Sheep under the cool shade of solar panels at the Nanticoke Solar farm, on Aug. 29, 2022.Fred Lum/the Globe and Mail
Hugo Cordeau is a doctoral candidate in economics at the University of Toronto.
Ontario has just followed Alberta’s lead by imposing a ban on ground-mounted solar projects on certain agricultural lands and introducing additional environmental assessments for renewable-energy projects.
A cynic might say these are political ploys to drum up the anti-environmentalist vote, or that the provincial governments did so under pressure from the oil and gas lobby. Regardless of the motivation, though, their moves have highlighted a long-standing issue: This is a microcosm of a larger internal struggle among the eco-conscious.
Protecting natural areas such as farmland is a fundamental aspect of environmentalism. However, safeguarding these lands may inadvertently increase the cost of renewable energy just as the transition to clean energy has become critically urgent.
I like to think about this as a fight between the local and global environmentalists.
Local environmentalists prioritize land protection and stewardship. They see the transformation of forests and agricultural land as harmful to biodiversity and local habitats. As a result, they oppose projects such as solar installations on farmland, transmission lines and even initiatives by climate leaders such as Northvolt, a company at the forefront of clean battery production for electric vehicles.
Global environmentalists focus on greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. This perspective acknowledges that substantial new mineral resources, power lines and renewable energy are necessary to reduce emissions and will come at the cost of some farmland and forests. In the meantime, it implies a reduction in activities such as fracking and oil production, which are known to cause serious health issues through air pollution.
Given the worsening climate crisis, the global environmentalist perspective may be the one of least harm. Indeed, unless we adopt a degrowth narrative, it is not feasible to protect all our natural landscapes while also achieving net-zero emissions.
The International Energy Agency’s Net Zero Roadmap makes it clear: To stay on track with the Paris Agreement, we must triple renewable-energy production and reduce fossil-fuel use by 25 per cent by 2030.
This will require supportive policies for renewable energy and grid expansion. However, instead of streamlining the process, local environmentalists advocate for additional regulatory hurdles, which delay the transition to clean energy and deepen our reliance on fossil fuels.
Another concern is the environmental impact of the extraction of the minerals needed to electrify our economy. Like preserving landscapes, this is a concern often raised not just by local environmentalists but by groups who stand to profit by undermining or delaying the energy transition. This is an overblown issue.
To put it in perspective, in 2020, building the world’s wind turbines, solar panels, EVs and other clean-energy infrastructure demanded seven million tons of minerals, while the oil, gas and coal industries extracted the equivalent of 15 billion metric tonnes.
It may seem like an absurd number, but the math is simple: While you refuel your gasoline tank every week, you only need a new EV battery every 10 years. And, unlike gasoline, which ends up in the atmosphere or your child’s lungs, EV batteries can be reused for grid-scale storage, phones or even new EV batteries, making the industry circular.
As the energy transition faces headwinds, the climate coalition must unite and advance climate-friendly policies, particularly by acknowledging the need for additional transmission lines and increased renewable-energy production. For example, instead of imposing outright bans, clear policies could include setting a maximum percentage of land that can be covered by infrastructure and establishing a minimum distance – say, two kilometres – from residential properties to minimize disruption. Such straightforward rules would streamline the deployment of renewable projects by reducing costs and ensuring social acceptance.
But ultimately, we should remember that we’re beyond the point of easy solutions; some sacrifices must be made for the greater good.