September 20th was International Draw the Line Day.
Here’s a line that needs to be drawn in Ontario and all across Canada.
It is generally accepted in the scientific community that the world is undergoing a significant change in its climate, and we need to do something about it – fast.
Therefore, the following is a problem:
Mega-projects – extremely large-scale, complex and expensive endeavors, such as construction of bridges and roads and highways, that typically cost more than a billion dollars, and take many years to complete, produce massive amounts of CO2.
Nationally as of May 2023, there were 493 projects currently under construction or planned over the next 10 years, representing $572 billion in potential capital investment. Energy projects accounted for 83% of the total value of major projects in the inventory, mining projects accounted for 16%, and forest projects for 1%. (Source: NRC Natural Resources: Major Projects Planned or Under Construction 2023 to 2033 page 23)
The same report states as of 2023 in Ontario there were 20 Energy projects ($34.9 billion), 30 Mining projects ($17.1 billion) 2 Forest projects ($0.1 billion) for a total of 52 projects ($52.2 billion) (source: page 24 Table A2: Inventory Summary by Province and Territory, 2023)
On top of this, the highway sign at the bottom of the Garden City Skyway in St. Catharines announces that the planned twinning of the skyway is part of Ontario’s $30 billion plan to build roads and highways. (Note: Earlier this year this same sign read $28 billion. The reason for the change to show a $2 billion addition is not explained.)
Ontario mega-projects, when combined, will be responsible for massive amounts of CO2 that threaten Canada’s ability to achieve its international emissions reduction commitments.
While Ontario has one of the cleanest electricity grids in North America, and its past coal-plant closures were crucial to Canada’s emissions reductions, its current path shows increasing emissions and a failure to meet targets. Achieving Canada’s net-zero goal requires significant, parallel expansion of clean electricity and a sharp decrease in emissions from other sectors, but current policies and large infrastructure projects, which may increase reliance on fossil fuels, do not seem to align with the necessary parallel growth in clean energy and reductions in other areas.
Mega-projects generate mega-amounts of CO2, primarily due to the production of the cement and steel that goes into them, as well as the large amounts of fuel burned by the heavy vehicles and equipment used to build them.
- Concrete is the most consumed product on Earth after water, and its demand continues to rise, increasing its environmental impact. It is one of the main contributors to the embodied carbon footprint of most buildings and infrastructure projects. Because concrete, through its main component cement, is a significant contributor to global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, accounting for approximately 8% of all human-caused CO2 emissions annually, there are free embodied carbon calculators for concrete available worldwide.
The Cement CO2 Protocol, developed by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) and supported by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), is a standard methodology for cement companies to calculate and report their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from manufacturing processes. As a result of implementing the CO2 protocol, each company is asked to report annually on: % Total gross and net CO2 emissions as tons CO2 and the amount of CO2 emitted for every ton of cementitious product (kg CO2 per ton of product). Source: https://www.cement-co2-protocol.org/en/
The total CO₂, or CO₂e, for large amounts of concrete is calculated by summing the embodied carbon emissions of each constituent material per unit of concrete, then multiplying that sum by the total volume of concrete. This calculation is part of a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA), covering stages from raw material extraction to concrete production (cradle-to-gate).
The Cement CO2 Protocol, developed by the Cement Sustainability Initiative (CSI) and supported by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD), is a standard methodology for cement companies to calculate and report their carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from manufacturing processes. As a result of implementing the CO2 protocol, each company is asked to report annually on: % Total gross and net CO2 emissions as tons CO2 and the amount of CO2 emitted for every ton of cementitious product (kg CO2 per ton of product). Source: https://www.cement-co2-protocol.org/en/
2.The same importance applies to the vast amount of steel materials used in mega-projects. Producing one ton of steel results in the release of nearly 1.9 tons of CO2. because of this free carbon calculators are also available worldwide for iron and steel. The iron and steel industry contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, accounting for approximately 7-11%of all global CO2 emissions. Global steel production has more than doubled between 2000 and 2020. Because of this free carbon calculators are also available worldwide for iron and steel. Source: https://www.globalefficiencyintel.com/
- The fuel consumption of heavy equipment (such as excavators, bulldozers, and haul trucks) significantly contributes to mega-project CO2 emissions, with on-site fuel use accounting for nearly 1.3% of global economic CO2 emissions. For a typical construction project, fuel use for earthwork and other heavy machinery operations can generate tens of thousands of tonnes of CO2 emissions, with a large portion coming from transport and compaction activities. Precise figures depend on factors like the project’s scope, scale, equipment efficiency, and operational modes.
According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) report 2007, the construction industry has produced approximately 1.7% of total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Equivalent to 6% of total US industrial-related GHG emissions, this quantity places construction as one of the top emitting sectors. Although construction practices typically do not produce large quantities of GHG compared with the operations of many other sectors, the sheer number of construction projects results in significant aggregate emissions for the sector. Source: Hajji, A. (2014). The use of construction equipment productivity rate model for estimating fuel use and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions Case study: bulldozer, excavator and dump truck. International Journal of Sustainable Engineering, 8(2), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/19397038.2014.962645
The above tells us that large businesses and governments do not have an acceptable excuse or alibi for not focusing on the CO2 mega-projects produce and, by doing so, addressing the climate crisis more effectively by considering the depth of their impact.
It is time we draw the line.
We need to say to our governments; “Your inaction speaks louder than their words. It is clear you are prioritizing a for-profit world at the expense of a sustainable one.
We need to draw the line to ensure that nation building projects do not become future killing projects.
Project Environmental Assessments (EAs) for years have protected turtle habitats while the elephants on the room (tonnes of carbon emissions) have been allowed to grow in our atmosphere to threaten our habitat (earth). We need to focus more on the size of these elephants. Every tonne of CO2 is an invisible cloud of carbon 8.23 metres (27 feet) cubed, and every litre of fuel we burn produces a CO2 the size of a 1.09 meter (43 inch) cube. This is why in May of this year the parts per million (PPM) of CO2 in our atmosphere surpassed the 430 mark and the world’s carbon budget is dangerously running out of room.
The math is clear that you must fight climate change harder. Tracking carbon emissions isn’t rocket science – and given its crucial importance we have no valid excuse to not consistently consider, track and report our emissions. All levels of governments and businesses of every size and kind have a responsibility to monitor and report emissions transparently and to work together to achieve sustainability goals.”
Unless the Ontario government informs the public about the estimated total tonnes of CO2 that building its 30 billion dollars of planned mega-roads and highways projects will produce, we won’t be able to assess the wisdom of proceeding with them. For the sake of future generations they we should ensure this is estimated and reported to the public before the work is approved.
Transparency is key:
By disclosing the estimated CO2 emissions their mega-projects will produce, governments can facilitate informed decision making and ensure that the public understands the climate implications of these mega-projects. This transparency is crucial for evaluating the mega-project viability. Understanding the emissions impact helps determine whether a project aligns with Ontario’s climate goals, Canada’s climate goals and the world’s climate goals.
Our governments are aware the world needs to come together to embrace this climate challenge head-on. By considering the climate consequences of the projects they plan, they can make more informed decisions that balance economic growth with environmental sustainability.
Focusing on CO2 clarifies the climate impacts of mega-projects. By doing the math and analyzing the data we can quantify emissions and accurately estimate all of the CO2 emissions associated with mega-projects and use the data-driven insights to guide policy decisions and prioritize sustainability.
All the tools and data needed are available today. Governments can mandate GHG reporting and disclosure, and they can also foster the collaboration and standardization that is crucial for achieving global climate goals. They do have the ability to estimate the tonnes of CO2 their mega-projects will produce and they do have the responsibility to inform the public about what those estimates tell them. The public should be demanding this.
In the past, the reasons given for not requiring environmental assessments to include calculations and estimates of greenhouse gases have been:
- Complexity: Estimating total emissions they say can be complex, especially for large-scale projects with multiple sources of emissions. In my view, this is no longer a daunting task, thanks to the array of tools and advancements in emission factors now available. This work has become a very manageable and essential practice that can support more informed decision-making.
- Methodological differences: Various methodologies can be used to estimate emissions, which can lead to inconsistencies and difficulties in comparing results. This is also no longer true because the development of robust calculation tools has made if feasible to accurately estimate the total CO2 emissions of large-scale projects. Quantifying total CO2 emission for major projects can now be done to a high degree of reliability.
- Focus on other environmental impacts: Environmental assessments often prioritize other impacts, such as air and water quality, biodiversity, and human health. But if we want to do everything we can to fight climate change this should no longer be the case.
- Regulatory frameworks: Existing regulations might not require explicit emissions calculations, or there might be exemptions for certain projects or sectors. Again, if we want to do everything we can to fight climate change this should no longer be the case.
Calculating total tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions is crucial for:
- Climate change mitigation: Understanding the magnitude of emissions helps to inform effective mitigation strategies.
- Informed decision-making: Accurate emissions data enables more informed decision-making and policy development.
- Transparency and accountability: Reporting total emissions promotes transparency and accountability, driving governments and businesses to take action.
Some jurisdictions are starting to incorporate greenhouse gas emissions assessments into their environmental evaluation processes. For example, some countries require projects to report their expected emissions and implement measures to minimize them.
The Ontario government can learn from the example of Wales where cancelling major road-building and bridge projects has helped reduce carbon emissions and promote eco-friendly transportation. After doing the math Wales scrapped a proposed third bridge over the Airmen Strait; an 8-mile stretch of the A55 intended to alleviate pressure on the main North Wales route was cancelled; planned changes to the A483 around Wrexham near the English-Wales border were scrapped; and a controversial “red route” plan for a new road in Flintshire, which threatened ancient woodland, was also cancelled.
If the government of Wales could do it so can Ontario and all of Canada.
By following Wales lead, Ontario can make significant strides in meeting its emissions reducing targets and the rest of Canada can do the same.
It’s time to draw the line and for the public to demand to be informed about the total tonnes of CO2 mega-projects will produce. We must meet our emissions reduction targets. To ensure to do, every level of government in Canada should be working together to determine which mega-projects are the least important and can be cancelled. My vote for the first one to be chopped would be the twinning of the Garden City Skyway. The need for this project is questionable and dubious at best, and the Ontario Minister of Transportation has misquoted the projected population growth of the Golden Horseshoe twice when speaking publicly to justify it.
Calculating emissions is not rocket science, it provides the melody of reason and the harmony of logic that can orchestrate a better world. It is time to play this music for the next generation to determine which mega-projects should be cancelled. The score is clear: act now, emit less, and compose a sustainable future.
*****
Robert Hicks is a member of SCAN’s Education Committee.