I have a copy of but haven’t gotten around to reading Mark Jaccard’s Sustainable Fossil Fuels: The Unusual Suspect in the Quest for Clean and Enduring Energy. From what I’ve read this is a controversial book, because Jaccard argues that instead of trying to replace fossil fuels with renewables and conservation we should focus just as much, if not more, on using fossil fuels — coal, for example — with technologies that can virtually eliminate the harmful emissions that are responsible for climate change and urban pollution. In other words, he’s a big supporter of “clean coal” and carbon sequestration and related technologies that make fossil fuels easier to swallow.

I know few people who actually believe we can completely break our addition to fossil fuels in the short or even medium term, so certainly if we’re going to keep using fossil fuels we should explore ways of minimizing their emissions and environmental impact. I suppose where some people disagree with Jaccard, an environmental economist and professor at Simon Fraser University in B.C., is the degree to which we should pursue the sustainable use of fossil fuels. Should it be at the expensive of using more renewables, conservation and energy efficiency? I think one concern is that Jaccard is giving the fossil fuel industry an out. Instead of shifting their resources toward finding or lowering the cost of alternative energy sources (solar, wind, biomass, biofuels, and even nuclear), big oil, gas and coal will focus more on preserving the status quo by focusing on emissions compliance. The former leads to a sustainable environment and, indeed, sustainable society, whereas the latter simply creates a sustainable fossil-fuel industry.

Personally, I have an issue with anyone who relies too much on the great hope of clean coal and CO2 sequestration. This isn’t a proven technology, and I’m not convinced the CO2 we pump into old oil wells, the ocean or underground aquifers will stay there. And how do we propose to monitor it to make sure such a vast quantity of colourless gas stays there? Jack Santa-Barbara, director of The Sustainable Energy Project, brings up the same concern in a recent review of Jaccard’s book.

“Jaccard’s analysis is flawed because the technologies for clean coal and carbon storage, like renewables, are not well advanced,” he writes. “Jaccard outlines many of the uncertainties, but then discounts the hurdles involved in scaling up the technologies. Yet, it’s uncertainties about renewables, in part, that are the basis for his rejecting them in favour of fossil fuels.”

It’s a valid point. Santa-Barbara brings up another good point: “Jaccard’s cleanliness criterion is largely restricted to removal of various noxious substances and CO2. He may be too dismissive of the environmental impacts of a small per cent of a significantly larger volume of toxic emissions (e.g. mercury) of coal or oil sands extraction in wilderness areas and of competing uses for the large amounts of water required for both coal and oil sands. Zero emission technologies may neither be scalable nor provide the security of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The U.K.’s Guardian has a great interview with Jaccard published last year. It’s worth a read. One area where most environmentalists wouldn’t disagree with Jaccard is his insistence that government develop policies that make it expensive to emit carbon. He says North America needs to follow the Europeans with a cap-and-trade system. It’s not a silver bullet, mind you, but there’s no doubt it’s a major part of the solution.

Personally, I can’t get too deep into this debate until I’ve read Jaccard’s book. What’s great is that this book contributes importantly and significantly to a debate on how to work towards sustainability, even if there’s disagreement on how to get there. I think we all have to accept some of the realism in Jaccard’s analysis, but without completely drinking the Kool-Aid. Yes, if we’re using fossil fuels it should be done sustainably. But sustainable use of fossil fuels is only one way of achieving a sustainable environment. Destroy the latter and, well, the industry that supports the former will cease to exist.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 14th, 2007 at 11:13 am and is filed under Main Page. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.