This post is more than one year old and may no longer be relevant. Please view this content with its age in mind.
Submitted by Climate Action Muskoka
Dear Norm Miller MPP and Premier Doug Ford,
Last week, you announced $3.1M in Provincial funding for the expansion of natural gas distribution to Burk’s Falls and Hidden Valley, Huntsville. The mayors of both towns were enthusiastic about the announcement, citing reduced energy costs for families and businesses, and increased opportunities for growth. These subsidies fall under the provincial Natural Gas Expansion Program (NGEP), to make home heating more affordable by subsidizing new natural gas infrastructure.
Climate Action Muskoka (CAM) believes that affordable heating is a laudable goal, but new gas lines are indefensible. Any and all subsidies should be applied to converting to non-fossil-fuel, non-greenhouse-gas-producing, renewable forms of heating and energy.
Surely the Ontario government is aware of the international call to reduce the use of fossil fuels. The worldwide goal for developed countries is to reduce their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by 50% by 2030. To reach that goal, countries must rapidly reduce (and then eliminate) the use of all fossil fuels (and natural gas is a fossil fuel). If this is the goal, then why would any government subsidize the installation of new natural gas lines?
The program is prepared to spend $3.1M to supply natural gas to 144 homes and/or businesses: that is $21,500 per building. There are many ways to make home heating more affordable, and new gas lines are not the only option. Here are 4 simple alternatives: 1) use the funds to insulate homes and increase energy efficiency; 2) convert home heating to air source heat pumps; 3) install solar panels; 4) provide cash subsidies to reduce electricity bills.
The NGEP is not good news for people or the planet. In light of your recent announcement, CAM calls on you and the Ford government to do the following:
1. Accept the scientific evidence and policy guidance of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC);
2. Declare a Climate Emergency in Ontario with strong greenhouse gas reduction targets;
3. End all subsidies directed toward the production and use of fossil fuels, and;
4. Invest those provincial subsidies instead to retrofit buildings, creating local green jobs at the same time as assisting the people of Ontario to reduce their individual fossil fuel use.
Regards,
Oliver Klimek and Sue McKenzie on behalf of Climate Action Muskoka
Don’t miss out on Doppler!
Sign up here to receive our email digest with links to our most recent stories.
Local news in your inbox three times per week!
Click here to support local news
Greg Reuvekamp says
I’m remembering in Nicolae Ceausescu’s Romania, the communist state there imposed limits on people heating their homes. Any setting above 16C would risk arrest and imprisonment. I wonder if this group would read that bit of Soviet era history and think those policies were good and fair? There are lots of honest, hard working people in Burk’s Falls, and I bet they’re going to appreciate having some more options for heating their homes and saving money. Ford is doing a great thing here for our area. Solar and wind power is just not a suitable option for heating Muskoka homes.
Tamsen Tillson says
Equating a climate action group’s opposition to the expansion of a gas pipeline to a Communist-era dictatorship is divisive, disinegnous and frankly, a show of bad faith. There are indeed options for the ‘honest, hard working people in Burk’s Falls’ to heat their homes and save money without accelerating the destruction of the planet. CAM points four of them out in the letter.
Climate Action Muskoka (of which I am one of the founders) is an inclusive, non-partisan group that is all about positive change. So no, we’re not down with arresting and imprisoning those who would set their thermostat over 16. What hogwash.
Craig Nakamoto says
That is a very well-written letter and an admirable cause. It is too bad that it takes so many people, including the government, so long to catch up with the times – especially when it comes to the environment. The recommendations in the letter are clear, concise, and backed by science. Many homes in Muskoka are already benefiting from these exact techniques and technologies. It makes no sense whatsoever to build new oil or natural gas pipelines, let alone having the government subsidize it. As stated in the letter, the government should be encouraging (subsidizing) the development of clean and sustainable technology. I do currently use natural gas for heating, but I am already planning on how to eliminate it from my house in the near future.
Brian Tapley says
One of the problems with our society is the generally held sort of holy grail type belief that “growth” is somehow always good.
Some growth is good, sometimes, but if you step back a bit, look at our world and it’s issues, you will realize that most of our problems are linked to that same growth.
You may remember the “fruit flies in a jar” experiment back in school. If you do you can appreciate that uncontrolled growth in a finite environment does not work well and yet this seems to be the goal our leaders chase.
If we are ever going to learn how to live in more harmony on this little planet we are going to have to learn to have a CEO or government leader step forward and announce that “we have had near zero growth” in the last year and we will all be happy with this.
How does installing expensive infrastructure to feed more fossil fuel to a few homes and businesses so that maybe, perhaps, a few of these homes will be able to see a small saving on their heating costs help the overall situation? I wish I knew.
On the other hand, jumping on the green bandwagon without careful thought is just about as bad a choice as a lot of green ideas are not as green as we first think,
It is a problem, but in this case maybe the money could indeed be better spent.
Can we use these natural gas lines to maybe move hydrogen in the future, after we run out of natural gas?
An interesting thought perhaps but then where do we get the hydrogen?
Em Arde says
My wife and I have already done our part for the planet by choosing not to have children, a contribution whose planetary health impact goes above and beyond what any of the above-mentioned initiatives can do. So let us live out our lives driving our gas powered cars and heating our home with natural gas. Let us have fires in our fire pit every so often, and let us enjoy our Keurig coffees every morning. Why is the encouragement of anti-natalism never a part of CAM’s message?
Edward Butikofer says
Dont extend the gas line but use power produced by Hydro using natural Gas. Come on , Do you realy think heat pumps work at minus 20 or more. Solar Panels would need to work all nite when its cold. Gas is the way to go.
Hugh Holland says
Three headlines this week should tell us its time to get serious about man-made climate change.
1. 300 scientists from 20 countries just completed a 389-day expedition (the biggest ever) to the arctic. They reported that arctic ice retreated faster in 2020 than since the beginning of records. Emissions accumulate in the atmosphere and trap heat like a greenhouse. The trapped heat melts the arctic ice and destabilizes the jet stream. White ice reflects heat from the sun. When the ice melts it exposes black water that absorbs more heat than the white ice. Then we reach an irreversible tipping point when ocean warming and atmospheric warming feeds on itself. The resulting thermal expansion of the oceans will cause rising sea levels that threaten the 40% of the world’s population living in coastal areas. And the destabilized jet stream increases the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, colder winters and hotter summers.
2. The Pacific north-west of North America is in the longest drought in 115 years. The water level in the Lake Mead reservoir behind the Hoover Dam has dropped by 140 feet since 2000. 25 million people depend on Lake Mead for water and hydro. They will soon want more water from Canada.
3. Temperatures have reached 120°F in Arizona and New Mexico. A power failure under those conditions would cause deaths of humans and livestock. 30°C in Huntsville in May is not normal.
After oil and gas extraction and transportation, heating buildings is the 3rd biggest source of emissions in Canada. It is understandable that Enbridge is offering incentives for people to convert to natural gas heating. They want to lock themselves in as much as possible while they can. But instead of subsidizing natural gas, that $21,000 per home from the Government of Ontario could completely eliminate emissions from heating and cut energy costs by 2/3rds with a zero-emission heat-pump and air conditioner, triple-glazed windows, and extra insulation. Energy-efficient heat pumps uses 1/3rd less energy than a conventional furnace and many are being installed right here in Huntsville with electric back-up for a few extreme cold days. Doesn’t that make more sense than subsidizing gas emissions? And the Federal Green Homes Grant provides $5000 per home for retrofits that increase energy efficiency.
Lesley Hastie says
“96% of Ontario’s electricity comes from hydro power, nuclear power and renewable energy, not from fossil fuels (2018). Our electricity is clean, and it doesn’t add to climate heating. Electrification is a large part of the solution to the climate crisis.
And as our planet gets hotter, and more and more people want to install air-conditioning, imagine if that came from heat pumps (which also provide cooling) powered by solar panels on our roofs. We could be supplying our own electricity to meet our own demand.
The new models of heat pump have been upgraded to be effective year round to -20C and with fewer days in the very low temperature range they become even more desirable. And the time is not far away when solar panels will have small heating elements to melt snow in winter, just as newer electric cars now have battery warmers in winter to increase their range in cold weather.
Many of us would install solar panels and clean energy heating and cooling if we were offered subsidies or low cost loans. Some of us would be improving our home’s insulation, or renewing leaky windows or doors to make our current heating and cooling systems more effective. That is where this Ontario Government spending should be going.”
Oliver Klimek says
On June 13, 2021 Climate Action Muskoka (CAM) published an open letter to MPP Miller and Premier Ford in order to raise awareness of a misguided policy. We agree with their goal of affordable home heating, but we oppose the addition of new gas lines because we must reduce GHG emissions (50% by 2030) and eventually eliminate the burning of fossil fuels (net zero by 2050).
Despite some criticism, CAM only advocates practical, workable solutions. We suggested four obvious ways to eliminate the need for natural gas heating: 1) super-insulated buildings require far less energy to heat; 2) advancements in heat pump technology make them the most energy efficient form of heating available (and they function well to -20C); 3) solar panels can help reduce the need for grid electricity; and 4) cash rebates can offset any increase in electrical energy costs. Please note that CAM also opposes the use of natural gas to generate electricity.
Our original letter cited the government subsidies announced for two areas of Muskoka, Burk’s Falls and Hidden Valley. The cost: $3.1M for 144 buildings ($21,500 per unit). We did not include the full cost of the Natural Gas Expansion Program (NGEP). In 2018 the Ford government put aside $234M to fund new gas distribution to 8,750 buildings ($26,000 per unit). Please understand: your provincial tax contributions will fund the installation of natural gas lines by private companies, and residents will be required to purchase natural gas furnaces themselves, committing them to the use of GHG emitting fossil fuels for the next decade.
CAM believes that the NGEP is a misguided use of our Provincial resources: the policy does not reduce heating costs for the majority of Ontarians, and it causes significant harm to our environment. The Ford government is not responding to the urgency of the climate crisis and they are not taking appropriate steps to address it. In fact, the government has already spent $231M to cancel over 750 renewable energy projects, and they have proposed legislation (within Bill 276) to repeal the existing requirement to give priority consideration to renewable energy production.
Our conclusion:
1. The expansion of natural gas distribution must be stopped and gas-fired power plants must be phased-out.
2. The previously allocated funds should be spent on solutions that do not contribute to global warming.
3. The benefits of the spending should be distributed in a much more equitable way.
Oliver Klimek
On behalf of Climate Action Muskoka
Ryan Vallentin says
I install home heating systems for a living and I have some counter arguments:
1) Heat pumps don’t work in winter, they are only good to about 5 degrees C outside, then you need to switch to back up (referred to as emergency heat) utilizing either electrical resistance, propane, oil, or NG
2) Solar panels are not reliable in the winter, sure there are some days that you can generate plenty of electricity, but most winter days it won’t be enough
3) Dirty production of electricity will not offset the reduction of NG usage
4) Most houses are heated by Oil or Propane in areas without NG, those fuels must be transported via truck to the residence, further increasing fossil fuel burning
5) NG appliances are much more efficient then their Propane or Oil counterparts, and will save more fuel and reduce emissions
6) NG appliances last longer then propane appliances, yet another net reduction in our environmental impact
Natural Gas expansion is still the best option here, but perhaps some incentives for home owners to have heat pump systems with NG as the backup source would be the best solution until technology catches up.
Andrea Stass says
Through the Ontario Government’s Natural Gas Expansion Plan, more families and businesses in rural and remote communities will have access to an affordable energy choice, saving up to 50% compared to other energy sources. There are also significant emission savings as many of these homes and business heat with fuel oil and propane today and converting to natural gas will reduce their carbon footprint, bringing us closer to a net-zero future.
The program also enables two projects that will expand access to natural gas for new commercial and large industrial developments in two southwestern locations, which will generate thousands of jobs and over a billion dollars in private investment over the next 10 years.
Some point to eliminating natural gas entirely and electrifying everything as a way to meet net-zero emission targets. This just isn’t practical or cost effective as it overlooks other more affordable low carbon solutions that leverage the existing natural gas system. Rather than spending billions for a massive electric infrastructure buildout, the natural gas system is focused on innovating and evolving to deliver clean energy solutions for Ontario. This includes taking actions today to decarbonizing the gas supply by adding carbon-neutral renewable natural gas and hydrogen, replacing more carbon intensive fuels in transport and heating, investing in green technologies for heat and transportation and leading-edge conservation programs for customers. Meeting our future energy needs in a way that is affordable, reliable and sustainable, will require multiple energy systems working together. Learn more at enbridgegas.com/sustainability.
Phil Beacock says
Right on Andrea!
Build the line! Gas is somewhat clean energy, meanwhile over in Vancouver we ship tons of coal from the midwestern US to china! We don’t want to or we have environmental activists shut down the building of lines here in Canada who really don’t understand the big picture! The leading country with environmental protection laws! Leading edge extraction of oil and gas in the world! Build the line! Wow!