Farmers say they're ready to cut the carbon in Canada's diet — but they need government help

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Pinterest

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

• Email

Agrifood groups say they need Ottawa and the provinces

onboard with efforts to reduce their carbon footprint

Chris Hall · CBC News · Posted: Nov 13, 2021 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

A farm tractor and baler sit in a hay field on a misty morning near Cremona, Alta. (Canadian Press)

The role of agriculture in climate change didn't get much attention at the COP26 summit — much to the chagrin of activists.

"The cow in the room is being ignored," one told the Guardian during the two-week gathering in Glasgow.

But the leaders of three Canadian agrifood groups told CBC's The House in a panel discussion airing this weekend that there's a growing appetite among Canadian farmers for working with Canadian governments to cut emissions and find ways to take carbon out of the environment.

"So there are a lot of farmers who for a long time have been experimenting with ways they can reduce emissions on their farm, thinking about ways that we can increase soil carbon — drawing carbon dioxide out of the air and storing it in our agricultural soils," said Brent Preston, an Ontario vegetable farmer and director of a national organization called Farmers for Climate Solutions.

"But we've been largely unsupported in this work and we realize that we need public support, federal and provincial support, to scale these practices to make them widespread and to really have a significant impact on the emissions of our sector and also our ability to withstand the inevitable changes that we know are going to come in the climate."

LISTEN | Climate change on Canada's farms:

13:04Climate change on Canada’s farms

Three Canadian farmers from different regions of the country discuss their role in addressing the climate crisis and the support they need from the government in implementing solutions. 13:04

The high climate cost of food production

The agricultural and food processing industries employ more than two million people in Canada and generate nearly $140 billion dollars in revenue each year. That represents just over 7 per cent of the Canadian economy.

But as important as farming and food are to Canadians, the sector is also a significant source of carbon dioxide emissions — generating nearly 73 megatonnes in 2019.

• World leaders shy away from tackling food, farming emissions at COP26

• How climate change is causing grief, anxiety and depression

• Canada has a quarter of world's soil carbon. Keeping it in the ground could curb climate change, experts say

It's no surprise, then, that the country's agriculture ministers cited addressing climate change as one of the goals of a new five-year plan for the industry at their meeting this week in Guelph, Ontario.

Mary Robinson, president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, was at that meeting. She told The House that the emphasis on reducing emissions can't come at the expense of farmers themselves.

"I think the message needs to be that we can't do this at the expense of producing food," she said. "We can't destabilize our food supply systems here, or our economy."

Not enough rain here, too much there

Farmers are on the front lines of climate change — coping with prolonged droughts in some parts of the country and flooding in others.

And then there are the economic factors. Production costs are rising — in some cases higher and faster than the prices paid to farmers.

Many farmers are doing what they can already to reduce emissions from their operations — leaving fields untilled to store carbon, or protecting stands of trees and wetlands.

A dugout is shown at Agricultural Producers Association of Saskatchewan President Todd Lewis’s farm near Gray, Sask., on Thursday, July 29, 2021. (Kayle Neis/The Canadian Press)

Robinson, who operates a 2,000-acre farm on Prince Edward Island, said the ministers meeting in Guelph understood the importance of working with them to draft climate goals for the sector.

"I think probably one of the most important things we heard was a sense of commitment to have a collaborative approach to solving these challenges and opportunities that exist in front of us," she said. "We can't stress enough just how important it is that farmers be at the table for these conversations because we have to make sure that any of the solutions that are proposed … that they're practical and that they are based on science."

The federal budget included $270 million over two years to support farmers in reducing emissions, protecting wetlands and converting their operations to clean energy.

The competitive pressure to cut carbon

All three panellists said it's a great start. But Preston said Canada still lags far behind the United States and European Union in helping farmers adopt more sustainable methods.

An analysis conducted by his organization found the U.S. under former president Donald Trump spent 13 times more than Canada on a per-acre basis, while the European Union invested 73 times more.

Canadian producers could soon face heavy market pressure to cut their carbon footprints, says Brent Preston of Farmers for Climate Solutions. (Shane Magee/CBC)

"What it means is that farmers in other jurisdictions are getting more support to transition to the sort of low-GHG production system that we need to adopt here," he told The House.

"And increasingly, we're seeing international buyers, food companies and brokers demanding lower GHG products from their supply chains. So if they can't get those low-GHG products from Canada, they're going to find them from other places that are getting more support to adopt these practices."

Still, the carrot may not be enough to convince reluctant farmers to make the shift, said Cedric MacLeod, executive director of the Canadian Forage and Grassland Association.

Convinced by the carbon tax

MacLeod raises 100 to 120 head of grass-fed cattle on his New Brunswick farm. He said the federal price on carbon is the stick needed to convince a large group of farmers who are unwilling to adopt more sustainable methods of raising livestock.

"You know, I worked for a decade and a half in the space and trying to encourage some of these conservation practices and you know, we always see some success. But there's still a bloc that hangs in the back that just really resists that change," he said.

"And I think what we're finding is that the carbon tax is really the bump that's going to move those growers forward. So if you don't want to innovate, then you're going to get taxed."

So while some climate activists complain that the COP26 summit didn't do enough to deal with agriculture's role in the climate crisis, some farmers here are working to ensure that their efforts to bring in more sustainable practices don't come a cropper.

Oilpatch drilling activity to rise in 2022: PSAC

The Canadian Press

CALGARY - Drilling activity in the Canadian oilpatch will return to pre-pandemic levels in 2022, according to a new industry forecast.

The Petroleum Services Association of Canada (PSAC) says it expects a total of 5,400 wells to be drilled in Canada next year, an increase of 16 per cent year-over-year and the most activity since 2019.

PSAC also revised its 2021 forecast to 4,650 wells, in light of increased activity in the last half of the year. At the start of 2021, PSAC was predicting 3,350 wells to be drilled for the year.

PSAC's forecast for 2022 is based on a projected WTI crude price at an average of $70 per barrel, and an AECO natural gas average of $4.10 per thousand cubic feet.

PSAC president and chief executive Gurpreet Lail says while the outlook for the oilpatch is brighter than it was a year ago, the industry has not yet rebounded to where it was before oil prices crashed in late 2014.

She says while higher commodity prices are driving an uptick in drilling, the industry is also facing a severe labour shortage that could impede growth.

 Nearly two-thirds of Canadians support oil and gas emissions cap, even if it puts jobs at risk: poll

MARIEKE WALSH
OTTAWA

A flare stack lights the sky from an oil refinery in Edmonton, on Dec. 28, 2018.

JASON FRANSON/THE CANADIAN PRESS

Almost two-thirds of Canadians support immediately capping greenhouse gas emissions from the oil sands – even if it puts jobs at risk, according to a new poll.

Sixty-three per cent of respondents to a Nanos Research poll said they agree or somewhat agree that Canada should immediately limit emissions from the oil and gas sector and curtail them over time. Thirty-four per cent said they either disagree or somewhat disagree, and 3 per cent said they are unsure.

The poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail, also shows the country is “fundamentally divided” between the Prairie provinces and the rest of Canada, Nanos Research founder Nik Nanos said. As such, it reveals the political calculus for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as his government plans to implement a cap on emissions from the oil and gas sector, Mr. Nanos added, because the regions with the most support for such a cap are also Liberal strongholds.

The regional breakdown reveals a gulf between the main producers of oil and gas and other regions. In the Prairies, 57 per cent of respondents said they disagree or somewhat disagree with limiting emissions, whereas Quebec had the lowest level of dissent, with just 16 per cent not in favour. In Atlantic Canada and British Columbia, 29 per cent and 30 per cent, respectively, said they oppose a cap.

The oil and gas sector is the leading contributor to greenhouse gas emissions in Canada, but it is also critical to the economy. Mr. Nanos said the poll shows the country’s regions are “out of sync,” with “the Prairies at one end of the spectrum and then Quebec at the other.”

During the recent election campaign, the Liberals pledged to put a cap on the sector’s emissions, with the ceiling shrinking over time. The government has said it will set five-year targets, starting in 2025. Because the path to a majority government runs through Quebec, Mr. Nanos said there may not be much incentive for Mr. Trudeau to bridge the regional divide.

“Good policy for the federation may become victim to a good political strategy for the Liberals, that’s what we have to watch out for,” he said.

The Prairies, though, “aren’t immune to climate-fueled wildfires and droughts,” said Keith Stewart with Greenpeace Canada. “The best policy for the federation is to help each other through a rapid transition to green energy so we capture the jobs that come with it,” he said.

On Nov. 9, former prime minister Stephen Harper told a closed-door meeting that the federal government’s climate policy unfairly singled out “certain parts of the country.”

The week prior at international climate negotiations in Glasgow, Mr. Trudeau called his government’s planned emissions cap on oil and gas “a big step that’s absolutely necessary,” Mr. Trudeau acknowledged in his Nov. 1 speech that imposing limits will be “no small task for an oil-and-gas-producing country.”

The Prairie provinces were also the exception in a separate Nanos Research poll for The Globe on equalization payments. On that question, more people in the Prairies want equalization removed from the Constitution than respondents from other regions.

Overall, 61 per cent of respondents said they disagree or somewhat disagree with removing equalization payments from the Constitution, while 30 per cent agree or somewhat agree. Nine per cent said they are unsure.

In the regional breakdown, though, 50 per cent of respondents from the Prairies said they want the payments removed from the Constitution. Respondents from Quebec were the least likely to support the change, with just 20 per cent saying they would back it.

Last month, Albertans voted in favour of removing equalization from the Constitution in a referendum that Premier Jason Kenney said was designed to put pressure on Ottawa to address the province’s many grievances. Results posted by Elections Alberta showed 61.7 per cent voted “Yes.”

Mr. Nanos said the timing of the referendum means the issue was much more front and centre for respondents in the Prairies, adding that it’s not clear if people in the region are truly outliers or if the results there simply reflect what others would think if equalization got more attention.

The hybrid telephone and online random surveys ran from Oct. 31 to Nov. 3, with 1,026 respondents. They have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Canada would support international deadlines to eliminate coal and fossil fuel subsidies, Steven Guilbeault says

By Alex BallingallOttawa Bureau
Fri., Nov. 12, 2021

OTTAWA—Canada says it would support the addition of deadlines to eliminate coal power and government supports for the fossil fuel sector in the final deal at the United Nations climate summit in Scotland, as negotiations aimed at preventing the catastrophic extremes of climate change dragged past the scheduled conclusion of the conference on Friday.

Speaking on the last scheduled day of the COP26 conference in Glasgow, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said the Canadian delegation is pushing for a “forceful” deal that will ensure actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are strong enough to restrain the increase of average global temperature increases to 1.5 C by the end of the century.

Scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have said the world has already warmed 1.1 C, and that further increases will lead to more damaging consequences like rising sea levels and stronger floods, droughts, storms and wildfires.

The primary goal of the summit is to ensure it remains possible to limit warming to 1.5 C, though efforts to strike a deal hit stumbling blocks this week. More than 190 participating countries continued talks late into the night on Friday, with ongoing debate over several issues. These include: how much money rich countries will provide poorer nations to deal and account for the damages of climate change; rules for trading credits for emissions reductions between different countries; a call to further increase emissions targets by the end of next year; and a demand for countries to speed-up plans to phase out coal power and subsidies for fossil fuels.

That last point sparked objections from climate campaigners and some participating countries after the latest draft agreement — published Friday morning — had updated language that referred only to “unabated” coal power and “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies.


Tina Stege, the climate envoy from the Marshall Islands, said the final deal must include strong language on fossil fuels and a clear demand to eliminate “all” government supports for coal, oil and gas.

“Fossil fuel subsidies are paying for our own destruction,” she told the conference Friday afternoon.

Asked about the new language around coal power and fossil fuel subsidies, Guilbeault acknowledged concerns about the terminology but did not criticize it. Instead, he pointed to Canada’s own pledge to phase out coal power by 2030 and said Canada would be “very comfortable” with a final deal that included the same deadline for all countries.

He also said Canada would agree to a joint timeline to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies, as it has promised to eliminate “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2023. That pledge doesn’t include the billions of dollars that Crown corporations like Export Development Canada still provide to the domestic oil and gas sector every year, although Guilbeault said Friday that it would cover government subsidies that increase fossil fuel production in Canada.

The United States, meanwhile, urged participating countries not to weaken the current draft of the deal. U.S. climate envoy John Kerry told the conference that the U.S. supports the language around eliminating coal power and fossil fuel subsidies.

“To avoid the worst consequences of the climate crisis, we have to act now,” Kerry said.

“How could we possibly in 2021, knowing what the evidence is, be wishy-washy on that subject? Those subsidies have to go.”

He also defended a provision that calls for countries to “revisit and strengthen” their 2030 emissions targets by the end of next year — something Canada says should only apply to countries that haven’t upgraded their targets since 2015.

The IPCC says annual emissions from the entire world need to fall to 45 per cent below 2010 levels by 2030 to limit warming to 1.5 C.

Canada’s current target — updated earlier this year — is to slash emissions by at least 40 per cent over the next nine years, a goal the federal government argues is consistent with a 1.5 C pathway.

“It is our north star. This is what we’re here for, and Canada has been very supportive of a text that is very strong on 1.5 degrees Celsius,” Guilbeault told reporters Friday.

Climate campaigners in Glasgow this week, however, have decried what they describe as a lack of ambition and urgency shown in the drafts of the final deal so far. A report published by the Climate Action Tracker consortium determined current targets are too weak to achieve what’s necessary by 2030 to maintain a pathway to 1.5 C. And on Friday, a group called Friends of the Earth urged countries to strengthen the deal so that countries commit to phasing out all fossil fuels — not just coal.

“We need to keep, not just the coal, but the oil and gas, safe in the ground,” Mary Church, head of campaigns for Friends of the Earth Scotland, told reporters in Glasgow.

Catherine Abreu, executive director of the Canadian organization Destination Zero, also denounced how the latest text, which she said was watered down with “weasel words” around the phasing out of coal power and fossil fuel subsidies.

Another point of contention in the latter hours of the conference involved the failure to rally promised amounts of money from richer countries to help the developing world deal with climate change. Canada was tapped, along with Germany, to try to raise $100 billion in “climate finance” for developing countries, a level that was promised in 2009 to be achieved in 2020.

However, that threshold is now expected to be met three years late, in 2023, a fact that was noted with “concern” and “deep regret” in the draft deal published Friday. The draft called on countries to “at least double” the collective financing to help developing countries adapt to climate change.

Canada has already promised to double its planned contributions to help developing countries deal with climate to $5.3 billion over the next five years. Guilbeault’s office has said 40 per cent of this money will be earmarked for adaptation, helping poorer countries upgrade their infrastructure to better withstand the realities of the warming world.

But countries such as Belize, Tuvalu and Ecuador say this money for adaptation is not enough, and that developing nations need funding for “loss and damage” they have already experienced from the impacts of climate change. The Friday draft deal included a section that acknowledged this need and urged developed countries to increase financing in this area.

Asked about “loss and damage” on Friday, Guilbeault said he doesn’t expect “new funding mechanisms” to be created but expressed confidence that an agreement can be reached.

Alex Ballingall is an Ottawa-based reporter covering federal politics for the Star. 

Algoma Steel board greenlights electric arc furnace construction

When operational in 2024, transformative technology will cut Sault steelmaker's greenhouse emissions by 70 per cent

Nov 11, 2021 10:00 AM By: Northern Ontario Business Staff

(ArcelorMittal electric arc furnace)

Algoma Steel's board of directors have given the go-ahead to begin construction of two electric-arc furnaces.

This is a $700-million investment and will transform the way the Sault Ste. Marie steel producer makes its plate and sheet in eventually shifting from burning coal through its existing blast furnace and basic oxygen operations to electric furnace production.

It will cut the 120-year-old company's carbon emissons by 70-per cent, the company said in a news release, placing this project among Canada's highest impact investments in terms of cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Algoma anticipates a 30-month construction phase.

The furnaces come online in 2024.
Once the furnaces are commissioned it will give Algoma an annual raw steel production of 3.7 million tons, enough to match its downstream finishing capacity.

The company said these improvements also include a new vacuum degassing capacity. This is a treatment used to reduce the dissolve gas content - like hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen - of the steel to enhance its capacities. Algoma said this will expand itss offering of steel plate grades.

“We believe that today’s strategic decision to transition Algoma to electric arc steelmaking represents a win for all of our stakeholders," said Algoma CEO Michael McQuade in a statement.

"It is designed to transform Algoma into a more agile and profitable company, positioned for long-term growth as an economic driver and employer of choice in our community."

“The board’s decision recognizes that Algoma’s sustainability and Canada’s path to net zero carbon emissions are aligned. You cannot get to net zero without steel, and in becoming a leading provider of green steel in North America, Algoma intends to be part of the solution.”

Andrew Harshaw, Algoma's board chair called the decision the result of two years' worth of "hard work and decisive actions."

“As a board, we have a duty to carefully evaluate investments that may benefit long-term growth and create value. We believe that we have done so and are confident about the significant benefits that this transformation is expected to bring for the Company and its stakeholders. I congratulate Mike and the whole Algoma team for arriving at this exciting milestone.”

The steelmaker said it is engaging with employees, community leaders, suppliers, and union representatives, while also partnering with regional academia to provide new skills training to Algoma’s current employees and to build new careers for local youth in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) subjects and the trades for future advanced manufacturing jobs.

Algoma Steel investment in electric arc steelmaking proves company healthy again: Romano

No provincial commitment has been made toward the project, but Romano told SooToday announcements are coming.

 By: Kenneth Armstrong

Sault MPP and minister of Government and Consumer Services Ross Romano is joined by Ontario Energy Minister Todd Smith at a press conference held Friday at Algoma Steel Inc

Kenneth Armstrong/SooToday

The provincial government is trumpeting the recent announcement by Algoma Steel's board of directors to officially go ahead with a $700-million investment in electric arc steelmaking and Sault Ste. Marie’s MPP says that decision could lead to a return of economic prosperity for Northern Ontario.

On Thursday, Algoma Steel announced its board had approved a plan to replace the existing blast furnace with two new state-of-the-art electric-arc-furnaces (EAFs) at an expected cost of $700 million.

On Friday, four provincial cabinet ministers held a press conference at Algoma Energy, the former Lake Superior Power Plant.

Sault Ste. Marie MPP Ross Romano recounted the ‘good times’ at the steel plant before its first bankruptcy and restructuring. His father, grandfather and two uncles were among the 12,000 people working at the plant in those days.

“If you lived in or around Sault Ste. Marie at that time you either worked at Algoma Steel, you were related to somebody who worked at Algoma Steel, at a minimum you knew someone who worked at Algoma Steel. Back then things were very good for Algoma Steel and very good for Sault Ste. Marie, too,” said Romano.

By the time he turned 12 fortunes had turned for the company.

“By the time I started my first year of high school in 1993, Algoma Steel was going through its first bankruptcy restructuring proceedings,” said Romano. “That would be the first of three such proceedings in as many decades. Things in Sault Ste. Marie and all of Northern Ontario had taken a serious decline.”

Romano said the announcement that the company will move ahead with the $700 million investment is good news for the city and for Northern Ontario.

“This demonstrates that Algoma Steel, which has been our largest employer for several generations and supported thousands of workers and their families throughout this time, can continue to be here for several generations more,” said Romano. “This demonstrates that Algoma is healthy again, this demonstrates that our economy can become healthy again and as our economy in Sault Ste. Marie and across all of Northern Ontario becomes healthy again, so to can our communities have a chance at becoming healthy again.”

He said other contributions by the provincial government, like securing the pensions of almost 9,000 steelworkers and a $60 million investment in 2019, led to the conditions that made this newest project possible.

Michael McQuade , CEO of Algoma Steel, said the $700 investment in electric arc steelmaking will be transformational for the company.

“To be in a position to unlock electric arc steelmaking means we will be able to sustain advanced manufacturing in our community, offering a bright future with high-quality jobs for generations to come,” said McQuade.

The company has already begun working with local academic institutions to train current and future generations of steelworkers, like the recently announced Bachelor of Engineering – Mechatronics degree program at Sault College in partnership with Humber College.

McQuade said future generations will look back at the $700-million investment in electric arc technology as a pivotal moment for the company.

“This is a massive win. It’s a win for Algoma Steel, a win for our employees and for our community, for Ontario and for Canada,” said McQuade.

Ontario’s Minister of Energy Todd Smith joined Romano in person at the press conference on Friday, while ministers Greg Rickford and Vic Fedeli appeared by video conference.

In July, the federal government announced a $420 million investment in the project. No provincial commitment has yet been made toward the project, but Romano told SooToday more announcements are coming.

Smith told SooToday the provincial government was waiting until the company made a final decision on the project to make sure it was going ahead.

“The federal government made their $420 million investment earlier this year, but there hadn’t been a decision made by the company to go ahead with this project,” said Smith. “There were a number of different things that were brought to our cabinet table at Queens Park that we had to deal with just to make sure there was the certainty here and in Ontario to make this kind of investment.”

Smith said the plant’s conversion to electric arc technology will reduce CO2 emissions by 3 million tons, having an equivalent effect to taking one million cars off the road.

“It’s enormous. When you think of the heavy lifting Algoma is going to be doing as a result of this investment in the arc furnace when it comes to greenhouse gas emissions for the province — one move like that gets us 16 per cent closer to achieving the targets we set out for Ontario in the Paris Accord for 2030 to meet those targets,” he said.

9 Red-Hot Facts to Know About Steel, the World's Hidden Mega-Polluter

Steel is one of the defining materials of the modern world. But we'll have to learn how to make it anew.

By Brian Kahn

START SLIDESHOW
9 Red-Hot Facts About Steel and Climate Change (gizmodo.com)


Photo: Kevin Frayer (Getty Images)

Steel undergirds much of modern society. Buildings, cars, medical supplies, you name it, steel is there. But it also represents one of humanity’s greatest threats.

Owing to an incredibly energy-intensive manufacturing process, steel is a massive source of carbon pollution that rivals the emissions of some countries.

Figuring out how to build out a future that’s at once durable and carbon-free will be one of the greatest challenges of the decarbonization era. To understand how to do that, you have to understand how steel is made. It’s an incredible process, one that involves shiny suits, blast furnaces, and molten iron

Daphne Bramham: Canada’s phase out of coal still decades away

Opinion: Nothing produces the superheated temperatures required in steel mills for the wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-speed trains of tomorrow more cheaply or reliably than our metallurgical coal

Author of the article: Daphne Bramham
Publishing date: Nov 12, 2021 

 

Roberts Bank port, with Westshore Terminals coal terminal — North America’s busiest coal port — in the foreground, circa 2007. PHOTO BY GOVERNMENT OF CANADA HANDOUT /PNG files

From the heat dome that killed 595 British Columbians this summer to wildfires that burned Lytton to the ground, destroyed homes in other communities and ravaged thousands of hectares of forest, it’s hard to deny climate change is real

But for everyone celebrating Canada’s commitment to end the use of thermal coal, the single biggest contributor to climate change, and Canadian exports of it by 2030, here’s a reality check.

Canada is still in the coal business.

Most of what is produced and exported isn’t thermal coal. A small amount of mostly U.S.-produced thermal coal does get shipped through Roberts Bank port south of Vancouver, but the railways are already planning to phase out shipping of it before the 2030 deadline.

Canada mines, sells and exports metallurgical coal for steel making and demand for steel is forecast by the International Energy Agency to increase by more than a third by 2050.

Demand for steel is driven by the transition to zero-carbon. Things like wind turbines, electric vehicles and high-speed trains need steel.

And for now, nothing produces the superheated temperatures required in steel mills more cheaply or reliably than coal.

Vancouver-based Teck Resources — the world’s second largest seaborne exporter of metallurgical or met coal — forecasts demand to continue growing until at least 2030 and possibly 2040. Yet even if demand starts to decline after 2030, the amount needed will still be more than in 2020.

“For the coal industry, the met coal demand boom has been a lifeline,” Greenpeace noted in a 2017 report on the future of Australia’s coal industry.

But it doesn’t mean that it’s good for the environment

.

Bruce Ralston, the province’s minister of energy, mines and low carbon innovation

. PHOTO BY DON CRAIG /Government of B.C.

Metallurgical coal generates the same amount of carbon dioxide as thermal coal, according to Australian government data. Both produce an average 2.5 tonnes of carbon dioxide for every tonne burned.

Bruce Ralston, B.C.’s minister of energy, mines and low carbon innovation, acknowledged both the emissions problem as well as the economic benefits that British Columbia and Canada gets from coal mining, not least of which are thousands of well-paid jobs.

Canada is the world’s third largest exporter. British Columbia, along with Alberta, accounts for 90 per cent of Canada’s production with coal accounting for 45 per cent of B.C.’s total mining revenue.

North America’s busiest coal port, Westshore Terminals, handles more than 33 million tonnes annually from its docks at Roberts Banks, although it has already begun its transition to other commodities including potash.

Meantime, Teck Resources, one of the world’s largest producers, reported in October that its third-quarter profit was $816 million.

Part of that was due to metallurgical coal hitting US$237 a tonne, up from US$102 during the same quarter last year.

Although it will eventually transition out of coal mining, Teck has proposed a sixth mine at Castle Mountain in southeastern B.C. It would be the largest mine in British Columbia and one of the largest in Canada.

The environmental concerns raised haven’t centred on emissions. Instead, they’re focused on impacts on Indigenous rights, endangered species, loss of fish habitat and increased selenium leaching into downstream watersheds.

Teck’s carbon use in coal extraction and shipping is among the lowest in the world as it uses carbon capture and storage technology. Its goal is a further 30-per-cent reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 with big and small measures.

Last week, for example, it contracted with the German company Oldendorff Carriers to use energy-efficient carriers for its shipments of steelmaking coal from Vancouver. That’s expected to yield a 30 to 40 per cent reduction in emissions or the equivalent of taking nearly 10,000 cars off the road.
While “realistically” it will be decades before coal is phased out entirely, Ralston said that B.C. has real opportunities for becoming a leader in hydrogen energy production, which has been described as “essential” to achieving carbon neutrality by 2050.

“Given our proximity to export markets, we could capture a significant portion of the global hydrogen market estimated to be greater than $305 billion by 2050,” according to B.C.’s hydrogen strategy released in July.

Canada is already one of the world’s top 10 hydrogen producers with close to three million tonnes produced each year using natural gas.

Its hydrogen strategy , released at the end of 2020, said Canada has the potential to expand exports create as many as 350,000 “good, clean jobs over the next three decades all while dramatically reducing our greenhouse gas emissions” and direct revenues of over $50 billion a year by 2050.

Of course, history has shown that transitions aren’t always smooth.

Before anthropological climate change was recorded back in 1981, Canada, British Columbia and two mining companies invested $2.6 billion in the world’s largest coal mine at Tumbler Ridge.

The investment included the cost of a townsite planned for 10,000 people and $500 million for a rail line to get the coal 1,130 kilometres to port and ship 100 million tons of coal over 15 years to Japanese buyers.

The work had barely begun before coal prices tanked, followed by layoffs and eventually the mine’s final closure in 2015.

Today, Tumbler Ridge’s population is 1,987.

Its hopes for a revival now rests on dinosaur tourism following the discovery of their tracks and bones 20 years ago.

When will steel go green? How B.C. coal fuels one of the highest emitting industries in the world

Social Sharing

• Facebook

• Twitter

• Email

• Reddit

• LinkedIn

Steel production is responsible for about 7% of global

 greenhouse gas emissions, research group says

CBC News · Posted: Nov 12, 2021 

Smoke and steam rise from a coal processing plant in Hejin in China's Shanxi province in this Nov. 28, 2019 file photo. B.C. exports most of its coal to developing countries such as China and India, where it's used to produce the carbon to make steel. (Olivia Zhang/The Associated Press

The calls from COP26 have been clear: the world must stop burning coal if it hopes to avoid catastrophic global temperature rise. 

So why then does British Columbia continue to be the Canadian leader in coal extraction and export? The answer: worldwide demand for steel continues to soar.

Niney-five per cent of B.C. coal is metallurgical as opposed to thermal. Thermal coal is used to make steam that produces electricity. Metallurgical coal, or coking coal, is mined to produce the carbon used in steel-making and is shipped mostly to Asian countries for that purpose. 

In developing countries such as China and India, where infrastructure like railways, roads, bridges and buildings is being built en masse, steel is crucial to continued growth. 

• Several countries pledge to phase out heavily polluting coal — but U.S and China aren't among them

• UN climate talks draft deal asks for tougher emissions pledges by next year

But just because B.C. doesn't produce and export thermal coal — which is nearly universally maligned for its high emissions — it doesn't mean the province is not contributing to a massive amount of carbon emissions.

According to research organization Net Zero Steel, it's estimated that seven per cent of all global greenhouse gas emissions come from manufacturing steel.

A truck hauls a load at Teck Resources's Coal Mountain operation near Sparwood, B.C. Despite a push to lower emissions, Teck says it thinks the market for metallurgical coal, used to make steel, will be strong through 2050. (Teck Resources handout/The Canadian Press)

How is B.C. coal used?

To make steel, oxygen must be removed from iron oxide. In order to do that, a fuel called coke is required, and that's made by heating metallurgical coal in a blast furnace. Iron ore reduction and the subsequent smelting process are by far the most carbon intensive aspects of steel-making.

• Have questions about COP26 or climate science, policy or politics? Email us: ask@cbc.ca. Your input helps inform our coverage.

According to the province's 2020 overview of the coal industry, production volumes were expected to be 25.1 million tonnes in 2020, down from 30 million tonnes in 2019.

Coal is easily B.C.'s most valuable mined product, with sales close to $4 billion.

In 2019, B.C. coal represented 48 per cent of all Canadian production. The provincial government says coal production employs thousands of people, mostly in the Elk Valley in southeastern B.C. and in the northeastern region of the province near Tumbler Ridge. 

A coal mining operation in Sparwood, B.C., in a file photo from November 2016. B.C.'s metallurgical coal industry powers the production of steel. (Jeff McIntosh/The Canadian Press)

Steel production can be cleaner

Experts say there are a number of ways to lower emissions from steel-making, but perhaps the most promising possibility is the idea of removing metallurgical coal from the process altogether.

Clean hydrogen can be used instead to strip the oxygen from the iron ore.

"It's quite feasible that starting, say, five years from now, all new steel plants are using some version of this technology," said Chris Bataille, adjunct professor at Simon Fraser University and a lead author for the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

"It's not even a matter of how much coal is there.… Eventually, if we're serious about decarbonizing the steel industry, there won't be any demand for coal."

The green steel-making industry is furthest ahead in Sweden, where two facilities, Hybrit and H2 Green Steel, say they're only a few years away from commercial production. 

SFU adjunct professor and IPCC lead author Chris Bataille has been studying how to lower emissions in heavy industries for the past five years. (YouTube)

Bataille, who has been studying how to eliminate emissions from heavy industries for the past five years, thinks metallurgical coal has a maximum of another 30 years of usefulness in steel production.

But not everyone agrees. 

The case for more coal

If the swing toward green steel production was to happen quickly, it would undoubtedly render B.C.'s coal industry obsolete. But the transition is going to take time. 

Mining giant Teck Resources, which runs the four coal mines in southeast B.C., says three of them have reserves that could last more than 28 years — with the Greenhills operation containing enough to support 47 more years of mining.

Teck says it made 35 per cent of its nearly $4 billion in 2020 revenue from coal mining.

"Steel and steel-making coal are needed to build the infrastructure required for the transition to a low-carbon economy, including renewable power systems," the company wrote in a statement.

"Our analysis suggests that across multiple climate scenarios … demand for seaborne steel-making coal will remain robust through 2050."

• Canada is weaning itself off thermal coal but keeps shipping it elsewhere

Clean hydrogen shortage

While it might seem obvious that the industry powers are looking to continue building profits from coal, there are other obstacles in the way of green steel, too.

There's the issue of a clean hydrogen shortage. Bataille says that's because broad demand isn't there just yet and that manufacturers will eventually produce their own.

But John Steen, an associate professor and distinguished scholar in global mining futures at UBC, argues that clean hydrogen is much more expensive than hydrogen produced using natural gas. He's worried production simply won't keep up with the sheer scale of the need for renewable power.

"Hydrogen isn't a magic bullet, so we're caught in a real catch-22," said Steen, who has collaborated on research with mining companies like Teck and Rio Tinto.

He thinks the idea of coal-free steel production on a massive scale is still decades away based on the demand for steel, slow adoption of green practices and those hydrogen supply shortages.

John Steen, an associate professor at UBC and the director of the Bradshaw Research Initiative in Minerals and Mining, worries the demand for clean power will outpace the supply. (Jeremy Allingham/CBC)

"The simple response is, 'Let's ban all coal.' And what would you replace it with? Where are these billions of tonnes of steel going to come from?" he said.

Steen points out that even infrastructure required to lower emissions, like wind turbines, solar panels and electric cars, all require steel. And if low-lying cities fall victim to rising sea levels, he says we'll need even more steel to either defend those cities or relocate them.

• Wide-ranging analysis of coal mining in the Rockies finds overall negative impacts

And so we're left with the same conundrum we face in almost every debate about natural resources and climate solutions.

In clean hydrogen-powered steel production, there is a technology available to move away from high-emitting practices. But, as always, the big hurdle is the transition and how aggressively it's pursued. 

---

LISTEN | Reporter Jeremy Allingham talks about the challenges B.C. faces moving away from coal:

9:38B.C.'s coal industry

Even with the worldwide push to put an end to coal, BC continues to make billions off of the extraction and sale of the product. Jeremy Allingham explains what B.C.'s coal is used for and the nuanced debate about how much longer that coal will be needed. 9:38

EXPLAINER: Why quitting coal is so hard

By KARL RITTER

Smoke rises from a coal-powered steel plant at Hehal village near Ranchi, in eastern state of Jharkhand, Sunday, Sept. 26, 2021. No country will see energy needs grow faster in coming decades than India, and even under the most optimistic projections part of that demand will have to be met with dirty coal power — a key source of heat-trapping carbon emissions. (AP Photo/Altaf Qadri)

GLASGOW, Scotland (AP) — In the run-up to the U.N. climate talks in Glasgow, host Britain announced one of its goals of the conference was to consign coal to history.

That turned out to be easier said that done. Even saying it — in writing — became quite a challenge.

Government negotiators in Glasgow wrote and rewrote a paragraph that spells out that fighting climate change requires the world to end coal power, along with fossil fuel subsidies. The wording on coal was weakened one last time just before the gavel came down after coal-dependent India insisted on replacing the words “phase out” with “phase down.”

Here’s a look at the role coal plays in climate change and the energy system, and why it’s been so hard to move away from:

WHY THE FOCUS ON COAL?

Of the three fossil fuels — coal, oil and natural gas — coal is the biggest climate villain. It’s responsible for about 20% of all greenhouse gas emissions. It’s also a fuel that is relatively easy to replace: Renewable alternatives to coal-fired power have been available for decades. The burning of coal also has other environmental impacts, including air pollution contributing to smog, acid rain and respiratory illnesses.

WHO IS BURNING THE MOST COAL?

China, the world’s most populous country and a manufacturing giant, is by far the world’s biggest coal consumer, followed by India and the United States. In 2019 China produced 4,876 TWh of electricity from coal, almost as much as the rest of the world combined, according to the International Energy Agency. But adjusted for population size the situation is different: Australia has the highest per capita coal emissions among the Group of 20 biggest economies, followed by South Korea, South Africa, the United States and China, according to an analysis by Ember, a climate and energy think tank.

WHY ARE COUNTRIES STILL BURNING COAL?

The short answer is coal is cheap and plentiful. But even as renewables become more competitive on price, coal isn’t that easy to get rid of. Electricity needs are soaring as the world’s population and prosperity increase, and renewables simply aren’t enough to satisfy that growth in demand. The IEA projects that India will need to add a power system the size of the European Union’s to meet expected growth in electricity demand in the next 20 years. Coal’s role in the power sector has remained relatively stable in the past five decades. IEA statistics show that in 1973 coal’s share of global electricity generation was 38%; in 2019 it was 37%.

WHAT WAS AGREED ON COAL IN GLASGOW?

Many vulnerable countries, including island nations who fear they will be lost to rising seas, were hoping governments would for the first time in a U.N. climate deal call for the phase-out of coal. But the wording was watered down during the talks because of resistance led by India and in the end the agreement just calls for countries to escalate efforts to “phase down unabated coal power” without setting a timeline.

WHAT IS NEXT FOR COAL?

Coal’s future looks bleak in the long term despite the vague decision in Glasgow. It’s not just driven by climate concerns: In the U.S., natural gas has been replacing coal for years for economic reasons, though coal has rebounded this year due to a surge in natural gas prices. Since the Paris Agreement in 2015, many countries have set net zero emissions targets, which often require phaseouts of unabated coal, meaning coal-fired plants that aren’t fitted with expensive technology that captures emissions. Austria, Belgium and Sweden have already closed their last coal plants. Britain plans to end coal power by 2024. Announcements made in the run-up to and during the Glasgow conference mean some 370 more coal plants around the world were given a close-by date, according to the Centre for Research on Energy and Clean Air. The U.S. has not made such a pledge yet.