The Globe's Mark Hume on the greening of British Columbia

Q&A with Mark Hume
Globe and Mail Update
26-Mar-2007

The Globe's Mark Hume writes today in his article Can B.C. make a U-turn to green? "For the past decade, British Columbia has been an energy pig, with greenhouse-gas emissions soaring.

"Now [Premier Gordon] Campbell is promising to apply the brakes and reduce those emissions to 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020. That ambitious target would outpace even California, where Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger aims to cap that state's greenhouse-gas emissions at 1990 levels by 2020.

"The question is, can Mr. Campbell deliver?

"B.C., birthplace of Greenpeace, a province where people embrace nature so fervently even loggers call themselves environmentalists, might already seem to be the greenest place in Canada.

Globe reporter Mark Hume
"But the statistics tell a different story, a story about how a booming economy and a growing population has put B.C. on what the Suzuki Foundation calls 'a torrid pace to catch up' to the worst greenhouse-gas offenders in the country."

Mr. Hume's article is the first in a week-long Globe series and he was online Monday to answer your questions on his provocative question: Can B.C. make a U-turn to green?

Mr. Hume has been covering environmental and political issues in British Columbia for more than 20 years. He has written four natural history books about B.C. Before joining The Globe, as a national correspondent in the Vancouver bureau, he worked at the National Post and The Vancouver Sun, where he won a National Newspaper Award for leading a special project that examined the environmental fate of Georgia Straight.

Sasha Nagy, Business Features Editor, globeandmail.com: Hi Mark. Thanks for answering reader questions about B.C.'s new commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. When I lived in B.C. back in the 80s, the environmental debate was focused very much on forestry. It was mainly, to cut or not to cut. After reading your article today, I found it interesting how global warming has made the focus on forestry much more complicated. There's the emergence of the Pine Beetle problem, the concept of carbon sinks, clean energy and the notion of carbon offsets. How will the forest industry in B.C. respond to these new measures?

Mark Hume: There is a limited shelf life to the millions of trees killed by the pine beetle infestation and the B.C. government has already launched a major effort to harvest as many as them as possible, before they deteriorate and lose their value. So-called salvage logging operations are now under way all over the province, and a huge re-planting effort will follow. There are several problems, however. First, replanting will not replace the forests for 30 years. Second, a recent study by the government found that if the pine beetle killed forests are fully harvested, it will greatly contribute to flooding. So B.C. has to figure out which trees to leave, even though they are dead. The other issue, which has yet to be resolved, is whether or not the province will be able to claim the newly planted trees as carbon sinks. That international debate has not yet been resolved and although Premier Gordon Campbell has expressed the hope that B.C.'s new forests will generate revenue as carbon sinks, there is some real doubt about that.

Philip Polutnik from Calgary writes: Mr. Hume. B.C. is not an energy hog like Alberta and doesn't use coal to make electricity or burn natural gas to make upgrade bitumen and it doesn't have that many smoke stack industries. Probably 75 per cent of its population lives in the Fraser Valley. After changing light bulbs and adding more insulation, how is B.C. going to be able to get the kind of reductions it says it will to be able to achieve these ambitious targets?

Mark Hume: Thanks for your question Philip. You are right, of course, Alberta, and other provinces, are far ahead of B.C. in producing greenhouse gases. But B.C. has been playing catch-up, particularly in the area of transportation, where emissions jumped more than 42 per cent between 1990 and 2004. Alberta's transportation emissions went up 43.5 per cent during the same period — so not much ahead. B.C. faces a daunting challenge in trying to meet the new goals set out by Premier Campbell, because the province is growing rapidly. Some key areas have to be targeted and clear goals have to be set.

Transportation — Passenger transportation is the largest source of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C. That means B.C. has to get more people in public transit and more fuel efficient cars and freight trucks on the road. At the same time, the rail lines in the Lower Mainland should all be electrified.

Oil and gas — this industry is expanding rapidly, and at the same time so are the "fugitive emissions" or leaks. For all its problems in creating greenhouse gases the industry in Alberta has shown considerable progress in controlling these fugitive emissions and B.C. has to do the same thing.

Urban densification — planners talk about it and we all agree it makes sense, but nobody wants their own comfortable neighbourhood to change. Vancouver Mayor Sam Sullivan is currently pushing the concept, under the catch-phrase, eco-density. It needs to be embraced.

Those are just a few ideas. More solutions will be explored in a story at the end of the series, Friday.

Trevor Hache from Ottawa writes: Good day Mr. Hume, I first want to thank you and the Globe for writing about this most important subject. Although B.C.'s plan will go further than California's, it won't come close to meeting the Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 levels by 2012. The science is telling us we must achieve this emission reduction target, and then go much further in the following decades. The European Union has committed to a 20% reduction below 1990 levels by 2020, and would go as far as 30% if other industrialized nations came on board. It is abundantly clear to me that to avoid catastrophic climate change, nations around the world must be much more aggressive in reducing greenhouse gases (GHGs), and yet some in the media are holding B.C. up as having a very responsible plan, when really it's no where near what Europe is proposing (or what is required). In George Monbiot's book Heat: How to Stop the Planet from Burning, he suggests we need a 90% reduction in GHGs by 2030. While glaciers around the world are melting at an alarming rate, putting hundreds of millions of people at risk of not having access to fresh drinking water, the Arctic melts and polar bears face certain extinction, B.C. is being held up by some as some sort of leader, when really it appears to me to be a laggard. Can you explain this? Why are some in the media allowing Canada's provinces and federal government off the hook on achieving real, fast GHG reductions?

Mark Hume: Hi Trevor. I wish I could explain why B.C. is getting such glowing headlines. I can't. B.C. hasn't done anything of any real substance yet, and you are quite correct in pointing out that other jurisdictions have set much more ambitious goals. Sweden, for example, proposes weaning itself off oil by 2020 by switching to cellulosic ethanol. New Zealand plans to produce enough ethanol from trees to end fossil fuel imports. Those are really significant goals which, if achieved, will make a difference. B.C., in my view, is just mouthing global warming platitudes at the moment, and has yet to really step up to the plate. That said, B.C. has promised to come up with a green strategy that will reduce emissions 10 per cent below 1990 levels. Let's hope there is some fire behind the smoke.

Canadian Scarecrow from Windsor writes: Mr. Hume. I'm concerned that Canadians may lack the necessary resolve which is required to combat global warming and such resolve requires more than penalizing industry - it requires a willingness on our part to reduce greenhouse emissions by using less energy. Are you aware of any poll which indicates that a solid majority of us will pay more in order to reduce green house gases?

Mark Hume: I haven't been watching the polls on that but like you I suspect that Canadians are weak kneed when it actually comes to paying the price to getting to a cleaner planet. We need to get going on this issue — and to do that, we need some really strong political leadership. At the moment I don't see that anywhere in this country.

Michael Lawrence from Bowser Canada writes: There has been a lot of talk about energy efficient light bulbs of late. The fine print on the packaging says that the bulbs contain mercury and must be disposed of properly. Even with their long life these bulbs will eventually fail. What steps will be taken to ensure we are not trading Minamata disease for energy efficiency?

Mark Hume: Thanks for the comment Michael. I wasn't aware of the mercury label on energy efficient light bulbs. If that's the case it only underscores the complexity of the global warming issue. There's no point in trading one problem for another. Any steps we take as a society have to be thought out and weighed. For example, the B.C. government has said it won't allow coal fired generating plants to be built, unless they have zero greenhouse gas emissions. That's good. But at the same time, B.C.'s biggest export is coal. ... and as far as I know, nobody is asking how it's being used. If it goes to China, where it is used in a dirty electrical generating plant, is the planet any better off? I think not. And a landfill that's full of mercury laden light bulbs won't help things either.

b mac from Canada writes: I don't think air pollution in the rain forest areas of B.C. is anything to be too concerned about. The natural cleaning and flushing action, which occurs in the B.C. rain forests, will automatically clean the air over time. As for the pine beetle? Maybe it's best, over time, to let nature get rid of this specie of tree and let our fir, hemlock, spruce and cedar trees take the forests over. Recycling in B.C. has made a big difference as well. So it's not all bad out here in B.C. Nothing to be too alarmed about.

Mark Hume: I certainly agree that the resiliency of nature is remarkable, and that B.C. perhaps has more natural blessings than any other province. However, it should be clear that the global warming crisis is not something that's restricted to one jurisdiction or another. It is planetary in scope. As a wealthy, advanced nation Canada should lead the way in tackling this problem. And B.C. — which arguably has more to lose than most — should be out in front.

Sasha Nagy writes: Mark: What impediment could B.C.'s rapid growth play in this fight against global warming?

Mark Hume: There's no question that B.C.'s rapid population growth has been driving the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in the province, and will continue to be a major factor. More people drive more cars, use more energy and consume more goods. In 1990 there were approximately 3 million people in B.C. The current count is 4.3 million — and by 2015 the province is expected to pass 5 million. Eighty per cent of the population growth is expected to take place in the Lower Mainland, on the east coast of Vancouver Island and in the Okanagan Valley. While this presents planners with major challenges, it also offers opportunity in that if this growth can be directed into densification, rather than more urban sprawl, public transit can become more efficient and more popular. If B.C., however, continues to let growth patterns be dictated by developers, we'll see more of these gated, remote communities which are now so popular. Big housing developments with 500 or 1,000 units are springing up in the countryside outside major cities like Victoria, and Kelowna. They offer a taste of country living. And big houses. And when you move to places like that, all you have to do to enjoy the amenities of town, to get your kids to school, or to go grocery shopping is to jump in your car. If we see more of that kind of sprawling growht, and less densification, green house gas emissions will continue to soar in B.C., keeping pace with the population growth.

Bad Beta from Creston Belize writes: Are you saying that we need higher electricity rates as an incentive to solar? I know people that have tarps over their house because they cannot afford to fix their roof! This would be a tax on the poorest members of our society.

Mark Hume: No, I'm not saying higher electricity rates. I think the answer is to provide incentives for people to switch to solar. You could give tax breaks, or rebates. In the State of Washington, and in some European countries, the government has established a system by which solar powered houses are paid a premium for pumping electricity back into the grid.

There's no doubt in my mind that people want to do the right thing. They just don't want to go broke doing it, and they don't want to spend thousands of dollars switching to solar power if it doesn't make any economic sense for their family.

Gerald Graham from Victoria writes: Did you notice, Mark, that BC's 'green' energy plan includes offshore oil and gas? They still want to lift the moratorium, so long as scientific and environmental concerns can be adequately addressed. What do you think of that?

It is noteworthy, is it not, that Campbell's Californian mentor, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has no intention of lifting his own moratorium, which has been in effect since the Santa Barbara blowout of 1969.

Mark Hume: I did notice the government's plans to expand offshore oil and gas exploration. Does this make any sense? Not to me. Not if the goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Tom Rand from Toronto writes: Hi there, Tom Rand here, I run a venture fund dedicated to emissions reductions technology. One technology that seems to be pretty low-hanging fruit is geothermal. Do you now of any specifcic plans in B.C. to incorporate goethermal, either as a mandatory technology on new buildings or, at least, in terms of encouraging the widespread implementation of this technology?

Editor's Note: Tom Rand writes a blog for globeandmail.com/smallbusiness about his development of a green hostel in downtown Toronto. Check out the Hotel Diaries for more on Tom Rand's efforts.

Mark Hume: According to the BC Sustainable Energy Association, British Columbia "has better prospects for geothermal development than any other province in Canada." That's not surprising given the number of hot springs around the province. So far those geothermal sources have been used mostly for recreational purposes, but a few years ago the B.C. government began accepting bids from geothermal energy companies. I don't know of any projects that have come to fruition yet, but it's clearly a valuable source of energy and the growing concerns over global warming can only help push development forward in that field.

On the building front, there are companies available in B.C. that incorporate geothermal technology into homes and commercial buildings. I can't tell you, however, how widespread that is.

Sasha Nagy writes: Thanks for taking these questions. What can Globe and Mail readers expect from you tomorrow as this special report continues?

Mark Hume: Over the remainder of the week a group of reporters will be weighing in with a series of stories exploring the global warming problem and British Columbia's response to it. Tomorrow, the series looks at green power and the limits of alternative energy. Wednesday examines the battle being fought in suburbia, and Thursday there will be reports on how B.C. businesses can profit from the challenge. On Friday, I'll be back with a piece that looks at some of the practical solutions being put forward. We all agree global warming is a problem. So how do we solve it? Some of the suggestions are surprisingly simple.

Globe and Mail's Climate for Change series

1. Can B.C. make U-turn to green?, 26-Mar-2007
B.C.'s uncharted path to a green future. Plus, one Vancouver family goes on a carbon diet to slim its greenhouse-gas emissions, Part 1.

1a. The Globe's Mark Hume on the greening of British Columbia, 26-Mar-2007
Mr. Hume was online Monday to answer questions on his provocative question: Can B.C. make a U-turn to green?

2. The dirty little secret of importing power, 27-Mar-2007
B.C. is a province of green power -- or is it? Plus, the limits to alternative energy and conservation.

3. How urban sprawl goes against the green, 28-Mar-2007
The battle to cut B.C.'s greenhouse gases will be fought on the lawns of suburbia. Plus, economics powers a green revolution in Vancouver's taxi industry.

4. From carbon steam to cash flow, 29-Mar-2007
How B.C. businesses could turn their pollution into profit. Plus, the province's dirtiest dozen.

5. A greener getaway takes root, 30-Mar-2007
The path to green: How B.C. can slash greenhouse gases. Plus, Part 2 of the carbon diet.