I recently came across a clip of Keith Baldrey referring to John Rustad’s interest in nuclear power as “controversial.” His punditry continued by predicting that a future NDP attack ad will “very strongly” denounce nuclear as an option that can facilitate clean energy generation in British Columbia.

As a climate scientist and a lead author of multiple assessments from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, I become concerned when I see worthwhile climate policy proposals being dismissed because of shortsighted electoral politics.

Nowhere is this more apparent than in our province’s current discourse on nuclear power generation as part of a clean energy agenda. When the BC NDP rejected such a prospect in 2023, it was little more than a continuation of the ideological ecosocialist decades-long opposition to nuclear technology.

As much as I celebrate robust discussions on climate action, employing misinformation as part of such an important exchange of ideas is a huge disservice to our province.

British Columbians are ready and willing to contemplate a new energy mix as part of our future, as evidenced by findings from a newly released Ipsos poll showing that 58% of residents support a review of current restrictions on the use of nuclear power (in contrast to only 27% in opposition).

Over the past two decades, I’ve advocated for nuclear as a viable interim power source. On the road to achieving an energy landscape that is abundant, reliable, cost-effective, renewable, and most importantly, clean, nuclear power should never be dismissed as effortlessly as our Premier did last year or the Greens did is 2021.

If we’re poised to have this debate during the upcoming election campaign, it’s important to be guided by science rather than political posturing and rhetoric.

First, let’s talk about the most obvious appeal of nuclear power from a carbon footprint perspective: it’s a zero-emission clean energy source. That’s because it generates power through fission, which is the process of splitting uranium atoms to produce energy.

Nuclear energy also produces more electricity on less land than any other clean-air source (such as solar or wind), is the highest-density fuel available (requiring less output than other options), and can be generated 24 hours a day, making it the most reliably available energy source to meet ongoing needs at any time.

It is also extremely safe when considering the death rates (from air pollution and accidents) as a ratio to per unit electricity output. Despite the unwarranted fear generated by pop culture dramatizations of nuclear accidents of the distant past (caused without the benefit of the huge technological advances in the decades since) or activists who dishonestly accentuate the manageable, localized problem of nuclear waste (also largely aided by breakthroughs in technology), nuclear power is as safe as it comes across the spectrum of clean energy options.

As George Monbiot noted in an article entitled Why Fukushima made me stop worrying and love nuclear power that he penned for the Guardian in 2011:

A crappy old plant with inadequate safety features was hit by a monster earthquake and a vast tsunami. The electricity supply failed, knocking out the cooling system. The reactors began to explode and melt down. The disaster exposed a familiar legacy of poor design and corner-cutting. Yet, as far as we know, no one has yet received a lethal dose of radiation.

Finally, I’m a booster of nuclear because of the strategic advantages Canada offers when compared to other global competitors. We are the second-largest producer and exporter of uranium in the world, have over seven decades of experience and success in nuclear energy production, and are on the cutting edge of producing small modular reactors, (like the NuScale Power facility illustrated in the header image for this post — in case anyone wonders, I do not own any shares in NuScale Power) which is a market projected to reach $150-$300 billion annually by 2040.

This discussion brings me back to my disdain for the apparent hubris of some within the NDP on the climate change agenda, as demonstrated by their attitude that they have exclusivity over climate concern and leadership. I remind them again that on their watch, they approved, and through extremely generous government subsidies advanced, the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in BC’s history (LNG Canada).

In my world of academia and research, any individual or entity willing to use misinformation to advance an agenda cannot claim a moral pulpit from which to deliver sermons. It is highly problematic for the NDP to use such tactics in responding to Rustad’s musings on nuclear power in BC.

The NDP’s insistence on falsely labelling their opponents as climate deniers is not only done in bad faith, but also represents an approach to governance that demonstrates a devotion to playing politics rather than lowering carbon emissions. One such individual they’ve incorrectly labelled a climate denier is John Rustad, the leader of the BC Conservative Party. Yet on September 20 at the recent Union of BC Municipalities Annual Convention, John Rustad addressed delegates and said:

“The climate change issue is real. There’s no question there.”

“Man is having an impact on our climate, there’s no question there. “

And so this brings to a point I recently conveyed to the NDP Minister of Energy, Mines & Low Carbon Innovation:

What’s worse, a few folk who didn’t understand the seriousness of global warming but now clearly do and are going all in on adaptation & to electrify BC or a party of MLAs who understood the seriousness of the issue yet collectivity advanced, subsidized and voted unanimously to throw future generations under the bus.

You decide. As I have said before, no one has a monopoly on determining the best path forward for a climate action agenda and I sincerely hope that brand of politics can be put aside during the ongoing election campaign.

Today the Vancouver Sun published an opinion piece I wrote in advance of the next provincial election. I am reproducing the text of this piece here so I am able to share it on my Facebook Page (which doesn’t allow news stories from Canadian Media to be published).

Opinion Editorial

The B.C. NDP’s sudden abandonment of the consumer carbon tax is a disappointing and cynical ploy announced just days after the federal NDP did the same.

Rather than taking this golden opportunity to follow the lead of Alberta NDP’s Naheed Nenshi in calling for the separation of the provincial NDP from Jagmeet Singh’s party, David Eby piled on populist rhetoric with no alternative to offer in its place.

When leadership is so desperately needed on the most important environmental issue of our time, David Eby put politics ahead of principle. This is the same type of ambiguity in climate change policymaking that ultimately inspired me to run for office in 2013.

Simply put, the B.C. NDP botched the implementation of carbon pricing by completely omitting B.C.’s middle class from receiving the money other Canadians across the country enjoy.

Take, for example, Alberta, where under Danielle Smith’s United Conservative government, households of four are entitled to $1,800 per year from the Canada Carbon Rebate.

If we ignore the noise from the many falsehoods being spread about the federal carbon tax, the quarterly cheques that Canadians in eight other provinces collect add up to more in their pockets than they pay in overall costs.

By contrast, that same family of four in British Columbia receives nothing if their household income exceeds $107,688 and only $1,008 if it is below $57,288.

This is a deliberate decision that the B.C. NDP government has implemented. They chose who would be eligible for rebates, and the results equate to most British Columbians being left high and dry on financial relief.

Herein lies the egregious political error that caused Eby to capitulate on the eve of the election.

Over the coming fiscal year, the government will collect just over $2.5 billion in carbon tax revenues. Of that total, only $1 billion, or about 40 per cent, is returned to B.C. residents. This is a far cry from the revenue-neutral carbon tax introduced by Gordon Campbell in 2008, which set a standard for climate action that didn’t burden the pocketbooks of British Columbians.

Alas, the David Eby approach has allowed the B.C. Conservatives under John Rustad to politically emerge by speaking to the struggles B.C. residents face under what has become a tone-deaf government.

People were shocked when I publicly praised Rustad. But after Eby’s carbon tax retreat, nobody should have been.

While the B.C. Conservative leader and I have policy differences on climate action public policy, there is one quality I see in Rustad that I value above all else in public office holders: authenticity.

Democracy works when voters can make decisions based on accurate information. If nothing else, Rustad has been consistent on his plans to scrap the carbon tax, which is more than can be said for David Eby, who is tearing up his historical positions on climate action in a desperate bid for re-election.

This brings forth a much larger point that embodies my inclination to use pragmatism and collaboration when designing and implementing climate action plans. The NDP’s insistence on falsely labelling their opponents as climate deniers is not only done in bad faith, but also represents an approach to governance that demonstrates a devotion to playing politics rather than lowering carbon emissions.

Moreover, it was the B.C. NDP who approved and generously subsidized LNG Canada, the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions in B.C.’s history.

No one has a monopoly on determining the best path forward for a climate action agenda and I sincerely hope David Eby’s brand of hegemonic politics can be put aside during the election campaign.

This is shaping up to be the most important election in our province’s history, and British Columbians deserve better than being manipulated into how they cast their ballots.

Today the Vancouver Sun published an opinion piece I wrote in advance of the next provincial election. I am reproducing the text of this piece here so I am able to share it on my Facebook Page (which doesn’t allow news stories from Canadian Media to be published).

Opinion Editorial

As we approach the fall election, it is clear to me that Premier David Eby presides over a centrally controlled administration doing more harm across the province than good. Simply put, he has lost the plot of what it takes to govern by deciding to pander to his narrow base of support.

I abhor gamesmanship for political advantage and inflexible doctrines. My departure from academia to run for office in 2013 was predicated on a desire to positively impact the daily lives of my fellow British Columbians toward building a better future, and to change the political discourse on climate change.

Climate change is not something to fear or deny, but rather a grand challenge to be embraced as an incredible opportunity for innovation in mining, forestry, agriculture, manufacturing and the new economy.

While I never considered myself a politician (I much prefer the term “change maker”), I quickly understood that achieving progress requires bringing people with you. One cannot claim to be a leader by preaching what is “right” while willfully ignoring the voices you are supposed to represent.This simple concept helped me navigate negotiations for a confidence and supply agreement with NDP Premier John Horgan following the 2017 election. Collectively, we identified problems, developed a framework for potential solutions, and subsequently worked collaboratively through action, not rhetoric.

Did we agree on everything? Absolutely not. Yet I never wavered in my faith in Horgan’s sincerity to work for the benefit of all or his devotion to practising pragmatism over politics.

Unfortunately, I cannot say the same for David Eby.

Since assuming the premier’s chair in November 2022, radical ideological-driven activism, empty promises with destructive consequences, and out-of-touch hubris embody the hallmarks of his tenure.

Under Eby, government fiscal management is out of control, with two consecutive budgets since Horgan stepped down that raised spending by 14 per cent and 20 per cent respectively. Deficits over the coming three years will dwarf those the province experienced during the height of the pandemic, while the province’s debt has tripled since pre-pandemic levels in 2019-2020. In both cases, the increases far outpace the rate of inflation and population growth.

As a result, two major credit-rating agencies have downgraded B.C. since Eby became premier, which will inevitably result in increased borrowing costs and higher taxes.

I’m also troubled by the rise in hate crimes, particularly against the Jewish community, which has been met with nothing but token reactionary statements by the government. This was confirmed by the resignation of former NDP Finance Minister Selina Robinson, who felt that “it wasn’t safe” to use her voice as a Jewish member of the governing caucus, and that Eby’s response to growing antisemitism was “simply performative.”

I recently publicly opined that I was considering supporting John Rustad’s Conservative Party of B.C. in the October election, which brought a flood of inquiries on how that squared with my beliefs as a climate scientist.

I’ve had several discussions with Rustad, and while there are still gaps between our views on how to respond to the challenges and opportunities afforded by climate change, they are not as wide as some might imagine. In fact, there were similar gaps in the views held by Horgan and myself in the early days of our minority government.

Like Horgan, Rustad’s ability to listen and be open to input are the traits of effective leadership. My conversations with Rustad have given me a very different understanding of his policy proposals when compared to the recent attack messaging advanced by Eby’s government.

I remain unsure of how I will vote in the election. Yet I know with certainty that this is the most consequential decision for B.C.’s electorate in a generation, and it warrants careful consideration away from the noise of self-serving political interests.

My colleagues Karin Kvale, GNS Science, New Zealand, Natalia Gurgacz and I published a piece in The Conversation last week. It is reproduced below as Facebook appears to be blocking the reposting of Canadian news articles.

The Article

The dual pressures of climate change and plastic pollution are frequently conflated in the media, in peer-reviewed research and other environmental reporting.

Organic carbon leaching from plastic pollution

In nature, plants make organic carbon (carbon-hydrogen compounds) from inorganic carbon (carbon compounds not bonded with hydrogen) through photosynthesis. Most plastics are made from fossil fuels, which are organic carbon compounds. This organic carbon leaches into the environment from plastics as they degrade.

Concerns have been raised that this could disrupt global carbon cycling by acting as an alternative carbon source for bacteria, which consume organic carbon.

A key assumption in these concerns is that organic carbon fluxes and reservoirs are a major influence on global carbon cycling (and atmospheric carbon dioxide) over human timescales.

It is true that dissolved organic carbon is a major carbon reservoir. In the ocean, it is about the same amount as the carbon dioxide (CO₂) held in the pre-industrial atmosphere. But there are key differences between atmospheric CO₂ and ocean organic carbon storage. One is the climate impact.

Atmospheric CO₂ warms the climate directly, whereas dissolved organic carbon stored in the ocean is mostly inert. This dissolved organic carbon reservoir built up over many thousands of years.

When phytoplankton make organic carbon (or when plastics leach organic carbon), most of it is rapidly used within hours to days by bacteria and converted into dissolved inorganic carbon. The tiny fraction of organic carbon left behind after bacterial processing is the inert portion that slowly builds up into a natural reservoir.

Once we recognise that plastics carbon is better considered as a source of dissolved inorganic carbon, we can appreciate its minor potential for influence. The inorganic carbon reservoir of the ocean is 63 times bigger than its organic carbon store.

Plastics carbon has little impact on atmospheric CO₂

We used an Earth system model to simulate what would happen if we added dissolved inorganic carbon to the surface ocean for 100 years. We applied it at a rate equivalent to the amount of carbon projected to leach into the ocean by the year 2040 (29 million metric tonnes per year).

This scenario likely overestimates the amount of plastics pollution. Current pollution rates are well below this level and an international treaty to limit plastic pollution is under negotiation.

We repeated the model simulation of adding plastics carbon both with strong climate warming (to see if plastics carbon might produce unexpected climate feedbacks that increase warming) and without (to see if it could alter the climate by itself). In both cases, plastics carbon only increased atmospheric CO₂ concentrations by 1 parts per million (ppm) over a century.

This is a very small increase, considering that current burning of fossil fuels is raising atmospheric CO₂ by more than 2ppm each year.

Direct emissions from burning plastic

We also examined the impact of plastics incineration. We used a scenario in which all plastic projected to be produced in the year 2050 (1.1 billion metric tonnes) would be burned and directly converted into atmospheric CO₂ for 100 years.

In this scenario, we found atmospheric CO₂ increased a little over 21ppm by the year 2100. This increase is equivalent to the impact of fewer than nine years of current fossil fuel emissions.

Relative to the current continued widespread burning of fossil fuels for energy, carbon emitted from plastic waste will not have significant direct impacts on atmospheric CO₂ levels, no matter what form it takes in the environment.

However, plastics production, as opposed to leaching or incineration, currently represents about 4.5% of total global emissions. As fossil fuel consumption is reduced in other sectors, emissions from plastics production are expected to increase in proportional footprint and absolute amount.

A legally binding plastics pollution treaty, currently under development as part of the UN’s environment programme, is an excellent opportunity to recognise the growing contribution of plastics production to climate change and to seek regulatory measures to address these emissions.

Limiting the use of incineration is another climate-friendly measure that would make a small but positive contribution to the goals of the Paris Agreement.

Of course, environmental plastics pollution has many negative impacts beyond climate effects. Our work does not diminish the importance of cleaning up plastic pollution and implementing stringent measures to prevent it. But the justification for doing so is not primarily grounded in an effort to cut emissions.

I published an article in The Conversation today. It is reproduced below as Facebook appears to be blocking reposting of Canadian news articles.

The Article

The devastating wildfire that destroyed the historic Maui town of Lahaina in Hawaii was still making headlines when the Northwest Territories issued an evacuation order for Yellowknife and British Columbia declared a provincewide state of emergency.

All 22,000 residents of Yellowknife are being evacuated in advance of a wall of flame from out-of-control wildfires converging on the capital city. Yet this isn’t the first time an entire Canadian town has been cleared.

In May 2016, all 90,000 residents of Fort McMurray, Alta., were evacuated shortly before wildfires engulfed 2,400 homes and businesses with a total cost of more than $4 billion.

In 2017 in British Columbia, the wildfire season led to the evacuation of more than 65,000 residents across numerous communities, costing $130 million in insured damages and $568 million in firefighting costs.

Let’s not forget the June 2021 heat dome resulting in temperature records being broken across British Columbia three days in a row. The heat wave culminated in Lytton, a village in the southern part of the province, recording 49.6 C on June 29, the hottest temperature ever observed anywhere in Canada and breaking the previous record by five degrees. The next day, wildfires engulfed Lytton, destroying more than 90 per cent of the town.

Long, hot summer

The summer of 2023 is one for the record books. June and July were the warmest months ever recorded, and extreme temperature records were broken around the world.

By mid-July, Canada had already recorded the worst forest fire season on record. And British Columbia broke its previous 2018 record for worst recorded forest fire season. With several weeks to go in the 2023 forest fire season, more than six times the 10-year average area has already been consumed by wildfires

And yet, this pales in comparison to what we can expect in the years ahead from ongoing global warming arising from greenhouse gas emissions released through the combustion of fossil fuels.

Predicted outcomes

This year’s fire season record will be broken in the near future as warming continues. And once again, it’s not as if what’s happening is a surprise.

Almost 20 years ago, my colleagues and I showed that there already was a detectable human influence on the observed increasing area burned from Canadian wildfires. We wrote:

“The area burned by forest fires in Canada has increased over the past four decades, at the same time as summer season temperatures have warmed. Here we use output from a coupled climate model to demonstrate that human emissions of greenhouse gases and sulfate aerosol have made a detectable contribution to this warming. We further show that human-induced climate change has had a detectable influence on the area burned by forest fire in Canada over recent decades.”

It appears little has been done to prepare rural Canada for what’s in store as governments deal with immediate, rather than transformational approaches to wildfire management.

This, despite the existence of the national FireSmart program designed to assist homeowners, neighbourhoods and communities decrease their vulnerability to wildfires and increase their resilience to their negative impacts.

Forest management practices including forest fire prevention, monoculture reforestation and the use of glyphosate to actively kill off broadleaf plant species, will all have to be reassessed from a science- and risk-based perspective.

Growing number of court cases

Pressure is certainly mounting on decision-makers to become more proactive in both mitigating and preparing for the impacts of climate change.

An Aug. 14 pivotal ruling from the Montana First Judicial District Court sided with a group of youth who claimed that the State of Montana violated their right to a healthy environment.

A similar case brought by seven youth against the Ontario government after the province reduced its greenhouse gas reduction targets has also been heralded as groundbreaking.

As the number of such court cases grow, governments and corporations will need to do more to both protect their citizens from the impacts of climate change, and to aggressively decarbonize energy systems.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the Alberta government is next to be taken to court by youth after Premier Danielle Smith’s outrageous economic and environmental decision to put a moratorium on renewable energy projects.

States of emergency

While attention is currently turned to the evacuation of Yellowknife, it’s sobering to remind ourselves that they are not alone. The village of Lytton, burnt to the ground just two years ago, has been put on evacuation alert as wildfires approach.

Kelowna has just declared a state of emergency as the McDougall Creek fire starts consuming homes in the region. And this, coming on the heels of the 20th anniversary of the Okanagan Mountain Park fire, when more than 27,000 people had to be evacuated and 239 Kelowna homes were lost.

Canadians will take solace as summer turns into winter and the immediacy of our 2023 wildfire situation wanes. Unfortunately, it will be Australia’s turn next to experience the burning wrath of nature in response to human-caused global warming and the 2023 El Niño.

Rather than waiting to respond reactively to the next fire season, proactive preparation is the appropriate way forward. For as the old adage states: an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.