The United Conservative Party of Alberta is set to meet next weekend in Red Deer, and some of the policy resolutions for its AGM have garnered plenty of attention since they were released earlier this month.
In particular, Red Deer-South, the riding of MLA Jason Stephan, is the sponsor of one of the more unique policy resolutions of the event. Unique is probably putting it kindly.
Athabasca-Barrhead-Westlock and Red Deer-South have put forward a resolution under the title, "Environmental Stewardship – Emissions Reduction." Which sounds great! The environment is good, I enjoy a good day out in the environment as much as the next person. Emissions are generally bad and harmful to enjoying life on earth.
Emissions reductions are widely recognized as necessary to help preserve life as we know it on Earth. So it sounds good!
Except that's not what it's about at all.
The resolution has three aims in order to "Recognize the importance of CO2 to life and Alberta’s prosperity by implementing the following measures." It asks for a three items:
i. Abandoning “Net-Zero” targets,
ii. Removing the designation of CO2 as a pollutant, and
iii. Recognize that CO2 is a foundational nutrient for all life on Earth.
The "rationale" for these changes are certainly eye-catching.
"CO2 is a nutrient foundational for all life on earth. The carbon cycle is a biological necessity," the policy reads.
"CO2 is presently at around 420 ppm, near the lowest level in over 1000 years. It is estimated that CO2 levels need to be above 150 ppm to ensure the survival of plant life. The earth needs more CO2 to support life and to increase plant yields, both of which will contribute to the Health and Prosperity of all Albertans."
CO2 is foundational, I don't think there's a scientist on Earth who will argue against that. The problem isn't that we have carbon dioxide, the problem is what too much carbon dioxide is doing to the earth's atmosphere. Current levels of carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, are warming the earth at a rate unlike any we've seen in human history. Most scientists agree that this is causing irreversible changes to the atmosphere, which affects our climate and will impact life as we know it.
I'd be remiss if I didn't mention the work of Dr. Craig Idso, chair of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change in the United States. Idso is one of several researchers who have concluded that more CO2 is actually a good thing. His rationale, among other things, points to studies that show plant yields can be increased by as much as one-third as CO2 levels increase. In 2017, he argued this could possibly create an economic boost in the U.S. to the tune of $50 billion by 2050.
This ignores the fact that while some plants could increase yields, others may be affected by extreme weather events like wildfires, droughts and storms. One study out of the U.S. indicated that maize and soybean yields could possibly be diminished by up to six per cent for every day over 30 C. Wheat yields could also be impacted at higher temperatures.
Which to me, makes the rationale in the policy resolution fundamentally misguided.
There's more, though.
It's not wrong that CO2 is around 420 ppm currently, but it is wrong to suggest that it is the "lowest" level in the past 1,000 years.
In fact, atmospheric C02 levels, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, over the past 400,000 years, CO2 was never higher than 300 ppm. On top of that, the increase over the last 60 years is 100 times faster than previous natural increases. Carbon dioxide levels today are the HIGHEST at any point in human history.
I think it's disingenuous at best to suggest those changes are "good" for life on Earth.
To me, the main crux of the proposal is abandoning net-zero targets. The provincial government can remove designations and recognize CO2 as "fundamental to life," but it wouldn't be a massive shift in policy or create any real change. It would be a pat-on-the-back press conference at best, with little substance.
However, abandoning all "net zero" targets would be a massive policy shift.
In January, this government committed to a carbon-neutral economy by 2050.
Even The Pathways Alliance, a partnership of the six largest oil sands companies representing 95 per cent of oil sands production, is on board with that plan.
"Alberta understands the importance of identifying achievable pathways to emissions reductions," former Minister of Environment and Protected Areas Sonya Savage said in the preamble of the January report.
"We are completing comprehensive assessments of technology pathways with industry and experts in each sector, including technology requirements, costs, timeframes and policies and programs needed to accelerate emissions reductions. This is fundamental to setting technologically and economically achievable pathways to decarbonization."
The actual bare-bones details of the province's plan aren't very specific, beyond talking about carbon capture and LNG production, but this type of commitment and language would make for a pretty stark transition to no net-zero plan, if the policy was adopted.
It's not unlike this government to backtrack on commitments or to quickly pivot from one idea to the next, but if this resolution is adopted in its current form, there will be a lot more questions than answers.
Byron Hackett is the Managing Editor of the Red Deer Advocate and Regional Editor for Black Press Media.
