By 2050, Canada will be net zero and carbon neutral. This is very good news because, otherwise, we will all turn crispy and die. That, at least, is the argument of our political class. We must “decarbonize” our fuel sources at a cost of perhaps trillions of dollars to avoid this grisly outcome. Our efforts, in fact, will make a negligible dent in the world’s carbon exchange, but as our standard of living continuously deteriorates, we can take solace in the fact that “we have done our bit.” Not only have our elbows come up in unison to destroy a once-profitable trade relationship with the world’s largest consumer market that sits virtually at our doorstep, but we can smugly peer out of our unlit, unheated homes and feel superior to the Americans. That is worth something.But I have a couple of questions.What does the term “decarbonized hydrocarbons” mean? From my research, it seems we are going to buy credits from carbon exchanges operated by companies in the corporate sector like, you know, Brookfield Asset Management or something. These credits will allow us to produce more hydrocarbons to collect more carbon dioxide and stick more of it in the ground. But who is going to produce oil and gas in Canada when we self-impose such expensive environmental overheads? It seems like there might be only one winner in this scenario. And what is going to happen to all that pressurized carbon dioxide that has been pumped into the ground? Oh, right … Trust the science.The other question is, what if it turns out that Canada’s massive forests are already sequestering the relatively puny amounts of carbon dioxide that we produce? A concept that seems to be all but forgotten in the debate is that carbon dioxide is plant food. Forests are full of trees, which are plants, and they like to eat carbon dioxide. .Sadly, however, Natural Resources Canada tells us that forest fires, insect blights, overcutting, and, of course, climate change have made Canada a net source of carbon dioxide emissions rather than a net sink of carbon absorption. This is not good. But their website is full of tentative language: would, might, will lead to, and predicted. In fact, if I recall correctly, when I accessed the website in 2016, Canadian forests were considered a carbon sink. Funny how things change over time.The news, however, is not all bad. A compelling 2023 study came to my attention through a recent Friends of Science email. It analyzed carbon dioxide concentrations using data from NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellite (OCO-2) and ground-based measurements collected at sites worldwide. By modelling natural carbon capture (forests and other biomass) and carbon dioxide emissions to calculate net carbon exchange, the study authors concluded that Canada’s forests were removing all the carbon dioxide produced in the country plus 140% more. This is good news, right? Canada’s forests are removing 2.4 times as much carbon dioxide as is produced within the country, which means that Canada is already net zero and then some. Although my excitement is moderated by the knowledge that this conclusion is based on a model, the study authors have accounted for the variability of their assumptions. However, isn’t the global warming argument itself based on modelling that assumes that carbon dioxide is not plant food but rather the thermometer of the Earth? And wasn’t the popular CMIP6 family of models recently determined to be too hot to match reality?We can destroy our economy based on models that will make a few people very rich, but we can’t trust models that cast doubt on the whole enterprise? Perhaps I am being overly cynical. When our premier and prime minister hear that there is no climate emergency and that “the science” demonstrates that Canada is already net zero, 2.4 times over, they will back off the carbon capture nonsense, won’t they? Madam Premier, it is time for you to follow the science.Maybe what we should do is vote for option two (Question 10) in the upcoming referendum. By putting governments on notice that Albertans are ready to talk about independence, we will create an opportunity to negotiate a return to sanity with both Edmonton and Ottawa.
