Biochar is an Important climate solution

Creating biochar

f you have not heard about biochar, you will soon.

It is a new, and also a very old, tool to fight climate change and make our lives better at the same time. Archeologists examining the remains of ancient communities in the Amazon have found that the soil, termed terra preta, is black and fertile, unlike natural Amazonian soils. They deduced that people in these communities had used biochar to increase soil fertility and that the biochar has not broken down over millenia.

Biochar is almost pure carbon, made from organic material such as wood, crop residues, or even dried manure, which have been burned in a low oxygen and high temperature environment, between 450 C and 650 C. In this process, the more volatile compounds are driven off (this is called pyrolysis) leaving behind pure carbon. Wood or crop wastes, instead of being burned and increasing greenhouse gas emissions, as is common practice in farming and in forestry, can be used to produce biochar. This will fix the carbon for the long term in a product which is useful in improving soil fertility and can also be used in construction materials such as asphalt and concrete. Another advantage is the lack of smoke, a frequent complaint in farming and logging communities when residues are burned.

The difference between charcoal and biochar is not obvious. Charcoal is made at a lower temperature (400 C) and is not as stable or long-lived as biochar. Biochar is more porous, less alkaline and with a negative electrical charge, all characteristics which make it capable of housing many more beneficial bacteria and fungi, and holding onto soil nutrients.

The many pores also hold onto water, making a garden or field with biochar more drought-resistant. A simple way of charging biochar with soil nutrients and micro-organisms is to add it to compost when adding kitchen or other wastes, at 10% or less by volume.

There are now many techniques available to make biochar. These include industrial systems with an outside heat source and the gases and biochar collected separately. There are some simple backyard scale systems, as well. In the B.C. interior, the first person to make biochar as far as I know, is Armstrong carpenter, inventor and environmentalist, Dave Derbowka.

Around 2010, Dave was cultivating fast-growing poplar trees to soak up effluent from the municipal sewage ponds in Spallumcheen, near Enderby. He needed to do something with the poplar logs contaminated with the effluent and he settled on biochar.

The main method Dave uses is called a “flame curtain” kiln or “kon-tiki.” In this method, the kiln carbonizes biomass residues in an open fire, which is placed either on the earth surface, in a pit or in an open trough.

The kiln generates enough heat to make the upper layer of fuel emit combustible gases (pyrolysis) which form a flame curtain. Beneath the flame curtain, the fuel itself does not combust. Instead, it carbonizes because the flame gases consume all available oxygen. Wood is added continuously and when enough has been added that the biochar fills half of the kiln, the biochar is cooled with water.

Dave has been selling the biochar to gardeners but is now working on making bricks out of biochar. If you wish to learn more, have a look on-line at “The 55 Uses of Biochar”. There are also a growing number of books on the subject.

I have started making biochar myself this year. My motivation was finding a method of dealing with the growing volume of tree branches on my acreage in the forest. Accumulating branches is an inevitable part of living in a forest. Leaving them on the ground is a fire hazard, and I did not want to burn them as many people do because of the greenhouse gases that would create, as well as the unwanted and polluting smoke.

This seemed like the perfect solution to me. I can then use the biochar for my garden, give it away or sell it. This year, I will produce around 3,000 litres of biochar and hopefully other forest dwellers will start to do the same.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

More problem with fossil fuel subsidies

Subsidizing fossil fuels

(This is the second of three columns about fossil fuel subsidies covering B.C. royalty, direct and indirect subsidies.)

The fossil fuel industry in British Columbia received $765.3 million in subsidies in 2020-21.

The subsidies point to a pattern of public spending that runs counter to both the goal of B.C.’s climate policies and the larger social imperative to undertake meaningful climate action.

The vast majority of these subsidies go to natural gas producers. Royalty reductions and credits are available to fossil fuel producers in B.C. through allowances, exemptions, credits and lower royalty rates (see below).

Reduced royalty programs are designed to address situations where costs are not covered by existing oil and gas royalties. Those programs reduce royalties that companies pay to the government, thereby encouraging fossil fuel exploration, development and production in higher cost environments.

The largest is the Deep-Well Royalty Program, which provides royalty credits to companies that drill deep wells, usually by fracking. According to budget documents, the B.C. government plans to continue expanding the credit to $657 million in 2023-24.

Worth more than $100 million in 2022-23, the second biggest publicly funded fossil fuel windfall is the Clean Growth Infrastructure Royalty Program, which encourages investment in natural gas infrastructure that reduces methane leakage. (The B.C. government does not consider this a subsidy, so you be the judge.)

Royalty payments from oil and gas producers are supposed to provide benefits to B.C. residents by funding social services, like health care and education.

However, each year, fossil fuel producers claim hundreds of millions of dollars in credits to reduce the amount of royalties they pay. Those billions in outstanding credits that fossil fuel producers will never have to pay is money B.C. residents will not see put toward social services, thus contributing to B.C.’s overall deficit.

Finally, not all credits granted in a given year are deducted that same year. The carry-forward element means the B.C. government will provide significant amounts of royalty reductions to fossil fuel producers for many years to come, an enormous future financial burden.

At least $532 million in tax-related fossil fuel subsidies were provided in B.C. in 2021. Some of the most significant ones were the provincial sales tax exemption for residential fuels for fossil fuels (worth $177 million in 2020-21), and the motor fuel tax exemption for jet fuel (valued at $23 million in 2019).

Provincial sales tax on electricity for industry was eliminated in April 2019 in order to encourage LNG producers to use electricity for their energy needs.

B.C. also provides fossil fuel subsidies in the form of direct payments via various government programs and one-off investments. CleanBC building efficiency measures rebates provide a number of rebates for installing natural gas equipment. The CleanBC Industrial Incentive Program exempts carbon tax on emissions below benchmark levels as an emissions reduction incentive.

The CleanBC Industry Fund, valued at $12.5 million in 2019, provides direct investments for greenhouse gas emission reductions projects by heavy industry.

Those programs amount to fossil fuel consumption subsidies since they ultimately reduce costs of fossil fuel use for large emitters.

Most emissions from the oil and gas sector (80% to 90%) are exempt from carbon pricing. Fugitive methane emissions are substantial, likely significantly higher than reported and are exempt from carbon pricing, including provincial carbon tax.

Because the full amount of B.C.’s venting-related emissions is uncertain, it is difficult to calculate the value of this subsidy. It was estimated at least $56 million in 2016 and would be much higher now.

In 2022-23, nearly 30% of all Canadian-controlled private corporations that extract oil and gas (80 in B.C.) paid the lowest income tax rate for small businesses of 9% for some of their taxes, instead of the regular rate of 15%.

Additionally, B.C.’s budget lists its road and pipeline infrastructure credit and other infrastructure programs at $71 million in 2021.

The Clean Growth infrastructure credit allows firms to claim royalty deductions related to GHG emission reductions (without showing any specific expenditures), further encouraging investment in oil and natural gas infrastructure with no guarantee of emissions reductions.

British Columbia fossil fuel subsidies include:

Royalty reductions:

• Low Productivity Well Royalty Reduction

• Marginal Well Royalty Reduction

• Ultra-marginal Well Royalty Reduction

• Net Profit Royalty Program

Credits:

• Clean Growth Infrastructure Royalty Program

• Clean Infrastructure Royalty Credit Program

• Infrastructure Royalty Credit Program

• Deep Well Royalty Credit Program

• Natural Gas Deep Well-Re-Entry Credit Program

Allowance:

• Producer cost of service

• Natural gas allowance

Gas cost allowance exemptions:

• Oil discovery wells

• Natural gas or by-products used for production, drilling or injection

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

The federal election, the U.S., and climate action

Parties quiet on climate

Our environmental crises continue to worsen from climate change to biodiversity to microplastics to the state of our forests.

I thought climate would be front and centre in the current federal election. A Leger poll last month found 65% of Canadians think Canada should invest in renewables rather than fossil fuel development. Also, 62% felt Canada should maintain its climate commitments independent of the U.S. administration’s decisions and 67% agreed the next Canadian government should make climate action and protecting nature a priority.

So why do we not hear more about climate action and other environmental issues in this election?

It is true the U.S. President Donald Trumpis taking up a lot of the oxygen in our election. One of his main policies is to halt action on climate and environmental regulations and increase fossil fuel exploitation, even to the point of putting pressure on trading partners to buy more American fossil fuels.

In the tariff crisis Trump has created, it is inevitable all lobby groups, from industry to NGOs, will declare the crisis response should include putting a higher priority on their preferred projects.

Conservative Leader, Pierre Poilievre has been a consistent booster of the fossil fuel industry and is silent on the subject of climate. He has used the tariff crisis to declare the need for new oil pipelines. That assertion ignores the $50 billion the Canadian government has now invested in the Trans Mountain Expansion pipeline, an amount no company is going to be willing to invest in the future.

It also neglects the fact pipelines will take a decade to build, while, in only four short years, Trump will be out of power. Also in four years, the International Energy Agency predicts oil and gas demand will have peaked and start falling. The Carbon Tracker, a London-based climate think tank, predicts oil and gas prices at that time will begin to fall as demand softens.

They also note Canada’s oil and gas are relatively expensive to produce and will not be in a good market position when prices begin to fall. Poilievre also promises to fast-track new resource projects which will ensure a decade of litigation by First Nations, who will not have been adequately consulted and may not agree with those projects.

Liberal Leader Mark Carney, while much more aware of the need for climate action, has claimed we can expand oil and gas production while reducing their greenhouse gas emissions, which are currently 30% of Canada’s total emissions.

He purports to do this for oil by reducing the GHG intensity per unit of oil produced. Even if true, the solutions may reduce the GHGs per unit but not the total if more oil is produced. More oil produced means more oil burned, resulting in more GHGs, regardless of where the burning takes place. Additionally, the main method currently proposed to reduce GHGs of oil production is through carbon capture and storage, which has proven to be extremely expensive and only feasible if taxpayers pay for most of it, for which the industry is lobbying hard.

This is similar to B.C. Premier David Eby’s claims that LNG will be “carbon neutral” because the industry will use electricity to run its operations. The amount of electricity required to do that makes the proposal more fantasy than fact.

All of this ignores the urgency of the climate crisis and Canada’s and B.C.’s commitments to reduce our carbon pollution. Two years ago, U.N. Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres, called for a phase-out of fossil fuel production if the world was to avert the worst of the climate crisis. Last year, he called for a ban on fossil fuel advertising, a tax on fossil fuel windfall profits and urged financial institutions to stop funding fossil fuel projects. Canada has made a modest effort towards the first of these and nothing at all on the others.

Climate and other environmental issues may be downplayed in this election because a lot of our mainstream media is American-owned. As well, according to a 2020 Stand.Earth report, 70% of oil sands production is owned by wealthy foreign investors and shareholders.

In B.C., the Prince Rupert Gas Transmission pipeline and massive Ksi Lisims LNG project that Eby must decide on this spring are mainly owned by Western LNG, an American consortium.

Other countries, even the U.S., are moving ahead with climate action. American battery storage capacity, allowing more efficient use of renewable energy, reached 20.7 gigawatts in July 2024, or the equivalent of 20 Site C dams. It is expected to double again by the end of this year.

Canada needs to step up and meet our climate commitments regardless of who is elected. Phasing out fossil fuels, while not solving all our problems, will mean a livable planet with good jobs and less pollution.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.

The problem with fossil fuel subsidies

Subsidizing fossil fuels

A subsidy is a financial aid, granted by the government, to assist an industry so price of its commodity is artificially lowered.

Fossil fuel subsidies increase sales of gas, oil and coal—sources of the carbon pollution we must lower. Rather than making pollution expensive, subsidies make it cheaper. This is like raising taxes on cigarettes to discourage smoking, while also giving tobacco companies tax breaks so they can make more cigarettes and profits.

To make matters worse, fossil fuel subsidies disadvantage clean energy. They make fossil energy cheaper than renewables. Consequently, investing in renewable energy becomes less attractive. Subsidies distort the market, pushing investment toward sectors that might not otherwise be viable.

When fossil fuel producers receive hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies each year, vital government resources aren’t available for important sectors, such as renewable energy and social services.

There are three major types of fossil fuel subsidies, royalty reductions, direct subsidies such as grants, loan guarantees and fossil fuel specific tax measures and indirect subsidies such as public infrastructure investments, reduced utility rates, general tax measures and the cost of pollution borne by society.

All of these help fossil fuel companies lower their cost of business and increase profits. Some incorrectly think that removing fossil fuel subsidies means advocating for job losses and energy insecurity. In truth, fossil fuel subsidy reform can be done in a way that supports job creation and enhances energy security, setting Canada up to thrive in the emerging low-carbon economy.

Four of the top oil companies in Canada (Cenovus, Imperial Oil, Suncor and Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.) had a combined annual profit of more than $25 billion in 2021. Oil and gas extraction companies in Canada made more than $63 billion in profits in 2022.

In 2009, at the G20 meeting, Canada committed to eliminate “inefficient” fossil fuel subsidies by 2025. The G20 decision on fossil fuel subsidies set an important international precedent. Unfortunately, Canada has failed to significantly reduce its level of support to the fossil fuel industry. Canada is one of the largest international fossil fuel financers in the world, ranked last among 11 OECD countries on progress in ending fossil fuel subsidies.

• In 2019, the Canadian government purchased the Trans Mountain pipeline and expansion project for $4.5 billion.

• In 2022, Environmental Defence Canada reported tracking $21 billion in federal fossil fuel subsidies, adding that it believed that was likely an underestimate.

• In 2023, the Government of Canada provided at least $18 billion in financial support to fossil fuel and petrochemical companies, including:

• $8 billion in loan guarantees for the Trans Mountain expansion pipeline.

• $7.3 billion in public financing through crown corporation Export Development Canada

• More than $1.3 billion for carbon capture and storage projects.

One of the last things Chrystia Freeland did as federal finance minister was to authorize an additional $20 billion loan to the Trans Mountain pipeline project, bringing the total disclosed federal commitment to nearly $50 billion. The guarantee appears to violate a commitment made by Freeland in 2022 that no further public money would be invested in the project after the pipeline’s cost swelled to $21.4 billion.

In 2022, the Government of Canada introduced a 15 per cent windfall tax on excess profits in the banking and insurance sectors (the Canada Recovery Dividend). Oil and gas companies were not included in this new tax.

The Parliamentary Budget Office estimated that applying the Canada Recovery Dividend to oil and gas profits in 2022 would have generated $4.2 billion in one year alone.

In addition to those supports, federal subsidies are available through numerous funds, such as Canada Infrastructure Bank, Clean Fuels Fund, Strategic Innovation Fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada (not monitored for use for sustainable development), and Trade Corridors Fund and tax credits, such as the Accelerated Capital Cost Allowance for LNG, Canadian development expenses, Canadian exploration expenses, Canadian oil and gas property expense, Flow through shares, and foreign exploration and development expenses.

Avoiding financial responsibility for climate pollution created by oil and gas companies is an indirect subsidy. Climate costs borne by society include health costs, property damage from extreme weather events and decreased agricultural productivity due to changing weather patterns.

The Government of Canada has developed a tool to calculate these costs, and they would have been over $52 billion in 2023.

(This is the first column in a three-part series about fossil fuel subsidies. The second part, on April 15, will cover royalty, direct and indirect subsidies in B.C. and the third, on April 29, will cover LNG, coal and offer some conclusions.)

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.