Reducing GHGs by the numbers

It is apparent: efforts to reduce GHGs have failed. Absent are actual solutions with funding.

It is apparent: efforts to reduce GHGs have failed. Absent are actual solutions with funding.

Electricity is the largest contributor, followed by transportation then building heat. Options are, improve efficiency or change energy source.

Technology is here so with funding a goal of 86 per cent reductions in 10 years is feasible. Funding is key, including application.

Only option to get to no CO2 from power is to change the source. Energy efficiency improvements are the only option to transport fuels. Encourage building methods to improve energy losses in buildings. Each person contributes to energy, read carbon use, each shares the responsibility to change.

Simplest: surcharge the energy user not the producer. [Institute a] national surcharge; transport fuels at $30/tonne, electricity: seven cents per litre; gasoline, increased 0.7 cents annually for 10 years. Eight cents per litre diesel, increased 0.8 cents annually for 10 years. Two point one cents per kilowatt hour, for 10 years. Surcharge revenue: fuel, $5.9 billion; power $13.5 billion; total $19.8 billion annually.

Application applies to handling funds. Funding must be dedicated to CO2 reductions; national program equalizes distributions. Run by a dedicated organization removed from other monetary influence! Transparency with oversight a must.

Cost: for purchasers of new vehicles using less fuel, replace all coal power plants and 90 per cent natural gas power plant.

Vehicle rebates for 1.44 million vehicles per year at average $7,500 each — $10.8 billion. Power plant replacement, 8,000 MW each coal/natural gas at $5.4 million/MW, $86.4 billion, yearly — $8.64 billion.

We Canada, make it happen, world will follow!

 

Bob Conibear, engineer,

Retired oil, gas industry

Duncan