“taking cars off the road”, or climate tokenism?

July 2, 2009

There’s no shortage of references these days in corporate and government reports to earnest, new steps to fight climate change. Often they promise to make carbon emissions cuts equivalent to taking millions of cars off the road…

For example, take Europe’s fourth biggest single source of carbon emissions, Britain’s Drax coal plant. It said in March that as a result of efficiency improvements it had cut carbon emissions equivalent to taking 195,000 cars off the road.  But of course that was a cut against a theoretical projection of rising emissions — not an absolute cut.

Take a similar announcement from Canada this week. The oil industry in Alberta is busy trying to extract oil from tar sands. That is a far more polluting, energy-intensive way than just sucking the stuff out of oil wells, because steam must first be injected into the sand to make the oil flow. Now Alberta is experimenting with a technology, called carbon capture and storage, with three test projects which by 2015 would “achieve annual carbon dioxide reductions equivalent to taking about a million vehicles off the road”, the province says.

Funnily enough, 2015 is also the year when a U.N. panel of climate scientists says global greenhouse gas emissions worldwide must stop rising to limit global warming to 2-2.4 degrees celsius, a widely perceived threshold for dangerous effects (page 20 here). It seems a little disingenuous — in that wider context — for  Alberta to talk of taking cars off the road from test projects to trim carbon emissions under a wider programme to expand one of the most polluting forms of oil drilling known to man.

The wider context does seem relevant if we’re not to pat ourselves on the back as catastrophic climate effects creep up. And it may be especially relevant this year, as climate talks and rhetoric ratchet up ahead of a meeting in December in Copenhagen, meant to seal agreement on a new climate pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol.


We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/

We didn’t get to this point overnight abd won’t solve it overnight. We need to discuss the issues more, learn more, work hard and stay positive. Facts like the layer of lead found deep in the ice in the arctic caused by Roman lead smelters 2000 years ago should give us an idea of the scope of the problem. The idea that an individual can pour a quart of paint thinner into a storm drain and it being ok needs to be one of our focal points and kept in the minds of our school children. Catastrophes may be looming that we are unaware of. What is needed is more knowledge and daily efforts by each and everyone of us.

Posted by Lou | Report as abusive

stay positive…Environment ” Blog Archive ” “taking cars off the road”, or climate … is an excellent post. But I feel it is missing on a few points….

Posted by stay positive | Report as abusive

I am writing in response to Mr. Wynn’s article on “Biofuels will stoke Global Warming” I’m not sure if he researched the other side of the argument, but America produces enough resources to make biodiesel alone to provide the whole world with Biodiesel.It can be made cheaply by thinning vegetable-based oil or animal fat with alcohol, a process that any high school chemistry student can master. As so many are mistaken, no deforestation is required, food prices won’t go up, and it will reduce Americas dependence on foreign oil. Shouldn’t we learn to be more self sufficient?

Posted by Sam | Report as abusive