Subscribe
Donate
heading background image

Zero Carbon

With Chris Hatch
Photo of the author
September 29th 2023
Feature story

The ‘new oil’

The “staggering growth” of clean energy means the path to stay under 1.5 C of heating is still open, declared the head of the world’s top energy agency this week.

There’s reason to be skeptical — “1.5 to stay alive” is the rallying call of Pacific island states but we’ve been pushing the thermometer right up there over the past few months and the global carbon spew keeps rising, not falling. Still, when the world’s most authoritative energy outfit issues its first big assessment since 2021, it’s worth paying attention.

Particularly when the International Energy Agency says things like “no need for investment in new coal, oil and natural gas” if we’re going to meet our climate goals.

Or words that should reverberate even more strongly in bankers’ towers and oilpatch offices: “Demand for coal, oil and natural gas will all peak this decade even without any new climate policies.”

Couched in sterile language, these are seismic statements coming from an organization like the IEA. It’s a sign of the times, and still a bit disorienting. This is, after all, the organization set up by the world’s richest countries to keep crude flowing after the 1973 oil crisis. Canada is a founding member. The agency’s 31 member countries (and 13 association countries) count for 75 per cent of global energy demand.

The IEA is as close as we have to an authoritative global eye-in-the-sky on energy. In just the past few weeks, the agency has been invoked by Pierre Poilievre (approvingly) in his Conservative convention address and Danielle Smith (less favourably) at the World Petroleum Congress.

For many, many years, climate and human rights advocates have waged campaigns against the IEA for advising its member countries to follow pathways destined for climate chaos and mass casualties. Like certain ossified provincial and national agencies, the IEA repeatedly and wildly underestimated the growth in clean energy, ignored the buildup of climate policies and the decades of alarms from scientists.

Finally in 2021, the IEA mapped out what it would take to get to net zero by 2050. And this week, the agency dropped its next big assessment.

The “speed of the rollout of key clean energy technologies,” like solar and EVs, is so well underway that demand for fossil fuels will peak this decade, even without any new climate policies, said the agency (hence, Danielle Smith’s unfavourable reaction). IEA chief Fatih Birol warned that companies and governments expanding fossil fuel projects are taking “very unhealthy and unwise economic risks.”

The rollout of clean energy has upended conventional energy thinking. On some key fronts, the world is already tracking along a 1.5 C scenario.

“This is encouraging,” say the number-crunchers, but these transitions by themselves are “not nearly enough for the 1.5 C goal.”

The agency lays out what it’s going to take to move forward in a way that’s inclusive of the needs of developing countries and keeps temperatures from breaching 1.5 C. And it’s produced very clear markers we need to hit.

The to-do list is daunting but the agency distills it pretty clearly: “Electricity becomes the ‘new oil.’”

Starting yesterday, that means:

  • No new oil and gas fields.
  • No new “unabated” coal.

And by 2030 — now just seven years away — we need:

  • Three times as much renewable energy.
  • A doubling of energy efficiency.
  • Cuts in methane from oil and gas of 75 per cent.

By 2035, advanced economies need to cut carbon emissions by 80 per cent. For perspective, Canada’s stated goal is to cut 40 per cent by 2030.

By 2050, power generation has to be 90 per cent renewable. Nuclear energy would have to double and the energy system as a whole has to be at least 50 per cent electric.


When Pierre Poilievre cited the IEA in his leader’s address, he was making the case that oil and gas will be used for years to come. Which the agency does forecast. But how much? If we take climate change seriously, that “drives sharp declines in fossil fuel demand” and “higher-cost producers are squeezed out of a declining market.”

As for the oilpatch dreams of carbon capture, the IEA does see a role for the technology … for products without other options. Oil for transportation and gas for heating are replaced by electrification.

The IEA has drastically reduced the amount it thinks we can rely on carbon capture, cutting its projections by half since its assessment two years ago: "So far, the history of CCUS (carbon capture, utilization and storage) has largely been one of unmet expectations.”

As for the role of carbon capture in oil production? The whole idea has always been pretty sketchy since it ignores the vast majority of greenhouse gas emissions that come from burning the gasoline and diesel in vehicle engines.

Here’s how a net-zero scenario plays out: Fossil fuels with CCUS are the weird stripy bits in the bars below and oil is the one with red stripes. Can you make it out? Me neither.

The good news is that the key things we need to do are “well understood, most often cost-effective and are taking place at an accelerating rate.” We know how to deploy renewables and a lot of the efficiency gets taken care of with electrification. Electric motors are two to four times more efficient than internal combustion engines, heat pumps are three to five times more efficient than fossil furnaces, induction stoves are twice as efficient as gas.

In fact, 80 per cent of what needs doing this decade comes from just four areas: “increasing electrification with technologies available today,” boosting renewables, improving efficiency and cutting methane.

It all sounds so reasonable. So sensible. If only the models could account for the humans.

Wealthy countries have already pledged to lead the way. Yet, we have governments in the richest economies putting a freeze on renewable energy and mounting public campaigns against it, like Alberta is doing. Or junking cross-party consensus to stoke culture wars over climate policy, like the U.K.’s prime minister just did. Five of the richest countries in the world are responsible for over half of planned oil and gas expansion through 2050. In order, they are: the United States, Canada, Australia, Norway and the United Kingdom.

Even in the models, the scale of action is formidable. To keep 1.5 alive, the IEA figures we need 80 per cent cuts in carbon pollution from advanced economies — in the next 12 years. Take just one practical example: two million kilometres of new electricity transmission, every year. Not impossible, but it will require concerted co-operation.

One of the most piercing observations I’ve ever heard about the sterile world of charts crashing into the messy world of humans actually came from one of the quants: Can we really limit global warming well below 2 C? “Yes, but only in a model.”

But as climate experts repeatedly remind us, every fraction of every degree matters. And, wherever we might end up, the IEA focuses on the “fierce urgency of now.”

“Above all, this needs to be a unified effort in which governments put tensions aside and find ways to work together on what is the defining challenge of our time. All of us, and in particular future generations, will remember with gratitude those who act upon the urgency of now.

The roundup

Last week, we looked at the growing demands to phase out fossil fuels issued by heads of state and civil society gathered in New York City. This week, Mother Nature underscored their point.

Nihilists on the attack

Danielle Smith is waging a full-out attack on climate policies — advertising, press conferences and a social media blitz predicting blackouts, huge rate increases and people freezing in the dark. There’s even a billboard truck driving around Ottawa.

“We are running print, radio, television and social media ads along with billboards and bus wraps,” said Smith who is threatening to pull out of the Canada Pension Plan and invoke the (legally dubious) Alberta sovereignty act to fight Ottawa’s proposed net-zero rules.

Smith’s public campaigns will have to move public opinion, even in her own province. Two-thirds of Albertans oppose her freeze on renewable energy and 57 per cent of Albertans are at least somewhat in favour of a national cap on carbon emissions from the oil and gas sector.

Politicians attacking clean energy and climate policies are amplifying even more vicious efforts by conspiracy theorists and local agitators. Marc Fawcett Atkinson takes us inside the plot to make climate denial mainstream, looking at the Kootenays in B.C., where local officials are being threatened by groups vilifying climate policies as part of a secret government plot to restrict people's freedom.

Gloves off

The federal Liberals are taking the gloves off, writes John Woodside. “The usually soft-spoken Environment and Climate Change Minister Steven Guilbeault … is turning into something of an attack dog for the Liberal government on climate change.”

“There's an increasing dropping gloves and squaring off, which I think is a good thing to see,” says Greenpeace’s Keith Stewart. “We need to be pushing back on people whose answer to the climate crisis is to make it worse by doubling down on oil and gas and opposing every action to address it. But I think it's also interesting politically because it's clear he's been given space to do this.”

On Wednesday, Steven Guilbeault burned Pierre Poilievre and the “noisy minority” spewing climate disinformation. “Any charlatan who comes along promising quick fixes can set progress back by years, even decades.”

Max Fawcett argues the Liberals need to offer something to vote for rather than just something, or someone, to vote against. And he thinks Mark Carney is making the right pitch: “Build things that last.”

“They need to offer up their own economic story,” writes Fawcett. “One that taps into their core values and manages to create some genuine excitement about the lower-carbon future that’s coming our way.”

Land rights before mining rights

The Gitxaała and Gitanyow First Nations won a major court case over mining claims, reports Matteo Cimellaro. The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled the province’s laws on mining stakes did not meet the Crown's duty of consultation.

“Gitxaała has won an important victory for every [First Nation] across B.C.,” said Simogyet Malii, Gitanyow hereditary chief. “The gold rush is over. Industry and government must align with the new era of sustainable mining that respects Indigenous rights to consent.”

In Ontario, First Nations from the Ring of Fire region are calling out Doug Ford’s government. The province is targeting the region for metals needed for electric vehicles and batteries and has allowed approximately 5,000 mining claims to be staked on First Nations territory without their consent or prior notice, reports Abdul Matin Safraz. Yet, the premier has not granted the First Nations the basic respect of even meeting with them.

Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation told Alberta to “prepare for court” over oilsands mining spills and seepage. Downstream communities were left in the dark for nine months while Imperial Oil’s tailings spread offsite, but a report commissioned by the regulator found it responded responsibly.

“They know we're coming. They better be prepared,” Chief Allan Adam told Canada’s National Observer. “This is a direct attack to our treaty right and we will not stand for it.”

Undercutting progress

Most sectors in Canada are reducing carbon emissions, but increases from oil and gas are growing (as are emissions from buildings and agriculture, to a lesser degree). The net result is that total national emissions went up in 2022 from the year before — a rise of 2.1 per cent.

“It’s not all bad news,” claims the Canadian Climate Institute. “The data shows that carbon policy and clean technology deployment are offsetting emissions growth elsewhere.”

The increase in last year’s emissions is partly explained by a COVID bounce-back — even with the increase in 2022, emissions are five per cent below pre-pandemic levels.

In the bigger picture, “Canada’s emissions now sit at 6.4 per cent below 2005 levels.” The institute dryly notes that’s “well short of Canada’s target of at least 40 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030. That leaves less than eight years to chop Canada’s emissions 5.4 per cent each year between now and 2030.”

Next-gen geothermal breaks ground

“In Beaver County, Utah, a 38-megawatt power plant surrounded by bubbling mud pools and hissing steam vents has generated electricity for nearly 40 years.”

But as Canary Media reports, “Three miles away, however, construction is underway on a new kind of geothermal plant — one that doesn’t require the presence of hot springs or geysers to deliver carbon-free energy to the grid. Instead, the project developed by Fervo Energy is using powerful drills to reach over a mile down and access a more abundant form of subterranean heat.” Dave Roberts is pretty stoked:

Another battery plant for Quebec

Quebec’s premier is calling it the biggest private investment in the province’s history — a massive EV battery plant by Northvolt, a Swedish company that promises to employ 3,000 people.

The mega-factory is Northvolt's first outside Europe. It will cover 170 hectares on a site just east of Montreal. The feds are ponying up $1.34 billion and Quebec, $2.9 billion to secure the deal. "Northvolt's investment will bring end-to-end battery manufacturing to Canada, making our country one of only a few locations to have this capacity outside of Asia," said Justin Trudeau at the announcement.

Canada’s biggest zero-carbon building

It’s 20 Canadian football fields in size. The biggest zero-carbon building in Canada just opened and it’s Canada Post’s new Albert Jackson Plant in Scarborough, Ont.

The plant is scaling up to process 60,000 parcels per hour along eight kilometres of conveyor belts. It’s the largest industrial project in the country to be given the Zero Carbon Building designation.

The melting of time

I’ll leave you with a recommendation for a mysterious and haunting meditation, Endgame Emotions: The Melting of Time, the Mourning of the World in the Los Angeles Review of Books. Mikkel Krause Frantzen meanders between voices as varied as adrienne maree brown and Samuel Beckett:

“The problem, then, with ecological grief is that the losses of climate change are unfolding, unfurling; it is a loss without permanence, which makes the process harder but also more hopeful in a way, because you haven’t lost everything yet, there’s still something left. Something that you are about to lose, may still lose, but that is not a given, the loss not complete, and the process not irreversible, though it may be very close to being so.

“This is where grief comes into contact, however tangentially, with hope.”