I want Mr. Layton to answer this question:

If you were Prime Minister, what would you have Canada do to meet the Kyoto target of 6% below 1990 CO2 emission levels?

The reason I want him to answer this question is so we can see that he doesn't have an answer. And why doesn't he have an answer? Because it is impossible without crippling the economy. Currently, Canada's CO2 emissions are 35% beyond the target point. This means that we would need to reduce CO2 emission by one-third between now and 2012 to meet the Kyoto commitments Jean Chretien made.

One third. If we assumed we could improve the efficiency of power plants and houses and cars by 10% , we could reduce CO2 emissions by about 1%.

Therefore, the only way to meet the target is to shut down CO2 emitting sources. Such as mines, factories, coal and natural gas fired power plants, and cars.

• We would need to replace 1/3 of the coal fired power plants with something else. The only available technology is nuclear and we don't have enough time left to build them.
  
• We would need to remove 1/3 of the cars on the road. Let's assume we improve overall fuel efficiency so we only need to take 1/4 of the cars off the road. Assuming each household in Canada has two cars, ask your neighbour tonight which of you would get rid of a car and drive less?
• We would need every household to reduce heating demand by 1/3. So turn your heat down to 15°C in the winter (put on a sweater) and set A/C only to cool the house/office to 27°C if necessary.

Would you propose something different Jack? Or do you have some magic technology up your sleeves?

Ethanol is not the answer

Using ethanol as a blend stock for gasoline is not a solution to many of the problems it is purported to solve. It is however a very effective method for subsidizing the farming businesses that produce the feedstocks for ethanol production (wheat, barley, corn, etc.)

GHG Emissions

Burning ethanol in cars does NOT reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, burning ethanol will increase CO2 emissions (measured on a per mile basis) because the fuel efficiency of the engine is lower. This is because the heating value (ie. energy content) of ethanol is lower than that of petroleum gasoline.

The benefit of reduced GHG emission may come from the lifecycle of producing the ethanol, but this is debatable as planting and harvesting the crops requires energy input (usually as diesel fuel), and the fermentation/distillation process requires energy input. The possible benefit is that growing the crop removes CO2 from the enviroment temporarily (whereas petroleum fuels add CO2 to the environment from geologic sources).

Nitrogen Oxides, Volatile Organics

Burning ethanol in cars may INCREASE emissions of both NOx and VOCs. While significant reductions in carbon monoxide emissions are possible with ethanol, reactive oxygen can result in increased NOx production. NOx is one of the key materials that makes smog.

Burning ethanol can decrease the quantity of volative organic species present at the tailpipe, however, it increases the emissions from filling the tank and evaporation. Also, there has been shown to be an increased amount of aldehyde emission at the tailpipe. While this could be corrected via additional catalytic conversion in the exhaust system, automobiles would need to be retrofitted.

And about the price...

The price of ethanol is related to the price of food, because the primary sources of making ethanol come from food, be it corn, barley or sugar cane. This means that fuel pricing will need to compete with food pricing. As food is more important to people than fuel, it will likely lose this war if there is situation where the price of these feedstocks is driven upwards due to demand. Food buyers will pay more than fuel buyers.