Connect with us

Opinion

Red Deer holds the dubious title of having the poorest ambient air quality. The province has some ideas on that.

Published

14 minute read

Our air quality in Red Deer has been very poor for years and I always felt that every level of government left it for the other levels of government to find a cure.
Our provincial government has taken steps since forming government in 2015. Some were expensive yet effective like reducing our dependency on coal. Some steps were eye ball rolling steps like doing more studies.
Our municipal government is taking steps and are talking about taking more steps. Let us hope that it finds the planning department and we can make the appropriate changes that I believe is necessary. For starters do we need all 5 high schools built and planned for, along 30 avenue and no high schools north of the river where 30% of the population resides? Would it mean a lot less commuting for 30% of the students if did not have to commute across the city to go to school and participate in extra-curricular activities? Just asking.

Studies are influenced by interpreters and interpretations, adding to or subtracting from parameters and by time lines. Different elements like SO2 or NOX if added or removed from comparables will affect the interpretations. In any interpretation we still have poor air. Possibly the worst air in Canada on average. Of course downtown Calgary, Toronto, or Edmonton may peak during rush hour traffic but overall we hold the title of worst ambient air quality.

So to recap. Let us go back to a story on CBC News.

Alberta is hoping to relieve Red Deer of a less than prestigious title. The central Alberta city, for years, has had the worst ambient air quality in the province. (CBC NEWS September 2015)
A report in September confirmed what many in the region already believed.
Industrial activity and vehicle emissions had pushed Red Deer’s ozone and fine particulate matter levels above national standards going back to 2009.
The province’s action plan, heavily based on its previously-announced plan to eliminate coal pollution by 2030, was introduced Thursday.
In a statement, Noah Farber of the Asthma Society of Canada said a reduction in coal pollution is a step in the right direction.
“The Alberta government’s commitment to the elimination of coal fired electricity generation is a positive step to improving air quality for all Albertans. This is particularly true for those with asthma and other respiratory diseases, who will now be able to breathe well and live healthy active lives,” Farber said.
The province is giving the Parkland Airshed Management Zone a grant of $250,000 to identify and monitor sources of pollution.
Another $560,000 will help a new air monitoring station in Red Deer provide more detailed identification of pollution sources for the region.
The Alberta Motor Association will continue driver education with an aim of reducing practices like idling, that increase emissions.
Red Deer outlined a series of actions the city was taking to address the issue following the September report, including buying 30 per cent of its energy from green sources and expanded public transit options, among others.

(CBC NEWS)
Alberta Environment Minister Shannon Phillips says the province is on track to have the worst air quality in Canada, and vows the government will put measures in place to reduce emissions from industry and vehicles.
“The time to act is long overdue,” Phillips said.
“We have a responsibility to do everything we can to protect the health of Albertans.”
Phillips made the remarks after seeing the results of the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards report, which show the Red Deer region has exceeded national standards. Four other regions — Lower Athabasca, Upper Athabasca, North Saskatchewan and South Saskatchewan — are close to exceeding national standards.
Phillips said there is no immediate health risk for people living in central Alberta.
“These results are concerning,” Phillips said in a news release. “We can’t keep going down the same path and expecting a different result. Our government has a responsibility to protect the health of Albertans by ensuring air pollution from all sources is addressed.”
The province will initiate an “action plan” to deal with poor air quality in the Red Deer area, a move she said is required under the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The government said a scientific study looking into the cause of the air pollutants is currently underway, and people living in the Red Deer area, industry stakeholders and the provincial energy regulator will be consulted. That plan is expected to be complete by the end of September and will take Red Deer’s geography and air patterns into consideration.
As part of the plan, Phillips said the government will:
Review technology that could be used to reduce emissions.
Review whether polluters in Alberta are meeting national standards.
Look at other ways to reduce emissions, for example, ways to curb vehicle emissions.
The Pembina Institute, non-profit think tank focused on clean energy, was quick to follow up with its own statement about the air quality results, saying the report shows the need for a provincewide pollution reduction strategy.
“This new report adds to the mounting evidence that Alberta needs to reduce air pollution across the province. Measures that will produce more rapid results are also needed in the numerous regional hot spots identified by the report,” said Chris Severson-Baker, Alberta’s regional director at the Pembina Institute.
“The report shows that, unless emissions are cut, most of the province risks exceeding the Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards for fine particulate matter. This places an unacceptable burden on people’s health and on the environment,” he said.
The Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment has also weighed in on the report, saying it is “dismayed, but not surprised” by the findings.
“This calls into question the pervasive belief that the clear blue skies of Alberta foster clean air, safe from the pollutants better known from smoggier climes,” said Dr. Joe Vipond, an emergency room doctor and member of the association.
Phillips blamed the previous Tory government for contributing to the rising pollution levels, saying the PCs resisted meaningful action on climate change.
Canadian Ambient Air Quality Standards are national standards for particulate matter and ozone exposure.

I received this e-mail this past week from the Director of Air Policy for the Government of Alberta. The Premier did not toss my concerns into the wastebasket but forwarded it to someone who can actually answer some questions. Spoiler alert, there will be some eye-ball rolling.

My name is Hamid Namsechi and I am the director of Air Policy for the Government of Alberta. Premier Notley forwarded a copy of your letter regarding your concerns about air quality and the need for action to reduce air pollution in Red Deer.
The Government of Alberta takes the health of Albertans very seriously. There are many agencies both inside and outside government that look after protecting the quality of our environment. For example, while the Departments of Health and Environment and Parks are responsible for human and environmental health policies and outcomes, agencies such as Alberta Energy Regulator, Clean Air Strategic Alliance, Alberta’s ten airshed organizations, Alberta municipalities, etc. all work collaboratively to ensure the quality of air in Alberta meets all provincial and national standards.
As for action on emissions, you will be happy to know that significant progress has been made since the 2011-2013 Red Deer air quality assessment report was released in September 2015. For starters, part of taking action on reducing fine particulate matter in Red Deer is improving the state of knowledge. Until 2014, Red Deer Riverside was the only monitoring station in the Red Deer area. The Red Deer Lancaster monitoring station was added as a second air quality monitoring station in late 2014. This station will help us to understand if fine particulate matter concentrations vary in different parts of the City of Red Deer.
In April 2016, the Government announced funding for two significant studies to take place in Red Deer. One study involved air quality modelling to determine the relative impact of various sectors on the air quality in Central Alberta. The other is a long-term monitoring study which has commenced sampling and will continue to sample fine particulate matter at three locations in and around the City of Red Deer. These studies will provide valuable information regarding likely sources of emissions that are contributing to the issue of high fine particulate matter concentrations in the City of Red Deer.
Direct action has been taken to reduce emissions from the coal-fired electricity generation at the Battle River site – the biggest source of air pollution in the Red Deer region. As you are aware, coal plants produce a number of air pollutants when they burn coal to make steam to generate electricity. During combustion in air, the sulphur dioxide (SO2), various nitrogen oxides (NOx), mercury (Hg), primary particulate matter (PM) and a number of other emissions such as heavy metals are produced as by-products. The operating permit of the Battle River units has now been revised and recent records show that emissions are down by over eighty percent from pre-2015 levels.
Similarly, all industrial approvals for other facilities in the Red Deer region are currently being systematically looked at for opportunities to reduce emissions. After Minister Phillips news conference in 2015, industrial approvals staff in both Alberta Environment and Parks as well as the Alberta Energy Regulator have stepped up the stringency of the emissions standards for facilities operating in stressed airsheds.
As for reducing the volume of non-industrial emissions, there has also been a lot of progress since 2015. Alberta Government has been working with the Clean Air Strategic Alliance, federal Government, Alberta municipalities, agricultural sector, industry and environmental non-governmental organizations to develop strategies to reduce the cumulative impacts of emissions from the many small sources (such as transportation).
The good news in all of these from the ambient air quality perspective is that Red Deer’s latest fine particulate matter readings have substantially improved since the Minister’s news conference. Our preliminary assessment of the 2016 annual average for PM2.5 at Riverside Station shows a forty six percent reduction compared to the historical high levels, which puts the current air quality in Red Deer in the yellow range.
Thank you for taking the time to share your concerns with the Government of Alberta.
Sincerely,
Hamid Namsechi, P.Eng.
Air Policy Director
Policy & Planning Division
Environment and Parks

So we have seen some improvements, will it be enough? Is it just another interpretation?

Follow Author

Energy

Global fossil fuel use rising despite UN proclamations

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades… the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).

At the Conference of the Parties (COP29) in Azerbaijan, António Guterres, the United Nations Secretary-General, last week called for a global net-zero carbon footprint by 2050, which requires a “fossil fuel phase-out” and “deep decarbonization across the entire value chain.”

Yet despite the trillions of dollars already spent globally pursuing this target—and the additional trillions projected as necessary to “end the era of fossil fuels”—the world’s dependence on fossil fuels has remained largely unchanged.

So, how realistic is a “net-zero” emissions world—which means either eliminating fossil fuel generation or offsetting carbon emissions with activities such as planting trees—by 2050?

The journey began in 1995 when the UN hosted the first COP conference in Berlin, launching a global effort to drive energy transition and decarbonization. That year, global investment in renewable energy reached US$7 billion, according to some estimates. Since then, an extraordinary amount of money and resources have been allocated to the transition away from fossil fuels.

According to the International Energy Agency, between 2015 and 2023 alone, governments and industry worldwide spent US$12.3 trillion (inflation-adjusted) on clean energy. For context, that’s over six times the value of the entire Canadian economy in 2023.

Despite this spending, between 1995 and 2023, global fossil fuel consumption increased by 62 per cent, with oil consumption rising by 38 per cent, coal by 66 per cent and natural gas by 90 per cent.

And during that same 28-year period, despite the trillions spent on energy alternatives, the share of global energy provided by fossil fuels declined by only four percentage points, from 85.6 per cent to 81.5 per cent.

This should come as no surprise. Major energy transitions are slow and take centuries, not decades. According to a recent study by renowned scholar Vaclav Smil, the first global energy transition—from traditional biomass fuels (including wood and charcoal) to fossil fuels—started more than two centuries ago and remains incomplete. Nearly three billion people in the developing world still depend on charcoal, straw and dried dung for cooking and heating, accounting for about 7 per cent of the world’s energy supply (as of 2020).

Moreover, coal only surpassed wood as the main energy source worldwide around 1900. It took more than 150 years from oil’s first commercial extraction for oil to reach 25 per cent of all fossil fuels consumed worldwide. Natural gas didn’t reach this threshold until the end of the 20th century, after 130 years of industry development.

Now, consider the current push by governments to force an energy transition via regulation and spending. In Canada, the Trudeau government has set a target to fully decarbonize electricity generation by 2035 so all electricity is derived from renewable power sources such as wind and solar. But merely replacing Canada’s existing fossil fuel-based electricity with clean energy sources within the next decade would require building the equivalent of 23 major hydro projects (like British Columbia’s Site C) or 2.3 large-scale nuclear power plants (like Ontario’s Bruce Power). The planning and construction of significant electricity generation infrastructure in Canada is a complex and time-consuming process, often plagued by delays, regulatory hurdles and substantial cost overruns.

The Site C project took around 43 years from initial feasibility studies in 1971 to securing environmental certification in 2014. Construction began on the Peace River in northern B.C. in 2015, with completion expected in 2025 at a cost of at least $16 billion. Similarly, Ontario’s Bruce Power plant took nearly two decades to complete, with billions in cost overruns. Given these immense practical, financial and regulatory challenges, achieving the government’s 2035 target is highly improbable.

As politicians gather at high-profile conferences and set ambitious targets for a swift energy transition, global reliance on fossil fuels has continued to increase. As things stand, achieving net-zero by 2050 appears neither realistic nor feasible.

Continue Reading

Business

UN climate conference—it’s all about money

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

This year’s COP wants to fast-track the world’s transition to “clean” energy, help vulnerable communities adapt to climate change, work on “mobilizing inclusivity” (whatever that means) and “delivering on climate finance,” which is shorthand for having wealthier developed countries such as Canada transfer massive amounts of wealth to developing countries.

Every year, the United Nations convenes a Conferences of Parties to set the world’s agenda to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. It’s the biggest event of the year for the climate industry. This year’s conference (COP29), which ends on Sunday, drew an army of government officials, NGOs, celebrities and journalists (many flying on GHG-emitting jet aircraft) to Baku, Azerbaijan.

The COP follows a similar narrative every year. It opens with a set of ambitious goals for climate policies, followed by days of negotiating as countries jockey to carve out agreements that most favour their goals. In the last two days, they invariably reach a sticking point when it appears the countries might fail to reach agreement. But they burn some midnight oil, some charismatic actors intervene (in the past, this included people such as Al Gore), and with great drama, an agreement is struck in time for the most important event of the year, flying off to their protracted winter holidays.

This year’s COP wants to fast-track the world’s transition to “clean” energy, help vulnerable communities adapt to climate change, work on “mobilizing inclusivity” (whatever that means) and “delivering on climate finance,” which is shorthand for having wealthier developed countries such as Canada transfer massive amounts of wealth to developing countries.

Some of these agenda items are actually improvements over previous COPs. For example, they’re actually talking about “climate adaptation”—the unwanted stepchild of climate policies—more this year. But as usual, money remains a number one priority. As reported in the Associated Press, “negotiators are working on a new amount of cash for developing nations to transition to clean energy, adapt to climate change and deal with weather disasters. It’ll replace the current goal of $100 billion (USD) annually—a goal set in 2009.” Moreover, “experts” claim the world needs between $1 trillion and $1.3 trillion (yes, trillion) in “climate finance” annually. Not to be outdone, according to an article in the Euro News, other experts want $9 trillion per year by 2030. Clearly, the global edifice that is climate change activism is all about the money.

Reportedly, COP29 is in its final section of the meta-narrative, with much shouting over getting to a final agreement. One headline in Voice of America reads “Slow progress on climate finance fuels anger as COP29 winds down.” And Argus News says “climate finance talks to halt, parties fail to cut options.” We only await the flying in of this year’s crop of climate megafauna to seal the deal.

This year’s conference in Baku shows more clearly than ever before that the real goal of the global climate cognoscenti is a giant wealth transfer from developed to developing countries. Previous climate conferences, whatever their faults, focused more on setting emission reduction targets and timelines and less about how the UN can extract more money from developed countries. The final conflict of COP29 isn’t about advancing clean energy targets or helping vulnerable countries adapt to climate change technologically, it’s all about show me the money.

Continue Reading

Trending

X