Smog and Slicks.

Even in the 18th and 19th centuries, when coal replaced wood as an energy source, coal was banned in some places because it was so dirty. Environmentalists cried out against it, but the need for it overpowered its opponents

Long before we run out of fossil fuels, the environmental and health problems from using them is forcing us toward a cleaner energy system. Fossil fuel burning is the main source of air pollution and a leading cause of water and land pollution.

Burning oil and coal produces carbon monoxide and tiny particles that can cause lung cancer and other respiratory problems; nitrogen and sulphur oxides create urban smog and cause acid rain that damages forests extensively. Oil spills, refinery operations, and coal mining release toxic materials that impair water quality. Oil exploration disrupts ecosystems and coal mining has removed entire mountains.

Although modern pollution controls have helped improve air quality in most industrial countries, the developing world is now having the same environmental problems. In China alone, it's been estimated that burning coal kills 178,000 people every year. Despite the fact that China has greatly reduced its energy consumption, closed several coal mines, is aiming to modernize industrial and power plants and moving toward natural gas, some experts think it still will emerge as the biggest carbon-dioxide emitter of the 21st century. And, despite concerns among Chinese about the health effects of coal's air pollution, the country's demand for coal is expected to double by 2020.

The carbon dioxide that comes from burning fossil fuels is causing enormous environmental damage everywhere by trapping heat - [CO.sup.2] is warming up the planet. Atmospheric concentrations of [CO.sup.2] have increased by 30% since pre-industrial times, with levels now at their highest point in 160,000 years. Global temperatures are at their highest since the Middle Ages, and that, say scientists, has contributed to receding glaciers, rising sea levels, dying coral reefs, spreading infectious diseases, migrating plants and animals, and extreme weather events around the world including droughts, fires, floods, severe storms, and deadly heat waves.

Scientists estimate that carbon emissions would have to be cut 60%-80% to reach safe levels of concentration in the atmosphere. Some say that even with the trend toward a carbon-free energy system, it could take another century or so to decarbonize the system fully.

The world's economy today does burn less than two thirds as much carbon per unit of energy produced than it did in 1860. Experts estimate that in the United States, the trend of using lower-carbon fuels, combined with greater energy efficiency has, since 1950, reduced by about half the amount of carbon produced per unit of energy. But, we're producing a lot more energy than we did 140 years ago so overall atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have risen.

Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are expected to double those of the pre-industrial era by the end of this century. That could change Earth's climate substantially, make droughts, heat waves, and floods worse, and raise the sea level to heights that would submerge many low-lying coastal areas and islands. That's a best-case scenario, even though experts say the levels would be much higher except for a trend toward lower-carbon fuels that has been going on for more than 100 years.

For nearly a century and a half, fuels with high amounts of carbon have progressively been replaced by those containing less. First wood, which is high in carbon, was replaced in the 19th century by coal, which contains less. Then oil, with still lower carbon content, replaced coal. Now, wider use of natural gas will help, and later, fuel cells.

As the Worldwatch Institute's State of the World 1999 sees it: "The century to come will be the environmental century ..." The publication points out that Ford Motor Company is now headed by Bill Ford, a self-described "passionate environmentalist," who has predicted the disappearance of the internal combustion engine that his great-grandfather popularized early in the last century. Smart companies, he says, will stay on top of the "rising tide of environmental awareness." State of the World also writes about other companies that have taken on the threat of climate change as "one of the greatest business opportunities of the twenty-first century." One corporate executive is quoted as saying that the issue "is not how much it will cost to reduce carbon emissions, but who is going to harvest the enormous profits in doing so."

Suncor Energy Inc. in Calgary is among the large oil companies putting money into "green" projects over the next five years to help offset some of the greenhouse gas emissions in the oil sands. The company announced in January 2000 that it plans to put $100 million into alternative energy projects such as windmills and solar power. It will undertake other research and development projects ranging from recovering methane at garbage dumps to producing fuel from wood chips. At the same time, Suncor also is planning a $2.2 billion expansion of its oil sands.

As car manufacturers are working on high-efficiency, low-emissions "hybrid" cars powered party by gasoline and partly by self-generated electricity, energy companies are looking to provide them with the fuels they need. Hydrogen is of particular interest because it's used in fuel cells, a carbon-free power source for cars that is being developed to follow the hybrid vehicles. In fuel cells, there is no combustion; instead, hydrogen reacts chemically with oxygen to produce electricity, and the only by-products are water vapour and heat.

State of the World goes on to list several countries that plan to make serious efforts to protect the environment. Costa Rica, for example, "plans to generate all its electricity from renewable sources by 2010." Denmark has "banned the construction of coal-fired power plants. China has banned timber harvesting in the upper reaches of the Yangtze and Yellow river basins ... And, most exciting of all, Germany, now governed by a coalition of Social Democrats and Greens, plans a massive tax restructuring, reducing income taxes and raising energy taxes."

Canada is falling behind with Ottawa and the provinces still trying to hammer out a national approach. Canada committed itself to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the Kyoto Protocol of 1997 but has since done virtually nothing to meet the goals. In real terms, Canada's Kyoto pledge to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 6% from their 1990 levels by 2012 means emissions need to be slashed by 26%. This is because emissions have grown considerably since 1990. Reaching the Kyoto targets on time is now impossible. Greenhouse-gas emissions actually rose in Canada by 13% between 1990 and 1997. They've continued to go up since then. A spokesman for the country's Climate Change Secretariat, the governmental agency overseeing Canada's response to greenhouse-gas emissions, says the national strategy could be ready by late 2000, or early 2001.

A 1999 Cabinet document says global warming is the most profound challenge facing Canada since the Second World War. The same document outlines a proposal for a $1.6 billion, five-year plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. But the federal government came up with only $700 million over four years for the fight against global warming. Some of that will go toward a new environmental leadership fund to help municipal governments across the country pay for projects such as insulating buildings so they lose less heat or increasing public transit, which would reduce emissions from cars. It's also expected that some of the money will go to scientists who study global warming and its potential impact on Canada, as well as funding to help develop new technology.

Clearly, the fossil-fuel-based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy that developed in the West over the last two centuries is on the way out. Many experts agree that our salvation will come with economies based largely on hydrogen.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. In an article in the Globe and Mail, wildlife artist and naturalist Robert Bateman, called for new taxes to help save Canada's environment. The federal budget, he wrote, "is the most important environmental policy statement that Ottawa releases every year ..." He says our environmental debt could be paid by taxing negative activities: "The idea that governments should tax activities that are bad for us is not new. We already pay `sin taxes' on cigarettes and liquor. Environmental taxes fit the same bill. Governments should raise more money by taxing `bad' activities, such as pollution, and less money by taxing `good' activities, such as earning income." Germany plans to do this. Discuss Mr. Bateman's suggestion on putting a similar plan in place in Canada.

2. It's been proposed that one way of encouraging companies - and countries - to reduce carbon emissions is to give them emissions trading credits for exceeding their reductions targets. They could then earn money by selling their extra reduction to other companies - or countries - that are having trouble meeting their targets. Those who act early to reduce emissions could also earn a credit for early action. As one observer noted, this allows those who comply with government-set emissions targets to sell other companies the right to pollute, and to make a profit doing so. Others talk of creating "sinks" or mechanisms to absorb greenhouse gases; planting trees, for example. But that doesn't always work, though it makes for good public relations. Critics say that oil companies tend to like these ideas, seeing them as potential money makers. Environmentalists don't because they say the focus becomes setting up a system for trading credits rather than reducing emissions. Set up a debate exploring both sides of this argument.

FACT FILE

Frederick Palmer, General Manager of the Western Fuels Association in the U.S., claims that a vast body of research shows the increasing atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide is making plant life more robust and water-use efficient.

RELATED ARTICLE: IT'S A START

Worldwide, major oil companies, which have been busily trashing the science behind global warming predictions, are now onside. They want to be part of the estimated $400 billion environment industry, and they've accepted that climate change is a reality that needs addressing. Companies such as Petro Canada, Suncor, and Royal Dutch Shell have all started investing in alternative energy. But, at the same time, oil exploration and production is expanding rapidly, and environmental projects involve a small fraction of total spending.

Not all corporations are publicly backing the green movement. In January 2000, some of the country's largest industrial companies urged the government to delay ratifying the international agreement negotiated in Kyoto that calls for reduced emissions. In a report prepared for the National Climate Change Secretariat, they wrote that trying to reduce the threat of global warming will hurt the economy. The companies and industry associations involved in the group were strongly criticized for taking a political stand against the Kyoto targets instead of devising policy options for reducing greenhouse gases. The group was one of several sectors the government approached for proposals on how Canada's environment and energy ministers might formulate a national emission-reduction policy.

RELATED ARTICLE: FORMIDABLE FACTS

Since the mid-1900s, the demand for lumber has doubled, that for fuelwood has nearly tripled, while paper use has gone up nearly six times, and more and more tropical forests are being cleared for agriculture

Two hundred companies generate 65% of Canada's industrial emissions

It's been estimated that every tonne of reduced carbon emissions is worth between $120 U.S. and $180 U.S. in emissions credits, compared to $35 U.S. a tonne for the coal burned to create the emissions in the first place

One American energy- and commodity-trading firm figures that carbon trading will be a $60 billion-a-year market in America alone, and that the global market could eventually reach a trillion dollars a year

Not wanting to be left out of the carbon-credit trading market, big accounting firms are setting up units dedicated to carbon consulting, and some consultants see insurance companies helping clients assess carbon liabilities and assets

Sport utility vehicles and minivans are bad for the environment; from 1990 to 1997 greenhouse gases from them rose in British Columbia by 60%, while emissions from cars went down during the same period

A 70-horsepower, two-stroke outboard motor emits in one hour the same amount of hydrocarbon pollution as driving 8,000 kilometres in a new car

Airliners are responsible for 3.5% of human-made global warming, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and the figure could rise to 15% by 2050

Air pollution accounts for about 16,000 premature deaths annually in Canada, according to the Suzuki Foundation

RELATED ARTICLE: DOWN UNDER

The Maldives is a nation of more than 1,000 islands that are, on average, just one metre above sea level. Scientists predict that sea levels will rise about 50 centimetres in the next century. Maldivian President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom says that puts his country on the endangered list. He also says a one-metre rise in sea levels would flood out 10% of the people of Egypt, 60% of the population of Bangladesh, and 70 million people in coastal China.