasingly becoming an illusion. 

Countries continue to argue that the transition can only be made if economic impacts are taken into consideration.  However, they also continue to understate the costs associated with weather extremes, especially when it comes to assessing those associated with such sectors as agriculture, tourism, transportation, housing, etc., etc.  The costs of many essential inputs to maintain a viable industry are going to keep on increasing exponentially.  One only has to look at the impact on freshwater sources due to annual droughts.  Demand is outstripping supply in several regions.  Access to water is critical to one’s survival.

There are those who argue that new technologies need to be factored into future adaptations.  However, there are those who believe that the introduction of new technologies may not be adequate and timely enough.  In the meantime, news headlines about severe weather patterns and their impact on affected communities and scarce resources will continue to appear on an almost daily basis.  Whether we react in a constructive manner and on an urgent basis, only time will tell?  Whether such regular reported events will change the minds of the ‘Nay Sayers’ is another matter.  Is humanity prepared to make the necessary sacrifices to effectively tackle the enormous challenges before us, is the biggest question of them all?

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Apr 14

Yes, Inflation is Real. However, Climate Change is Just as Real.

by bcurry

Living in Ottawa, April can normally be an unpredictable month for the weather.  However, going from freezing rain on one day last week to 28 (centigrade) degree heat the following week is really abnormal.  In addition, the famous longest skating rink — in the Rideau Canal — did not open for the first time in over 50 years of operation due to unusual warmer weather this past winter.  With extreme weather events around the world, even climate change deniers have to sit up and take note.

Years ago, the federal government in Canada imposed a “carbon tax,” which puts a price on greenhouse gas emissions.  Yes, this tax does contribute to inflation, particularly because of the federal fuel charge which affects drivers and businesses everywhere.  However, one must take into account the economic and environmental costs of climate change which are becoming increasingly a major burden on governments and people due to infrastructure damages and related deaths.  Someone will have to pay for infrastructure improvements and maintenance in order to avoid the detrimental impact of future extreme weather events.

There is a need for policies and programs that put a price on pollution and help consumers manage rising costs.  To blame measures aimed at combating climate change and reducing greenhouse emissions is short sighted.  Green technologies need to be supported and everyone is going to have to adjust their standard of living and consumption accordingly. 

Doesn’t matter where you live as the environment and climate change are global issues!  Don’t point to the environmental impact of China, India and other countries in order to argue that we can’t do enough to deal with the issue.  Over forty percent of the world’s consumption occurs in North America, and we need to show more environmental leadership.  China and the U.S. are the world’s two biggest greenhouse gas emitters, so any attempt to address the climate crisis will need to involve deep emissions cuts from these two powerhouse nations. China’s emissions are more than double those of the U.S., but historically the US has emitted more than any other country in the world.  On a per capita basis, Canada is just as guilty.

There is little doubt that food will become even more expensive due to the impact of extreme weather events on agriculture.  Just look to California which is a major producer of fruits and vegetables, or to mid-west U.S. states which provide red meat and grain products.  Farmers are finding it harder to produce because of higher costs for feed, fertilizers and fuel.  Farmers have to adapt to help reduce greenhouse emissions, while introducing more green technologies.  Yes, the initial costs will be high, but the long term benefits will be great and will reduce those costs.  Governments will have to support farmers during this much needed transition.

For too long, all of us have been consuming without having to pay for the real costs associated with environmental impacts.  It’s about time that we wake up and realize these outcomes.  For those lower income groups who are particularly affected by inflationary costs, society will have to help out them and their families to at least have a reasonable standard of living.  This can be done by income tax credits, living wages, affordable housing, universal health insurance, subsidized education opportunities, and improved social assistance programs.  As two of the world’s wealthiest countries, the U.S. and Canada do not have any excuse to provide an annual minimum income — something talked about for several decades.

More corporations have to play a greater role in supporting technological innovations aimed at reducing pollution and greenhouse emissions.  They have to pay their fair share (e.g. corporate taxes) for operating in a stable economy and one which strives to provide for a fair level field to operate in.  Carbon taxes are one way of encouraging innovation and rewarding businesses by recognizing the associated costs designed to reduce greenhouse emissions.

Moreover, we all have to be accountable and environmentally friendly.  Otherwise, extreme weather events like those in Ottawa will unfortunately become the norm.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change US

Leave a comment »
Mar 20

How Big Corporations Are Greenwashing When It Comes To The Environment

by bcurry

Back in 2010, Heather Rogers wrote in “Green Gone Wrong: How Our Economy Is Undermining the Environmental Revolution” that green capitalism is actually undermining ecological progress.  In 2016, the Business Development Bank of Canada launched a $135 million fund that will invest in entrepreneurial startup companies in the energy and clean technology sector.  The Bank anticipated investing the money over several years into between 15 and 20 Canadian firms that demonstrate global potential in green tech fields.  A drop in the bucket!  Now, a group comprising Canada’s big banks and financial institutions is working on a new set of labels to clearly identify “green” financial products for investors.  However, they are facing accusations of “greenwashing”.  Some refer to “greenwashing” as it applies to efforts by companies or governments to make businesses or commercial activities look less damaging to the planet than they really are.

Now, we are all familiar with the term “whitewashing” which alludes to efforts to cover up wrongdoing or hide embarrassing mistakes by governments or corporations.  In some cases, it most often involves trying to put a more favourable face on corporate initiatives by highlighting the positive attributes of new products or services.  However, informed consumers normally can see through the marketing strategies aimed at encouraging people to use their services and products, regardless of any attempt at whitewashing.

With increasing concern over climate change and environmental issues, governments and corporations are plugging their efforts to reduce their negative environmental footprint impacts, primarily through the implementation of green technologies and so-called “sustainable development”.  Part of the reason that corporations are marketing their efforts is primarily to convince investors to invest in their enterprises and consumers to consume their products.  Automotive manufacturers are now skirring around in the race to produce more electric vehicles, each stressing their mission to eventually eliminate vehicles run by combustion engines.  Oil and gas companies are advertising their efforts to develop and implement carbon capture and storage technologies.  Perhaps, too little, too late?  In 2018, a report by the World Energy Outlook (WEO) released by the International Energy Agency projected that global fossil fuel use — and related emissions — would grow out to 2040, as oil, gas and coal continue to dominate the energy picture.  At that time, the WEO stipulated that the percentage of total global primary energy demand provided by wind and solar was only 1.1 percent. 

Moreover, when it comes to assessing whether green investments are truly valid is not easy, given the connections of many corporations to general profits and the bottom line.  Consumers and investors find it difficult to determine to what extent greenwashing is taking place.  In some cases, the claims of corporations have been discovered to be bogus.  Take for example, the Competition Bureau last year ordered Keurig Canada to pay a $3-million penalty for falsely claiming its single-use K-Cup pods can be recycled.  In another case, a group of environmental organizations, including the Sierra Club and the Indigenous Environmental Network, ranked the Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) fifth globally among major banks financing the fossil fuel industry.  However, in marketing materials, RBC states that it is “fully committed” to supporting drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.

This is not to say that all companies are disingenuous in promoting their initiatives aimed at reducing negative impacts on the environment.  Many manufacturing and warehousing facilities have reduced their energy uses, green gas emissions and general environmental footprint.  Some provincial governments in Canada are also guilty of dishonest campaigns focusing on short-term emission reductions made in the certain sectors, but failing to define what “sustainability” really means for the province in the long-term.  All of this to say that each of us have to take such marketing with a grain of salt.  I’m certain that I will.

Canada Climate Change Climate Change

Leave a comment »
Jan 1

How Is Climate Change Affecting Our Younger Generation?

by bcurry

You may have heard of the terms “eco-anxiety” or “eco-distress” being used when one talks about the psychological impact of climate change on people, especially youth.  Unless one is living on another planet, one cannot help but recognize the extremes we are witnessing with respect to our climate in recent years, even by former deniers.  Across the world, we are seeing more severe weather resulting in flooding, droughts, wildfires, heat waves, tornadoes, etc., etc.  This phenomenon has led to many of us to question the future of humankind in light of one major disaster after another.

The grim forecasts have even led to something referred to as “reproductive anxiety”, whereby the young generation in particular is seriously questioning whether or not to have children?  On the one hand, people look at the carbon print attributed to having another child born.  On the other hand, some question whether it is the responsible thing to do in having a child born into an era of climate and environmental crises.  This tends to be an issue primarily among North American and European highly educated classes, who have the luxury of considering all the alternatives.  After all, it is the industrialized countries that produce the vast majority of fossil fuel emissions and greenhouse gases. 

One can certainly appreciate such arguments among today’s younger generation as we begin a new year.  We appear no closer to resolving the issue than we were five decades ago.  This has left us with an air of extreme pessimism, especially given recent world events.  Governments pay a lot of lip service to reducing carbon and other detrimental emissions, without actually achieving much of anything.  However, where I disagree is over the issue of where our future environmentalists, scientists, engineers and other professionals will come from.  We have come to believe that we have to better adapt our dwellings, infrastructure and technologies to meet the existing climate change challenges.  We will rely heavily on the creativity and productivity of our youngest to commit to developing and implementing new forms of adaptation and effective policies to deal with the multitude of climate change impacts.

Numerous technological experiments are already underway and it is up to the next generation to continue these initiatives.  Many of us are fortunately in a position to encourage and support the educational endeavours of our children, especially in the industrialized countries.  However, we must realize that the bulk of the impacts of global warning will occur in emerging or lesser developed countries, such as threats of mass starvation, conflict, rising sea levels, deaths and species extinctions.  For this reason, we must also support the work of persons in those affected countries, of which there are many.  If we do not do more, one can expect that migration from these countries to North America and Europe will continue at even greater rates.

As for the older generation, we must do our fair share of sacrifices.  This could mean adapting new forms of green technologies to reduce our carbon footprint.  There may be some ways in which to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels, including through less air and motor vehicle travel.  How we heat and cool our homes is another area where changes can be made.  Promoting more urban intensification is also something we should consider, thereby reducing single home dwellings and commuting to work.  We have already seen the impact of working from home on travel.  We need to better inform ourselves of climate- and energy-related challenges so as to better educate our children and grandchildren.  As they say, ignorance is no excuse!

As in the case of Sweden’s Greta Thunberg, we have to encourage and support young environmental activists.  At age 15, she started spending time outside the Swedish Parliament to call for stronger action on climate change and later sailed in a yacht to North America, where she attended the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit.  It took some time for her parents to eventually support her activism.  We need more young people like Ms. Thunberg to come forward and demand that more needs to be done to address climate change issues.  Happily, she has been joined by other activists around the world.

Cimate Change Climate Change Climate Change

Leave a comment »
Nov 18

For Some Reason, We Don’t Talk Enough About ‘Methane’ as a Greenhouse Gas

by bcurry

In 2021, a headline about global atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂) read: “CO₂ reaches its highest level in more than 4 million years.”  However, the more potent greenhouse gas ‘methane’ is not given as much media attention as CO₂.

If it escapes into the atmosphere before being burned, as the main component of natural gas, methane can warm the planet more than 80 times as much as the same amount of CO₂ over a 20-year period.  Recent data from the European Union show Canada is the only G7 country where methane emissions have increased since 1990, although the rate of increase is slowing.  Studies suggest the amount of methane released is probably underestimated.

2021 was a big year for energy markets as indicated by increases in natural gas prices. Natural gas production has more than doubled this year in many parts of the world.  In addition, in Canada there are substantial or potential deposits of shale gas in all provinces and territories except Manitoba, Prince Edward Island and Nunavut.  To get at shale gas, one has to use a process known as “fracking”.  Fracking involves injecting chemicals under high pressure into drilled wells to fracture geological formations below and allow for the release of larger quantities of both crude oil and natural gas.  In the last 20 years, large-scale commercial production of much deeper shale-gas reservoirs has become possible with new drilling techniques that combine two different technologies — horizontal drilling and multi-stage hydraulic fracturing. This process involves drilling the gas well vertically from the surface before bending it at a certain depth to penetrate the shale-gas layer horizontally or diagonally.  However, like standard natural gas drilling, the fracking process also releases methane as a byproduct.  It has been found that flares, used to dispose of unwanted methane from wells, burn off far less than the 98 percent of the gas they are assumed to.  Fracking in Canada and the U.S. now involves hundreds of new sites every year.

A recent survey of oil and gas facilities in Canada found widespread methane releases. Satellite imagery saw giant plumes of the gas escaping landfills, and a cloud of methane was detected over a natural gas field in Canada.  It identified a hidden source of pollution from one of North America’s most prolific production basins along the Alberta-Saskatchewan boundary.  However, on a broader scale, satellites can have difficulty tracking offshore emissions and releases in higher latitudes.  In the U.S., Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) data from 2019 includes emissions from drilling and fracking sites, but excludes emissions from offshore drilling, as well as some parts of the oil and gas supply chain like pipelines or processing plants.  As noted by recent research, the official data is likely to greatly underestimate actual emissions from oil and gas production, in part because it does not properly account for leaks from equipment, which can be a significant source of emissions.  As well, poorly maintained sites often mean more leaks that go undetected for longer, making them highly polluting.

Today, questions over just how much methane Canada pumps into the atmosphere come as the federal government expands regulation of the gas.  Canada is now developing regulations that would apply to all natural gas facilities, minimize use of flares, ensures those that exist work properly, increase inspection and require equipment upgrades.  The new rules are to include comprehensive, consistent emission monitoring and reporting.  The Biden administration is in the process of reinstating methane regulations relaxed by President Donald Trump.

Overall, it would appear that the oil and gas industry does not do as much monitoring of methane gas releases as it appears to do for CO₂.  There is little doubt that to deal with related environmental concerns, both industry and governments have to do a much better job of controlling widespread methane releases.  For whatever reason, this critical greenhouse gas fell off the radar.  With the evident continuing reliance on natural gas for heating and electricity production in North America, there is an immediate need to get a better handle on monitoring and release controls.  Moreover, methane emissions from leaking wells could far outweigh the benefit from replacing other fuels when it comes to our fragile environment.

Canada Cimate Change Climate Change Oil and Gas Oil and Gas US

Leave a comment »
«Older Entries
Blog at WordPress.com.