To date, Ontario’s policy responses to climate change have primarily focused on reducing carbon dioxide emissions from both the energy and transportation sectors or methane emissions from the waste and agricultural sectors. But scientific evidence points to opportunities presented by reducing emissions of short-lived climate forcers, principal among which is black carbon. Black carbon exists in the atmosphere as one component of fine particulate matter (commonly referred to as soot). Scientists and policymakers have typically focused on the health effects of black carbon emissions, which are estimated to result in hundreds of thousands of premature deaths around the globe annually. Only recently has significant attention been paid to black carbon reductions as a potential tool for climate change mitigation. The United Nation’s Environment Programme has chosen to focus attention on this issue in a recent report and the U.S. Congress directed the Environmental Protection Agency to conduct a study on black carbon’s climate and health impacts as well as mitigation options.

I’ve highlighted this opportunity in my most recent annual greenhouse gas progress report and am pleased to see the growing attention being paid to this issue. Black carbon in the atmosphere absorbs heat and thus contributes to local and regional warming, and when it settles on snow and ice it increases the absorption of sunlight which promotes melting. This effect is particularly important in the Arctic. As the ice melts, less heat is reflected out of the atmosphere and more is absorbed by the oceans. Scientists fear that this effect constitutes a potential feedback loop for climate change because as oceans become warmer, their capacity to store carbon dioxide is diminished and thus more of it ends up in the atmosphere as global warming pollution. As a Northern region, black carbon emissions in Ontario have a greater impact on Arctic sea ice and so the opportunity for climate change mitigation is greater.

Black carbon particulate emissions from a diesel generator tester in an apartment building

The major sources of black carbon emissions in Ontario are transportation (both on and off-road diesel vehicles; locomotive and marine vehicles) and residential wood combustion. Policy options are available to the Ontario government to address these sources and should be explored. For vehicles, diesel particulate filters (DPFs) are available that remove around 99 per cent of black carbon. New on-road vehicles purchased after 2007 are subject to emission controls that require DPFs, but thousands of older vehicles remain on the road without emission controls. As well, an untold number of off-road vehicles, locomotives and marine vehicles are currently operating that have not been subject to such stringent standards. Wood stoves and fireplaces in the residential sector are another major source of black carbon that can be reduced by incentivizing the change-out of older, inefficient appliances and educating consumers about the importance of using seasoned wood that burns cleaner.

All of these mitigation options are justified based on the public health benefits of black carbon reduction alone. The added benefits for the climate are just beginning to be understood. I look forward to seeing how the Ontario government responds to this climate change mitigation opportunity.

The Bluesfest stage collapsed during an extreme weather event. Fortunately no one was killed. But the world of late has been plagued with other weather extremes such as droughts, floods, fires and tornados and regrettably many lives have been lost. The insurance companies have been taking a bath in property damage. According to Munich RE, aggregate losses from weather-related natural catastrophes now total US$1,600 billion since 1980, and insured losses have increased, on average, by 11% per year And where there are large losses, one can be sure litigators are lurking.

Who is to blame? Well, of course, the standard answer is that extreme weather events are individual, rare and random events that can’t be foreseen. No one is at fault. They are just part of the risks of life. Ah, but is that answer true in the age of human induced rapid climate change? One climatologist from Environment Canada has his doubts.

Everything we build, everything our province or municipalities approve is based on standards which, in turn, are based on assumptions of statistical risk of weather extremes. For example, we allow buildings to be constructed on known flood plains, but just on those portions that are not likely to flood in 100 years based on a statistical analysis of past weather patterns. Effectively our provincial and municipal governments are saying to the public that the infrastructure of our communities is prepared to handle all but the most unusual weather conditions.

But we know that historic weather patterns no longer apply. The climate is changing and with this change, is bringing in a new pattern and frequency of extreme weather events. And governments have not updated their standards or thoroughly reviewed our built infrastructure to establish if it is still appropriate and safe. Our municipalities, which often wield the most direct levers of control in this area, have not yet adapted to climate change largely because of the influence of climate change deniers, doubters and delayers. But the risk are real, just ask the insurance companies.

Can our governments continue to shirk all responsibility and liability for losses incurred due to extreme weather events when we know that their frequency and severity is increasing? The litigators lurk in the shadows. If there are law suits they will be big ones. The courts may yet decide the fate of those that follow the deniers, doubters and delayers. Ontario has a climate change adaptation plan. It’s not perfect but it is a good start. Best if the province and municipalities get on with implementing aggressive adaptation measures.

Sometimes friends ask me for summer book suggestions.  If you’re up for some big picture thinking, I can recommend The Upside of Down by Thomas Homer-Dixon. I admit, with “Catastrophe” in the sub-title, it’s not exactly escapist froth for the beach.  But having read it a few years ago, I find my thoughts coming back to some of the core ideas.  Among other things, Homer-Dixon offers a great introduction to the concept of resilience, and what it takes for ecosystems and societies to maintain resilience.

As complexity increases in systems, resilience tends to decline. Predictability also is lost as complexity rises and feedback loops emerge. This was a theme I also focused on in my 2008/2009 Annual Report, “The one thing you can expect from complex systems is the unexpected.”  Once you’re attuned to the resilience concept, you begin to see the implications everywhere, from the cyclical burning and regrowth of fire-adapted northern forests to periodic financial bubbles and collapses, to this past spring’s social upheavals and democratic renewals in a string of Arab nations.

Building Resilience where I observed that I returned to the resilience theme this past spring in my annual Greenhouse Gas Report Meeting Responsibilities – Creating Opportunities, noting the risk of a climatic tipping point in the nearterm.Even in southern Ontario we are seeing cities like Peterborough battered by repeated extreme storms, supposedly rare, one-in-100-year events, as I described in my 2009/2010 Annual Report.

We face a great challenge: to de-carbonize our global economy in the next 40 years in order to avoid this tipping point. This is a challenge that will require humanity’s full scope of creativity and exuberant experimentation.  It will also require resilience at every level of social organization.

Summer can be a good time for quiet reflection – preferably by a cool lake, a hammock slung under some big old trees.  That may be the very best place for us to re-imagine ourselves in a resilient future.

View Blogs – Enviromental Commissioner of Ontario in a larger map

On June 30, the Ontario Energy Board released its Demand Side Management Guidelines for Natural Gas Utilities. Don’t let the dry name fool you – this is an important document.

Demand-side management (DSM) is another name for energy conservation, and these guidelines set the rules that will govern the development and delivery of conservation programs by Ontario’s major natural gas utilities (Enbridge and Union Gas) for the next three years. The rules for natural gas DSM have remained largely unchanged since 1993, with a limited reform in 2006. The development of the new DSM guidelines has been a lengthy three-year process.

With the wind-up of government conservation programs, gas utilities are now the major provider of conservation programs for natural gas consumers. I have previously reviewed the conservation achievements of the gas utilities between 2007 and 2009.

The most important element of the new DSM guidelines is the budget that will be available for utilities to spend on natural gas conservation initiatives. The Board has concluded that utility budgets will essentially be frozen at their current levels for the next three years. Enbridge and Union Gas together will be allowed to spend approximately $55 million annually on conservation programs for their customers. This amount is much less than the budgets that the Ontario Power Authority and electric utilities are spending on electricity conservation, despite the fact that the direct use of natural gas accounts for a larger share of Ontario’s total energy consumption (and greenhouse gas emissions) than does electricity.

My recent Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume One): Managing a Complex Energy System discusses why I believe this decision to freeze natural gas utility conservation budgets will have a detrimental impact, reducing conservation investment in Ontario below societally optimal levels.

Other important issues addressed in the new DSM guidelines include:

• The types of conservation programs that utilities will be enabled to deliver (including programs for low-income consumers);
• How program success will be measured and how utilities will be rewarded for success;
• Whether the benefits of reduced greenhouse gas emissions should be a factor in determining which programs utilities deliver.

The next step in natural gas conservation is for utilities to submit their three-year DSM plans (2012-2014) to the Board by September 15, 2011. These plans will allow us to see whether the new DSM guidelines have led to major changes in the conservation programs that utilities will offer to their customers. Look for my review of the new DSM guidelines in more detail in a future report.

The electrical grid is at the heart of our daily activities, yet we rarely think about how electricity is delivered to us. In its simplest form, the grid is made of a series of wires that carry electricity from the source of generation to our homes and businesses, as well as equipment like transformers that regulate the voltage of the power delivered. This is the electricity we use to power almost everything, from computers, televisions and air conditioners, to our traffic lights, hospitals and shopping malls.

In my Annual Energy Conservation Progress Report – 2010 (Volume One): Managing a Complex Energy System, I discussed the importance of a smart grid, which is the next step for our electrical grid.

Tomorrow's Smart Grid, as shown on pg. 45 of Managing a Complex Energy System.

What is a smart grid?

A smart grid involves monitoring and controlling the electrical grid to ensure it remains balanced and reliable. This will allow us to adopt newer and greener technologies, such as electric vehicles, without compromising our electrical grid’s reliability.  This is a simplified diagram of a smart grid, illustrating how the different components of the grid are connected together.

Report highlights

My report highlights some important components of a smart grid, including smart meters, distributed generation and energy storage. For example, smart meters record when and how much electricity is used, allowing consumers to learn more about their electricity consumption habits.

Several Ontario utilities (such as Toronto Hydro) have taken the lead by providing Internet applications that show users their metered electricity consumption data collected from smart meters. At these websites, consumers can monitor their electricity usage to identify sources of electricity waste and shift some of their electricity use to times when the overall demand is lower. This will reduce the strain on our electrical system and help avoid the need for new and costly peaking power plants that are built for use during times of very high electricity demand. I believe that for the smart grid to succeed, one organization must establish the vision and provide overall leadership necessary to guide all participants towards the common goal of modernizing the grid.

Conserving electricity in this province has never been more important. According to Ontario’s Long-Term Energy Plan, provincial electricity consumption will grow by 15 per cent between 2010 and 2030, meaning that we will need more generating stations to provide power. However, if we use what we already have more efficiently, we could decrease the amount of new generation required. Due to the physics of delivering electricity over wires, Ontario loses about 6% of its electricity between the generating stations and consumers. By minimizing these losses, we can get more power from our existing generation stations to the end-users. In fact, my report recommends that the Ontario Energy Board encourage and facilitate smart grid investments that reduce line losses, putting these investments on an equal footing with conservation investments.

Ontario’s existing grid was developed long-ago and, although our electricity needs have increased and evolved, our grid has not changed in a similar way. We expect that our grid will continue to provide us with reliable electricity, and modifications are needed to ensure the grid remains reliable and dependable.

For more information on Ontario’s smart grid, you can visit the websites for Ontario’s Smart Grid Forum and the Smart Grid Working Group. These groups are monitoring and facilitating progress in developing the smart grid.