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.

In my latest Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Progress Report I recommend that the Ontario government establish a price on carbon as soon as possible to hasten the transition to a low-carbon economy. This could be done directly through a carbon tax or indirectly through a cap-and-trade system.

Unfortunately, the government recently announced that it would delay implementing a cap-and-trade program beyond 2012 over concerns about negative impacts on the province’s industrial sector and carbon leakage.  The fear that additional costs imposed on emissions-intensive industries by a carbon price will reduce domestic competitiveness and drive firms out of the province has become especially prominent in this period of economic uncertainty.  But if a provincial cap-and-trade program ever gets off the ground regulators will most certainly protect domestic emissions-intensive industries over the short term by providing them with free allowances to reduce or eliminate compliance costs.  Over time it is expected that free allowances would be gradually replaced by auctioned allowances as other jurisdictions move to put a price on carbon.

There are also those who contend that Ontario’s rising electricity costs will cause value-added manufacturing and resource industries to set up shop elsewhere.  “All-in” electricity prices for the industrial end-user, which were estimated at 8.8¢/kWh in 2010 in the Ontario Long Term Energy Plan, are projected to increase to 9.6¢/kWh in 2012. This is more expensive than electricity prices in neighboring coal-intensive U.S. states like Michigan and Ohio, but almost identical to electricity prices in New York State. And, when one considers that Ontario’s corporate taxes and health care costs are lower than neighbouring U.S. jurisdictions, it becomes clear that the province will remain a competitive jurisdiction for manufacturing, particularly if a favourable regulatory environment for next-generation manufacturing industries (including renewable energy) is in place.  I believe that a carbon price is a fundamental element of such a regulatory environment.

Thus, as the Ontario government moves forward with the design and implementation of a carbon pricing program I believe the fear that manufacturing industries will be driven to other jurisdictions should be tempered by the reality that additional costs will be minimized in the short term. Over the long term all jurisdictions will need to impose GHG controls if we are to have any hope of averting catastrophic climate change impacts.  As an early adopter of carbon pricing, the Ontario government will help domestic industries be better prepared for the point in time at which a national or international climate change mitigation policy is agreed upon and the world’s atmosphere and ecosystems are no longer treated as free dumping grounds for global warming pollution.

In my latest Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Progress Report I talk about the potential for soil carbon sequestration as a tool for mitigating climate change. In fact, one of my four recommendations is that “the Ontario government investigate and publicly report on the potential for soil carbon sequestration as a GHG mitigation strategy.”

At the press conference following the release of my report, one member of the media asked why I was recommending a strategy that was costing billions of dollars in Alberta with very little in the way of results to show for all that expense. It was clear that the questioner had confused carbon capture and storage (CCS) with soil carbon sequestration – an understandable mistake given that the former has received a great deal of publicity and the latter practically none.

A World of Difference

Yet there is a world of difference between the two. CCS is a high-tech, high-risk, costly, and as-yet-unproven approach with no co-benefits. Soil carbon sequestration is a low-tech (but quite scientific), low-risk, inexpensive, and proven approach with a myriad of co-benefits.  The table below compares and contrasts these two distinct methods for reducing carbon in the atmosphere.

Will Soil Carbon Sequestration Work?

I’ve used very conservative assumptions in my report. Projecting forward, I think it is reasonable to expect that an enhancement in recommended management practices (RMPs) could result in the sequestration of close to 10 million tonnes (Mt) of CO₂ per year by 2020. It’s an exciting opportunity and I look forward to the government’s response to my recommendation to investigate and report on soil carbon sequestration’s potential in more detail.

Resources:

For more detailed information on CCS, see the Pembina Institute’s Canadian Primer on the subject at http://pubs.pembina.org/reports/CCS_Primer_Final_Nov15_05.pdf)

For more detailed information on Soil Carbon Sequestration, see the Ohio State University’s Extension Factsheet entitled Soil Carbon Sequestration – Fundamentals, at

http://www.envirothon.org/pdf/CG/carbon_sequestration.pdf