Re. Jumbo/Climate Change letter (June 23rd)
Glad to see Rowenas recognition of forest area/oceanic areas major role in GHG concerns. Fact is that 65%+ of carbon GHG global emissions are consumed yearly by sequestering. But
The world is still focused on using the 1990 CO2 Emissions Model. The Model does not include any recognition of the above. All Climate Warming Agreements to date are based on the 1990s model. The model only tracks 7 units of flow.
The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization introduced their Carbon Flux Model in late 2015 as a replacement for the 1990s model. It is a game changer. It tracks 396 units of flow. The total 7 units of flow tracked by the 1990s model are part of the 396 units.
Canada has the worlds largest oceanic area and the second largest forest area (348 million ha). Using the 2015 model, Canadas forest/oceanic area consumes four times our carbon GHG emissions. We are a net consumer of Global GHGs!
So why are we still using the 1990s model? My contacts at EIA/MIT/UNFAO tell me that they all agree that we need to start using the 2015 model to give us the truth re any potential global impact. They give us the truth re. any potential global impact. They agree that Canada per the 2015 model would be a net consumer. They all told me that the Obama administration refused their requests for funding/manpower required to put the 2015 model into play. I understood that they were strongly discouraged from proceeding with same by the Obama administration.
Canada provides 190 pages of data to the UNFAO yearly in our National Inventory Report on GHG emissions and sinks (consumption). The data is all there for the 2015 model to be used to assess each countrys net GHG contributions. Per the NIRs, Canadas forest fires generate the same magnitude of GHG emissions as does our oil and gas industry. Yet we still allow forest fires to burn out of control and even do controlled burns. The US NIR shows that they manage their forest area above global standards whereas Canada is at the bottom of the heap. We also did nothing re pine beetle infestation. Shame.
Carbon GHG emissions from refrigerants were estimated in 2014 to increase from their current 1% of GHG emissions to 19% over the next 25 years. India and China were excluded from the agreement whereby the rest of us will need to use new non-harmful refrigerant A/C units. The surcharge is a mere $50 per unit. Each carbon unit in the present day refrigerants are 7,000 to 14,000 times more eco-damaging than each carbon unit in CO2 per the experts. China and India should be forced to bite the bullet and pay the $50 surcharge.
Bottom line, concerns regarding climate warming using the 1990s model are likely overstated by a factor of 20x versus what we know per state of the art 2015 model. The pro solar/wind manufacturers, environmentalists, their lobbyists and bought politicians have done a real number on all of us. They do not want the 2015 model to be put into play as it obliterates their deceitful game plan. The good news, Rowena re Jumbo, is that I suspect that the potential deforestation of 20% of the Jumbo site area of 300 ha will not be all that noticeable given our 348 million ha of forest area. I do commend you for highlighting our need to recognize the considerable value of our forest and oceanic areas as a major consumer of CO2 GHGs. Perhaps lumbering should be restricted in countries like the USA who are not net consumers of carbon GHGs per the 2015 model.
James W MacKinnon