THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Thursday, October 31, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans met with videoconference this day at 9:03 a.m. [ET] to examine and report on ocean carbon sequestration and its use in Canada; and, in camera, for the consideration of a draft agenda (future business).
Senator Bev Busson (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
The Deputy Chair: Good morning. My name is Bev Busson. I’m a senator from British Columbia and deputy chair of this committee. I have the pleasure of chairing this meeting today.
We are conducting a meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Before we begin, I would like to ask all senators and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Make sure to keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When not using your earpiece, please place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose.
Should any technical challenges arise, particularly in relation to interpretation, please signal this to the deputy chair or the clerk, and we will work to resolve the issue.
Before we begin, I would like to take a few moments to allow the members of this committee to introduce themselves, beginning with the senator immediately to my right.
Senator C. Deacon: Good morning. Colin Deacon, Nova Scotia.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: Victor Boudreau, New Brunswick.
[English]
Senator Ataullahjan: Good morning. Senator Salma Ataullahjan from Ontario.
Senator Ravalia: Good morning. Mohamed Ravalia, Newfoundland and Labrador.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Réjean Aucoin, Nova Scotia.
Senator Cuzner: Rodger Cuzner, Nova Scotia.
[English]
Senator Petten: Iris Petten, Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Deputy Chair: On September 24, 2024, the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans was authorized to examine and report on ocean carbon sequestration and its use in Canada.
Today, under this mandate, the committee is fortunate to be hearing from the following individuals: Dr. David Koweek, Chief Scientist, Ocean Visions; Dr. Carly Buchwald, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Ocean Chemistry at Dalhousie University; Dr. Christopher Algar, who is present in the room, Associate Professor, Department of Oceanography at Dalhousie University; and Dr. Edmund Halfyard, Co-Founder, Chief Technology Officer, CarbonRun.
On behalf of the members of the committee, I thank you for being here today. I understand that you have some opening remarks. Following your remarks, members of the committee would like to ask you questions. Dr. Koweek, on screen, I’ll begin with you. You have the floor.
David Koweek, Chief Scientist, Ocean Visions: My name is David Koweek, and I serve as the Chief Scientist of Ocean Visions, a non-profit dedicated to advancing solutions for ocean-climate restoration. It is an honour to appear before you today to share with you my support for Canada’s ocean carbon sequestration study and my perspectives about the need for accelerated research and development of marine carbon dioxide removal, or ocean carbon sequestration.
Last week, the United Nations Environment Programme released its annual update to the Emissions Gap Report which showed record greenhouse gas emissions in 2023. Our collective inability to reduce emissions has put us on a path toward 2.5 to 3 degrees warming by the end of the century, far from the stated goals of the Paris Agreement of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees. Such a path should be a reason for great concern for all of us, as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified severe risks for nearly every major ecosystem on the planet. These risks are especially great for ocean ecosystems, which have absorbed greater than 90% of the additional heat that greenhouse gases have trapped and about one quarter of the carbon dioxide emissions, resulting in increased ocean acidity of 30% since the pre-industrial era. Already, many major Arctic ecosystems are at risk of experiencing a tipping point that would contribute further to warming of our planet, irreversible change and societal disruption. Accordingly, we need policies and guidance that encourage ocean-climate mitigation research across all sectors.
We must redouble our efforts to reduce emissions, and we must also face the reality that our efforts at emissions reduction alone have not yielded the intended results. There is now scientific consensus that any pathways that limit warming 1.5 to 2 degrees require large-scale removal of greenhouse gases, especially carbon dioxide, from the atmosphere and storage in durable oceanic, terrestrial and geologic reservoirs.
Carbon dioxide removal is also our only tool to eventually restore the climate by removing legacy greenhouse gas pollution and returning atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations to levels consistent with climate stability and human flourishing on this planet. For these reasons, we must prioritize both reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases and the rapid advancement of carbon removal techniques.
Among the collective set of carbon dioxide removal options being considered, ocean-based pathways stand out for their scalable potential, yet they have not received research and development resources proportionate to their potential. Although there is an uptick in research and development of marine carbon dioxide removal pathways, much more must be done. My organization, Ocean Visions, has laid out an ambitious framework of integrated science, policy and technology development to be accomplished this decade to yield actionable information on which, if any, of the marine carbon dioxide removal approaches are sufficiently effective solutions and also safe for scaling in the decades to follow.
The linchpin of this agenda is an exponential ramp-up in the field research of the various approaches, because field tests are the best way to gain high-quality information about their efficacy and the associated environmental and social co-benefits and risks.
Canada is emerging as a global leader in the nascent marine carbon dioxide removal sector. Off the coast of British Columbia, Ocean Networks Canada is advancing key scientific research on sea floor mineralization and biomass sinking. In Nova Scotia, Planetary Technologies and Dalhousie University collaborating on ocean alkalinity enhancement research, and CarbonRun is pioneering river alkalinity enhancement. In Quebec, Deep Sky is working with U.S.-based Captura to test Captura’s direct ocean capture technology.
Canada’s collective investment in marine science and engineering has positioned it to be a leader in this emerging field. Should these technologies move to scale, Canadians stand to benefit from the jobs and climate benefits that this industry could support.
The proposed ocean carbon sequestration study is coming during an auspicious period in global development of a more robust climate-mitigation portfolio. The study could play a valuable role in helping Canada identify additional areas of opportunity with respect to marine carbon dioxide removal technologies. Canada has early momentum in marine carbon dioxide removal demonstrations, which is a critical component for testing the environmental safety and efficacy of any innovation, especially in a shared resource like the ocean. It is important that field tests continue unimpeded so they can inform the study.
Similarly, at the international level, where Canada’s leadership is well recognized, this report could be a valuable resource to encourage the effective bridging of international climate policy and marine protection governance. We see the need for regulatory clarity, policy and guidance to allow for the full participation of the private sector, alongside academic institutions and non-governmental organizations, in safe and responsible marine carbon dioxide removal research.
We need constructive participation across all sectors to combat the worst impacts of climate change.
In closing, marine carbon dioxide removal approaches may offer one of our best ways to scale carbon dioxide removal, and Canada is well poised to continue leading innovation in this sector.
Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to answering the committee’s questions.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Koweek. Dr. Buchwald, you now have the floor.
Carly Buchwald, Associate Professor and Canada Research Chair in Ocean Chemistry, Dalhousie University, as an individual: Good morning to the committee and thank you for the opportunity to be here today.
In addition to my roles at Dalhousie University, also relevant to this committee is my role as a co-leader of one of the large research projects in the Transforming Climate Action Research Program. Our research project, focused on ocean carbon dioxide removal, brings together researchers from Dalhousie University, Memorial University, University of Laval and University of Quebec at Rimouski. Within this program, we have multiple projects focused on ocean carbon sequestration. Three of the projects are focused on ocean alkalinity enhancement, and another three investigate the viability of using algal biomass for carbon sequestration.
In my laboratory, specifically, our research spans both of these sequestration methods. First, in regard to ocean alkalinity enhancement, or OAE, we are researching how OAE affects the nitrogen cycle. Nitrogen comes in many forms in the ocean, from those forms that are important nutrients for organisms in the ocean, to gases such as nitrous oxide, a potent greenhouse gas. Through our research, we want to make sure OAE does not negate its climate impacts by either changing the amount of CO2 uptake by algae that happens naturally in the ocean or by increasing the amount of nitrous oxide that is produced in the ocean.
Second, on the algal biomass sequestration side, our group has been researching optimal methods to produce seaweed for aquaculture. This previous research has been solely to help improve and expand the kelp aquaculture industry in Nova Scotia, but with the new Transforming Climate Action Research Program, we will expand our research to include questions that would be important when considering the potential of growing macroalgae, such as kelp, for sequestration.
These methods of ocean carbon sequestration are promising in that they are based on natural processes that the ocean uses to regulate CO2 on the planet. Now our task is to determine if it’s possible to intervene and accelerate these processes. I believe that while there is promise in these methods, there is still much research needed to determine their feasibility as carbon dioxide removal solutions.
I feel fortunate to be where I am at Dalhousie University and situated in Halifax to have the resources to tackle some of the important questions we’ll need to answer.
Thank you for your time.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much, Dr. Buchwald. We have in the room Dr. Algar. You now have the floor.
Christopher Algar, Associate Professor, Department of Oceanography, Dalhousie University, as an individual: Greetings, Senator Busson and honourable members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak here.
I am a sediment biogeochemist, and I study the cycling of carbon, oxygen and other elements necessary for life between the marine sediments and the waters above. I am here today to talk to you about research I am conducting on ocean alkalinity enhancement, a form of marine carbon dioxide sequestration.
Ocean alkalinity enhancement is the intentional modification of the ocean chemistry, either through the addition of alkalinity or removal of acidity that allows the ocean to absorb more CO2. The particular OAE approach I am researching is the addition of alkalinity to the ocean in the form of ground-up alkaline minerals. This increases the ocean’s buffering capacity, allowing it to absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere and potentially storing it away from the atmosphere for long periods of time. Important to note, unlike many carbon dioxide removal, or CDR, approaches, OAE will also counteract the decrease in pH that results in the absorption of CO2, protecting against the parallel threat of ocean acidification.
This OAE approach mimics the natural processes that occur anyway whereby as the climate warms, increased precipitation will cause weathering and dissolution of calcium carbonate and silicate minerals on land and the subsequent delivery of these dissolved minerals to the ocean, increasing the ocean alkalinity naturally.
However, this process is very slow. It occurs in geological time over millions of years. By adding these minerals directly and intentionally, we can accelerate this process so that it occurs on human-relevant timescales. While the scientific theory is sound and well understood, there still needs to be research and development before this and other marine carbon dioxide removal, or mCDR, approaches can be implemented at scale. For example, how do we separate the CO2 removal due to OAE from the natural signal so that it can be properly monetized for carbon credits, what is known as monitoring, reporting and verification, or MRV? What are the impacts on the natural environment and ecosystems? How do we go about scaling up this approach to a large enough scale so it can have climate-relevant impacts?
My research addresses some aspects of this; in particular, I investigate what happens when OAE-addition products are deposited and dissolved on the sea floor, how this affects the natural alkalinity and carbon cycles in the sediments between the sea floor and the water column and what effect might this have on benthic ecosystems.
To answer these questions, it is important to study them under real-world conditions through small- and medium-scale trials in the natural environment. I am fortunate that a start-up company, Planetary Technologies, is conducting such a pilot project in Halifax Harbour, Nova Scotia, and I am able to use their study to also study the impacts of their OAE-dosing products on the sediments of the harbour. To do this, I have conducted measurements of sediment alkalinity fluxes and benthic fauna diversity prior to the beginning of Planetary’s alkalinity dosing, and I am continuing making these measurements during and after the completion of dosing.
To my knowledge this in one of the few OAE mCDR pilot projects operating in the world right now. It provides an incredible opportunity to study this technology under real-world conditions that would be impossible to fully replicate in the laboratory or with a computer simulation.
In closing, while I do understand and share the concerns and trepidation that many feel when discussing the use of geoengineering approaches to tackle climate change, we also need to weigh this with the fact that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are already modifying the plant on a global scale, with serious consequences. As Dr. Koweek mentioned, the most recent UNIntergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, report has stated that limiting warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, as laid out in the Paris Agreement, will require the use of CDR technology. Therefore, it is important that we investigate the use of these various approaches so that we understand how, where, when and if we should use them. Small- to medium-scale pilot studies, such as is happening in Halifax right now, are necessary to do this.
Thank you very much. I’m happy to answer any questions you might have.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you, Dr. Algar. Last but not least, Dr. Halfyard, you have the floor.
Edmund Halfyard, Co-Founder, Chief Technology Officer, CarbonRun: Thank you and good morning, distinguished members of the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans. Thank you for inviting me to speak about my experience and our work on river and ocean carbon sequestration in Canada. My name is Eddie Halfyard, and I am an ecologist focused on science-informed conservation of fish and the places that fish live. I draw upon my education from Acadia University, my PhD from Dalhousie University and learnings as a post-doctoral research fellow at the Great Lakes Institute for Environmental Research in Windsor. I also draw upon my 20-year career working primarily with environmental charities where I led some of Eastern Canada’s largest ecological restoration programs targeting rivers, lakes and coastal oceans.
Rivers connect two very different worlds: the land and the sea. They carry nutrients, energy and, importantly, carbon to the ocean but also allow life to move back and forth between these two worlds. Indeed, Canada is fortunate to have many iconic rivers that have shaped our history and continue to be woven into the very fabric of what it is to be Canadian.
Most of my career has been spent addressing one of the largest threats to eastern Canadian rivers: acid rain. Once at the forefront of environmental focus, the 1991 Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement dramatically curtailed the emissions of acid rain-causing pollution; however, our legacy of impacts from acid rain continues to degrade the health and productivity of our freshwater and coastal resources more than three decades after the regulation was enacted.
In Nova Scotia, environmental charities such as the Nova Scotia Salmon Association, adopted river liming techniques that were widely used in Norway and Sweden. In its most basic form, powdered limestone rock is dissolved in rivers to de-acidify the water. Adding limestone replicates the natural process of rock weathering, which is the source of important elements such as calcium and magnesium, both of which are critical to aquatic life but also contribute to what is known as alkalinity or the ability to buffer against acidification.
Our work in Nova Scotia was highly successful and led to the ecological recovery of a highly degraded river and the rebuilding of a self-sustaining Atlantic salmon population. This conservation success story mirrors the results from large, multi-decadal federal programs in Scandinavian countries. However, where the Nordic countries invested hundreds of millions of dollars each year, funding severely limited the wider adoption of acid rain mitigation programs in Canada.
While conducting research alongside Dr. Shannon Sterling of Dalhousie University, we discovered that the technique of river liming could be modified to both restore river water quality and also capture carbon dioxide. From this, we founded CarbonRun, along with Mr. Luke Connell.
CarbonRun is a clean tech company based in Halifax. Our mission is to restore rivers, strengthen communities and combat climate change. Our process not only reduces carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere but also enhances the health of river ecosystems and reduces ocean acidification.
This is nature-based carbon dioxide removal at its finest, where carbon markets are now providing the financial resources to restore Canadian rivers. Two weeks ago, we celebrated the grand opening of the world’s first carbon-dedicated river alkalinity project, located in Pictou, Nova Scotia, and we are in the process of expanding to other rivers in Atlantic Canada as part of our first-of-its-kind carbon offtake agreement with some of the world’s largest companies who are seeking to voluntarily offset their emissions through carbon dioxide removal.
Transparency and accountability are essential to our goals, which is why we work closely with leading academics and third-party verifiers to independently certify our reporting, monitoring and verification protocols. A clear regulatory framework and compliance with regulatory standards guarantee that our work is safe and effective for both the environment and the communities around rivers. We are collaborating closely with Indigenous communities to ensure that Indigenous voices are represented not only in these projects, but also in the development of this emerging economic opportunity.
We are committed to making a substantial impact as well. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, estimates that to meet our goals we will need to both rapidly decarbonize and also remove between 6 to 7 gigatonnes — billions of tonnes — of carbon dioxide per year by 2050. We estimate that by working globally in rivers that are well suited for river alkalinity enhancement and while working within conservative limits, we can safely contribute up to 10% to 15% of the global need for carbon dioxide removal, or CDR.
I recognize that the story I’ve just told focuses on rivers and not the ocean. I also recognize that river liming is distinct from marine CDR in that there are more than four decades of scientific evaluation and demonstrated social acceptance and that rivers have clear, within-jurisdiction regulations. However, rivers are the main source of alkalinity for the ocean naturally, and as such, healthy rivers are an import component of coastal ocean resiliency and the role that oceans will play in future climate action.
To conclude, I’m honoured to be here today to answer any questions you may have about CarbonRun, our work, the intersection of conservation and climate and how we can make Canada a global leader in the emerging carbon dioxide removal economy.
Thank you for your time. I look forward to our discussion.
The Deputy Chair: Well, I want to thank all four of you for interesting remarks. I have a list of people who would like to ask you questions, starting with Senator Ravalia, to be followed by Senator Petten. I’m sorry. I had a request at the beginning of our meeting from Senator Deacon just to make a couple of remarks around this process before we start with questions.
Senator C. Deacon: Thanks very much, chair. I wanted to thank the witnesses but remind us all, the witnesses and ourselves, that we are going to be diving into the deeper science. It’s great, actually, that we get to start with witnesses who are talking about scaling the science for the benefit of research — or scaling the application of science for the benefit of research. We will be getting into a session with deeper levels of scientific examination next Thursday. We had to cancel it because of a Senate sitting on Tuesday. Just as a reminder, we are going to go deeper. As a university dropout, I’d be grateful if you keep the words to two syllables and help us all really grab the big concepts and the application of those big concepts and why what you’re doing is important. So just some context. Thank you, chair.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. You had mentioned it to me before, and it slipped my mind when this big list started to take place. We will now begin questions.
Senator Ravalia: Thank you very much to our witnesses for their very interesting and compelling testimony.
My first question is for Dr. Buchwald. In your recent article, “Phytoplankton Dynamics and Carbon Sequestration” you discussed the role of phytoplankton and carbon sequestration. How do you envision their contributions evolving both in the context of climate change as well as oil exploration and overfishing in some of our ocean waters?
Ms. Buchwald: I’m not sure of the article that you’re talking about.
Senator Ravalia: It was “Phytoplankton Dynamics and Carbon Sequestration,” Buchwald et al. 2023.
Ms. Buchwald: I don’t think that’s me.
Senator Ravalia: Okay. Well, I apologize for that, but given your expertise in this area, is there anyone among the audience able to talk to us a little bit about phytoplankton and other micro-organisms that are critical in carbon sequestration and how their impact might be negatively affected by current climate change as well as oil exploration and other overfishing activities in our oceans?
Ms. Buchwald: I think I can still comment on that briefly. I was like, “Did I write a paper I didn’t know about?”
Phytoplankton naturally grow in the ocean and are taking up CO2 when they grow. They’re responsible — the ocean already naturally takes up 50% of the carbon dioxide that we emit. The health of those phytoplankton in the ocean, just naturally, is really important for — as we’ve been emitting CO2, the ocean is actually helping us some. Everything we’ve emitted has not ended up in our atmosphere, because the ocean is naturally doing these processes.
Some of the studies that are going on here at Dalhousie, sort of another part of the Transforming Climate Action program, is looking at how climate change is affecting these phytoplankton and where they’re living in the ocean and their ability to continue to take up CO2 in the ocean as they have been.
Unrelated to doing the ocean carbon dioxide removal technologies, climate change itself — and I think Mr. Algar also mentioned this in his opening remarks — is already changing some of these really important players in the ocean’s role in taking up carbon. More research has probably been done on that for the past, I don’t even know how many years, than some of these newer technologies.
One of the things with intervening some of the ocean alkalinity enhancement and — you said oil exploration. I’m not really sure on the oil exploration. Regardless, in general, anything that we’re going to geoengineer, we should always remember that we also have to quantify what is going to happen to what was already happening in the ocean. As you go through this report and this idea of additionality, we need to be adding more carbon, but we also need to consider we’re not changing the amount of carbon that these phytoplankton are already naturally taking up.
Maybe someone else wants to add to that.
Mr. Algar: In terms of the phytoplankton, as Dr. Buchwald mentioned, we’re looking at it in Halifax, as well. When you think about impacts, particularly of ocean alkalinity enhancement — the addition of these minerals to the ocean — I’m not an expert in phytoplankton; I know a little, but there are others who could comment better than I can. Two aspects are that if you’re putting some sort of particle, even if it’s small in the ocean, you can change the light quality field. Phytoplankton need light. That could affect their growth. Also, particularly when adding minerals, you may also have trace amounts of other metals with them, which in high enough concentrations have the potential to be toxic to phytoplankton.
Those are two potentially negative impacts we know about. These are things we’re able to test in Halifax right now where Planetary Technologies is dosing it. There are two professors at Dalhousie, Dr. Hugh MacIntyre and Dr. Julie Laroche, who are looking at these things. They have a long-time series of phytoplankton measurements in the Bedford Basin in looking at whether this dosing is changing communities.
So this is one of the things people consider and one of the things that is being looked at in Halifax right now.
Senator Ravalia: Dr. Algar, to follow up on that, based upon the current studies you’re doing, have you seen any negative outcomes of ocean alkalinity, and are you arriving at an optimal dosage, et cetera?
Mr. Algar: In terms of the phytoplankton, I wouldn’t want to comment on that, because it’s outside my area of expertise. I’m mainly focusing on the ocean bottom. It’s a little too soon for us to know right now. In the last year and a half, we’ve been collecting background information before they started dosing. They did a small study last year, likely just so Planetary Technologies could figure out if they could do it and how to go about it. I don’t think that one would have been big enough to measure any effects.
They’re doing a larger dosing study right now, and we are making measurements at the same time while they’re doing that. They only started in late August, I think, so we’re only out making measurements right now.
It’s really too soon. In a couple of months, we’ll have an idea if there were any effects on the sea floor that were really obvious, but it might take a while before we know if there are effects that are maybe more subtle. So it’s a bit too soon.
Senator Ravalia: Thanks.
Senator Petten: I just sponsored Bill C-49 in the Senate, which was an update to the Atlantic Accord Acts to take into consideration offshore wind energy. There was a lot of regulatory — and there were also issues with respect to areas. We’ve talked about rivers and offshore, and a lot of those issues.
How far away do you think we are from bringing this to fruition to have any impact on the climate change? I don’t know whom to ask the question to.
Mr. Koweek: Thank you for that question.
I think there’s an opportunity this decade to do the critical research, development and demonstration that is needed to understand which, if any, of these technologies are suitable for scaling in the decades to come. So the collective investment of time, energy and money that we put in right now is really about figuring out which, if any, of these work.
We know they all have high potential but they need to be put through their paces. Being put through their paces means being tested in real-world settings, like what’s happening in Halifax Harbour, to understand real-world efficacy and impacts.
If we do that this decade, collectively, we should have clear answers about which are suitable for scaling in the decades to come, which means we could start to see climate benefits as soon as the 2030s, into the 2040s and 2050s, and exponentially scaling thereafter.
Senator Ataullahjan: For me, this is relatively new stuff. I know geoengineering has been around since, I think, the Second World War, but we’re hearing more about it.
Have we seen any successes from geoengineering in combatting climate change?
Mr. Algar: In terms of successes, it’s likely too soon to tell. I’ve been hearing about this talk — various geoengineering approaches — for maybe the last 10 or 15 years but always in an abstract sense. Someone else could chime in if they know better, but I think it’s really in the last few years — maybe the last five years — that people have been really taking this seriously as something worth trying. That’s my view.
Senator Ataullahjan: Would anybody else like to respond to that question?
Mr. Koweek: I’d like to respond, but Mr. Halfyard, would you like to go first?
Mr. Halfyard: Sure, thank you.
There are examples within the specific context of climate action and carbon dioxide removal. It’s such a nascent activity that I think it is premature to say that we have had impacts in that regard. I think as it relates to river alkalinity enhancement, which is what we do, there are certainly ecological success stories where we know that it works. It just turns out that intact, healthy ecosystems are more resilient to climate change and can, in fact, fight climate change through removing carbon dioxide.
I think there are analogs for success, but it’s what that means at a global scale.
I would argue that the geoengineering term doesn’t always apply, or perhaps should not always apply, for what we’re talking about here, which is marine CDR. In many cases, it can be contextualized as restoration or, at a minimum, maintaining healthy ecosystems and resiliency in the ocean.
If we think about the global emissions and use a simple estimate of 10 gigatonnes a year total being put into the atmosphere and assume that the oceans take up even, say, 30% of that, that’s 30 billion tonnes of weak acid pollution going into the ocean. So just to maintain the status quo in the ocean, to maintain background alkalinity conditions — Dr. Buchwald talked about this a little bit — but if our goal is to just keep the oceans intact and functioning as they should in order to protect ecosystem health or fisheries and all the related spinoffs there, we have to at least offset that human-induced pollution — that weak acid — that 3 billion tonnes a year going in there. We have to at least offset that just to maintain the status quo, let alone make forward movement on climate action.
So it’s the concept of competing risks that I’d like to stress here. There’s a risk to the environment. There’s a risk in changing ocean conditions as a result of the pollution we’re already putting up, so anything we talk about as a success story should be measured against that background. We really need to do a better job at keeping what we have, let alone advancing it beyond that.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Dr. Koweek, you had wanted to jump into the conversation.
Mr. Koweek: Thank you.
I’d like to reinforce or support what Dr. Halfyard was saying about the importance and the need to contextualize this against a degrading background that is decelerating and destabilizing our marine ecosystems and critical parts of our Earth system.
In the context of marine carbon dioxide removal or ocean carbon sequestration, it’s important to point out that there’s a historical legacy dating back to the 1990s and into the 2000s of 13 field experiments around the global ocean that added a small micronutrient, iron, to the ocean in order to observe the effects on marine ecosystems. This was to test the idea you could add more iron to these systems to stimulate more phytoplankton production as a means of ocean carbon sequestration.
These were experiments conducted decades ago, so they didn’t have the same technology and the same ability to make definitive statements about the efficacy and impacts we have now, but, by and large, those experiments showed that, yes, marine ecosystems were limited by a lack of availability of iron and that adding iron can stimulate phytoplankton production. Importantly, it showed there were no lasting, irreversible changes to the marine ecosystems in the course of these experiments.
There is some historical precedent for being able to do this research at larger scales in ways that allow you to gain really valuable information about the efficacy and impacts of these technologies without leaving lasting, irreversible damage.
Senator Ataullahjan: Just listening to everything, what are the best options that we have for geoengineering?
Mr. Koweek: I’ll start.
I think they’re all very promising. I’m going to keep my response to marine carbon dioxide or ocean carbon sequestration ideas. They all exist at what scientists would call early stages of technology readiness. There’s a scale that we can use to measure the performance of very different technologies and be able to understand how different technologies relate to each other in their development. All of these technologies exist at this relatively early scale where we still have very fundamental and important scientific questions about efficacy, environmental and social co-benefits, and the associated risks.
That’s why we need a program of accelerated research development and demonstration. If you execute upon that, you’ll get the answers as to which are the most promising right now. Right now, there’s a whole suite of four or five that look as if they could provide climate-relevant benefits, which means gigatonnes or billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide removal per year if they were to prove sufficiently safe and effective during this period of accelerated research and development into these technologies.
Mr. Algar: It’s unlikely we’re going to find that one of these technologies alone is the silver bullet that’s going to get an answer, but it’s likely that if several of them prove effective, we’re going to end up implementing a suite of them where each one might result in some amount of carbon removal. But none of them is going to remove all that we need.
Carbon dioxide removal is really something that we’ll have to do in addition to reducing emissions. It is essentially filling a gap for emissions that maybe can’t be reduced or to give us a bit more time until we have alternative energy sources.
So it is likely that not just one of them will be the answer; it’s probably going to be a collection of them.
Mr. Halfyard: I just have one final comment. I agree with all of the previous comments.
I would like to stress that there is a human side to the discussion of which opportunity will provide us with the most potential.
Technologically, there are a lot of very bright people in Canada and worldwide thinking about how we approach this. What are the criteria of high-quality carbon dioxide removal techniques? What does that look like? How do we scale it? What is the permanence of that? There is the reversibility and our ability to measure and monitor.
Those are all important considerations, but I would like to say that public acceptance and social appetite for this sort of thing is important, as is how we can roll out carbon dioxide removal at scale that is just to the people around the communities where this opportunity unfolds. How is it that we can ensure that all voices heard as carbon dioxide removal comes to scale?
Those are important considerations, too. Unfortunately, in this now emerging and growing economy that has not previously existed, that is something that is at the forefront for many folks in thinking about how to do this right way so it’s not just a process out of necessity and urgency but one that can be done so that the benefits are shared for those who really need it.
Ms. Buchwald: I wanted to add one last thing, if that is okay.
In addition to what Dr. Halfyard just said, it’s also that each of these potential solutions has different co-benefits. That brings this human uptake in what we decide. Some of the research is not just on how well it would work for carbon dioxide removal itself; it’s also what the other benefits are that you can get from that. It could make it an easier thing to deploy.
I think Dr. Halfyard gave a good example of how that worked in river alkalinity enhancement. It does have this co-benefit that we were already using. Exploring those co-benefits to these solutions is going to be really important as well.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Congratulations for all these ideas and this work. I won’t claim to have understood everything you said.
We’re a Senate committee. What role should the federal government play in your projects, particularly in this research?
My second question concerns the sea floor around the Atlantic provinces. What role should the federal government play at this time?
Thank you.
[English]
Mr. Algar: Down the road, these things are going to need to be developed — regulatory frameworks — but I think everybody recognizes that. That’s what this committee is about.
One thing when we’re studying this is that it’s important that we do have independent research that is doing this, separate from R&D. Obviously, we have to work with the companies that are doing ocean alkalinity enhancement, and we’re doing that in Halifax with Planetary Technologies, but it’s very important we also have our own academic independence in that.
Personally, when I do this research, it’s funded mostly by NSERC, and I don’t receive funding from Planetary Technologies. We’re using their tests, but our research is separate and independent. The government, by funding that research, allows researchers to keep our independence. There cannot be the perception of bias or whatever in the work. That’s one particular role that is directly related to me, so I can speak on it a bit.
Mr. Halfyard: Thank you very much.
I would like to add that, in addition to the regulation, there is a role for government. Essentially, carbon dioxide removal is a public service for public good. If we think about this in terms of the “who” and “how” people are involved, there is a role for government in setting the tone in indicating that, yes, Canada recognizes that carbon dioxide removal should be a priority, and, yes, the Government of Canada can support research, the development of policy and the development of economic opportunities associated with this developing carbon dioxide removal economy. I think that this is going to happen globally, and it’s just an opportunity for Canada to leave its mark. I know that as we attend meetings and similar policy-type events worldwide, Canada has a spotlight on it currently. Canada is seen as a leader globally with abundant resources, but also a huge opportunity and, in many cases, a huge responsibility to be leaders in the climate context, and I think we’re well positioned to do so, and we must not let that opportunity pass by.
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: If I understand correctly, the sea floor of the Atlantic provinces, especially Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador, would be suitable for this type of pilot project and possibly for carbon storage. Mr. Algar, you said there was no silver bullet. Is the sea floor a factor to take into consideration? Is the reason why tests must be performed at different locations to see which technology best sequesters the carbon?
[English]
Mr. Algar: Exactly. One of the things about the current study in Halifax Harbour that makes it so appealing is that we have studied — I’ve been studying the sea floor there for a few years ahead of time, so we know what the baseline conditions were like, and there’s a long history of historical data collected by Dalhousie Univeristy and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, or DFO, colleagues at Bedford Institute of Oceanography that have made measurements of the oceanographic conditions in Bedford Basin going back 25 years. We have a good idea of what is happening both in the water column and the sediments there.
So that makes this initial project a good spot to do it, because we have a good understanding of the oceanography, the ocean chemistry and the ecosystems in Bedford Basin, but, ultimately, yes, we will have to do this in other environments as well, because the oceanography in each place is different, to identify places where ocean alkalinity — the addition of ocean alkalinity or whatever CDR approach is employed works most effectively. It could be, in effect, where you’re placing these points of addition, I guess. Does that answer the question?
[Translation]
Senator Aucoin: Why would the sea floor in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador or the Atlantic be suitable for that? I’m curious.
[English]
Mr. Algar: I don’t know if there’s anything about the sea floor specifically in Atlantic Canada that makes the sea floor favourable itself other than — you obviously have to be on the ocean, so it’s a good spot to do it, and there are resources in Nova Scotia in terms of academic institutions and a history of offshore industry that is going to make it logistically a good place to do it.
One of the things with the sea floor is understanding what happens when these alkalinity products settle on it and if it impacts natural fluxes of carbon parameters to the water column. We need to know that to be able to quantify the effect of the ocean alkalinity [Technical difficulties] on the carbon dioxide removal, so we can separate the natural signal from the signal we’re doing, because for a CDR concept to be effective, you have to have this idea of additionality. So you’re actually doing something different on top of what would happen naturally.
One of the things with the carbonate cycle in the sediments is it tends to resist change. I won’t get into all the chemical details, but it tends to respond in the way of the opposite of what you do, so it kind of has a buffering mechanism. You need to be sure that what you put in the alkalinity, you also get the same amount back as a benefit. That’s one of the things we’re looking at. But that will be true in any ocean setting where you do this.
Senator C. Deacon: Thank you so much to our witnesses. You’re really making the point that there’s an important value in scaling the application of existing technologies, not betting on one horse, but scaling the application of promising technologies in order to advance the research around risk identification and risk mitigation, and then the effectiveness, obviously, of these technologies. I’d like to focus in on that, if we could, because you’ve made the case that in order to mitigate the damage climate change is doing to our oceans, we need to do this, but in order to start to get ahead on emissions, in terms of removing emissions from the atmosphere, we need to do this. It seems like the critical element is that we need to scale the most promising technologies and monitor them very carefully, and it certainly seems like Atlantic Canada has a lead in that. Could you each provide an example of how it’s essential that we scale the technologies in parallel with the research in order to benefit both groups and the ecology and our environment. If I could start with you, Dr. Halfyard, and move through each of you, I’d appreciate some examples that really bring it to life. Again, two-syllable words wherever you can. Thanks.
Mr. Halfyard: Thank you, Senator Deacon. A wonderful question in a wonderful context.
It is essential that we both scale those technologies where we feel it is safe to do so and where the technology is proven out enough that we can move forward in a controlled growth way, while we continue to explore all opportunities.
If we think of this in a portfolio context, you don’t always know where you’re going to have the biggest yield on your investment, and, in that framing, there may be emerging technologies that we are not fully aware of and certainly for which we don’t have adequate information to scale yet, but there are those where we do. I would point to our river alkalinity enhancement as one where we can move that forward, and I think the industry is aligned with us in that regard, that they’re comfortable as we move this forward. That’s still a relatively small movement, and there are a lot of opportunities to pair, at scale, research, which is an important missing component, as we see academic colleagues working with industry, and that offers the ability to come outside of a controlled laboratory or mesocosm setting and apply in real-world applications where we can put out meaningful amounts of materials or apply projects at a meaningful scale while having that background of controlled research to support the initiative.
We can do both, and they don’t always have to be at odds. They can be done in parallel. There is just a little bit of glue that is often needed to bring that together, and, again, that’s why Canada is in a leadership role here, where we have the expertise, we have some of the best universities in the world, some of the best natural resources, and in the context of us, we work with some very strong groups that are representing outdoor enthusiasts, environmentalists, but also industrial players that have a huge amount of expertise in moving large amounts of material, a huge amount of expertise on how technology can be integrated into developing economies and doing so — I look at the ocean tech sector here in Halifax. That is going to be a huge advantage for those of us working in climate in and around water.
So it is essential — I don’t think there’s much argument there. It’s just what that looks like and how there can be leadership to push us in the right direction. Thank you.
Mr. Algar: When we’re thinking of scaling up, particularly of the environmental impacts, one thing to consider is that there are two, sort of, scales of impacts. There are local impacts at the addition source where there might be bigger perturbations in ocean conditions. Ultimately, if you think particularly with the type of alkalinity enhancement we’re doing in Halifax Harbour, it comes in as a point source, so there will be a big perturbation there and you could have impacts from that.
Then there are the longer impacts on the fact that we’re modifying an elemental cycle on the global scale — the carbon cycle — which we’re doing anyway, as I mentioned. There might be impacts that might emerge that are tolerable because there’s a small amount that might mean even more once we start doing things at scale. That’s one reason why we need the research; as we ramp up scale, we do the research at the same time so that we know what’s going on. We have to assess these impacts as to whether they’re tolerable in real time. That’s what I think.
Also, I will point out that when we are scaling up, academic researchers couldn’t do this on our own. As was just mentioned, we wouldn’t be able to conduct a project even on the scale that Planetary Technologies is doing in Halifax Harbour because of the heavy equipment — just the scale of what’s involved. There does have to be this partnership with industry to pull off the at-scale pieces.
Ms. Buchwald: It is essential to scale the technologies in parallel with the research because, from my perspective, some of the uncertainty with these methods is how much carbon is actually going to be sequestered. The ultimate goal is that we’re sequestering the carbon and we’re going to be helping that global scale carbon cycle, as Mr. Algar mentioned, and that CO2 is removed.
The ocean, as we know, is a very complicated system. Even as oceanographers, we understand parts of it, but there’s still so much we don’t understand in terms of how the ocean regulates CO2 in general. One of the uncertainties with these methods is that if we scale them up, is the ocean going to do what we expect it to do, or are there going to be other things that happen to change the amount of CO2 that is sequestered?
As we do it, the ocean is changing. Those things in models are very hard to predict; the uncertainties are very large. The only way we’re going to determine if we’re actually removing more carbon is if we’re researching it as we’re doing those scale ups.
The answer to your question is, yes, we need to be doing them at the same time, because I don’t think our level of knowledge of how the ocean is going to respond to this change — it’s the same thing with climate change. As the climate has been changing, as oceanographers, we’re constantly learning new things as it’s warming. We had models 10 or 20 years ago that said X was going to happen in the ocean, and now we’re at that point and we can see if that is happening. A lot of times, that’s not the case.
This is one of those cases where because it needs to be a large solution and we can’t predict, with the knowledge we have, what’s going to happen, we have to scale the technology with the research at the same time so we can keep going back and forth on what’s happening.
I do think, though, the promise of some of these methods is that the environmental risks seem low. The risks of it taking up more CO2 than we expect it to — sometimes maybe that uncertainty could be larger. Growing more seaweed in the ocean is likely not going to hurt things. Adding more alkalinity that is already being deposited through rivers — as we can see in rivers, it actually helps things.
With a lot of these solutions, it feels like some of the risks in that sense are maybe lower, but we really do need to keep researching to make sure that they’re actually going to take up the CO2 we expect them to. We can’t really predict that until we have these scaled exercises to keep studying.
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Koweek, is there anything you would like to add to that?
Mr. Koweek: Yes, thank you. Thanks for the question.
I’d actually like to start by challenging the idea that the scale up and the research are different. Let me explain.
When we talk about the need for carbon dioxide removal as a critical part of the climate solutions portfolio alongside emissions reduction, we often talk as scientists about the need to do carbon dioxide removal at the scale of gigatonnes per year, which is billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide removal. It’s hard to picture that because carbon dioxide is a gas in our atmosphere; we can’t see it. But it turns out there are only a few industries on the planet that move billions of tonnes of material around each year, and they’re the heavy industries, the ones you would think of like oil and gas, cement and a few other big commodities.
When we think about trying to figure out what works, which carbon dioxide removal techniques work, which marine carbon dioxide removal techniques work and what are their environmental and social co-benefits and risks, we have to be doing that in the context of scaled-up research, development and demonstration. I keep saying demonstration because we have to be thinking about this and learning from the process of doing these scaled testing. That scaled testing starts to draw upon a wider group of sectors and experts that are needed to evaluate it, such as people with economics experience and business experience, people with governance experience and regulatory experience, people with experience thinking about supply chains and how to operate heavy equipment, alongside the scientists and the engineers, and people with experience in community engagement and social science. The list can go on and on.
It’s really important to think about that research, development and demonstration pipeline, so we don’t keep the fundamental scientific questions so separate from all of the applied questions about scale up. They are just as absolutely critical if we want to get any of these solutions to scale as part of a durable climate solutions portfolio. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: I want to thank the witnesses. The subject is very interesting, and unlike some of my colleagues, I don’t know much about it.
You spoke mainly about research projects and pilot projects. You mentioned that Canada is a world leader in these fields.
Have other countries or jurisdictions succeeded in commercializing certain technologies? Are we really at the research stage throughout the world?
I don’t know who could best answer that question.
[English]
Mr. Koweek: Maybe I’ll start by answering that question, since I am the one American here, so I can represent the rest of the world outside of Canada.
There is a really interesting thing happening with marine carbon dioxide removal technologies in that much of the research, development and demonstration is happening through the private sector right now. What you’re seeing, actually, is very early-stage commercial activities — you might even say pre-commercial activities — by many private sector actors that are generating really critical information to answer all of these very important questions about the efficacy and impacts of these technologies.
Canada is one leader we’ve talked about. There is a really robust set of activities around marine carbon dioxide removal happening in the United States, and there’s growing activity, both in China and Europe as well.
I’m sure some of the other witnesses might have some other context and experiences to share.
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Algar, do you want to be next?
Mr. Algar: I think Mr. Koweek summarized it pretty well. I don’t know if I have much to add beyond him.
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Halfyard, do you have any additional comments?
Mr. Halfyard: Thank you. I agree 100% with what Mr. Koweek just said. The U.S. is a really nice example of leadership in this way, bringing solutions to scale. There’s a really clear demand signal that the U.S. government is providing through the Department of Energy and the Inflation Reduction Act, where they are showing that yes, there is a want and need for this, which is critical for start-ups and young climate change companies to show there is potential on how they can make this an economically viable activity moving forward. I congratulate the recent announcement by the Canadian government of $10 million procurement which puts us in the context of sending that demand signal and helping companies move forward.
There are other examples where there are at-scale programs, things like direct air capture, which is unrelated to the oceans entirely but is an alternative way of capturing carbon dioxide. Denmark, Iceland — there are folks moving ahead, but, certainly, Canada is playing a role and can play a much larger role.
[Translation]
Senator Boudreau: The focus seems to be on oceans. You also spoke of some work being done on rivers, however. I’m curious, without knowing the science or technology. Can it be done in lakes? Our country has the most lakes in the world. No one mentions them. Is that a possibility?
[English]
Mr. Halfyard: Thank you. The short answer is yes, absolutely. The more nuance is that not all lakes and rivers are suited for this, and it depends on the chemistry, the ecology and how closely connected the freshwater bodies are to the ocean, which is ultimately where this carbon is stored in the long term. Working in the centre of the country is a slightly different proposition than working along the coasts.
The short answer is yes, but not all sites are suitable.
Senator Cuzner: It may be coming off of Senator Boudreau’s question there about the lakes. Lake Major was one — I don’t know, Dr. Halfyard, if you were engaged in that.
It has been 30 or 35 years since we entered into the acid rain agreement. Could you give us sort of an overview of where we were and where we are now and some indication of the measurement of improvement that has been made with those initiatives? As I said, several of the rivers have come back. I know it’s still an issue, and you continue to work on it, but could you give us an indication of where we were and where we are?
Mr. Halfyard: Absolutely. Always happy to talk about acid rain.
In short, the acid rain story is one that provides some hope to our story of climate. In short, we were burning fossil fuels and putting up pollution in the atmosphere, and that was recognized as a problem. In North America, the Canada-United States Air Quality Agreement shows how two countries can work together to enact meaningful regulation to rapidly curtail emissions. It worked really well. The concentration of acid-causing pollution in emissions was cut down through technological enhancements like scrubbers on smokestacks and improved catalytic converters in cars. There is a success story there.
There is also a cautionary tale that here we are, all these years later, and there are still legacy impacts and, in some cases, delayed impacts. Those delayed impacts are related to things like local geology. Some areas that have very productive fertile landscapes where there’s naturally a high abundance of things like calcium, magnesium and alkalinity in soils, the reason they’re productive farmlands, and those were able to respond more quickly. They’re more resilient to the impacts of acid rain.
Unfortunately, in Eastern Canada, we have less of that and more hard geology which is slow to break down, slow to weather and provide those essential elements which combat or buffer against acidification. In that context, many of our freshwater ecosystems have not recovered and, in fact, have shown maintaining low pH, low productivity and impacts on species at risk, recreational, social and ceremonial food, and fisheries, and certainly the commercial fisheries.
It’s a little good, a little bad, but a really nice cautionary tale that not everything can be predicted. The models that forecasted how we might recover following the enactment of that regulation hasn’t played out exactly what we suspected. In some cases, there are signs of recovery. In many other cases, there’s not. That nuance was under appreciated at the time.
To Dr. Buchwald’s point earlier, we don’t always know what we don’t know. Just getting into this and continuing high-quality monitoring and research around it as it’s happening is super important.
Mr. Algar: I am going to come back to one of the questions on the lakes, and I don’t know if Dr. Halfyard might disagree with me on this, but it’s something I should mention. When we think of river alkalinity enhancement, there’s also the question of permanence, which is the concept of the carbon stored for a long period of time. One of the reasons why the river alkalinity enhancement works is that that alkalinity ultimately drains into the ocean. It’s still the ocean that’s going to ultimately store the carbon for a long period of time. The alkalinity that’s in the ocean now, ultimately, the source of that was from rivers running through the correct geology.
With regard to lakes, they could be good addition sites in the same way that rivers are, but they’re good addition sites because the water is ultimately going to make its way to the ocean. The carbon is probably not going to be stored in the lake itself. I think I’m correct in saying that, but Dr. Halfyard can correct me if I’m wrong.
Senator Cuzner: You’re getting a nod and a thumbs-up.
How do your various initiatives connect with Canada’s Ocean Supercluster with regard to support, funding? Is it something that is being seized by that? Could you comment on your relationships with the supercluster?
Mr. Algar: Sure. I don’t know how much relationship I personally have with the supercluster. I do know that the Centre for Ocean Ventures & Entrepreneurship, or COVE, has been a big help in moving this research forward. I receive funding from Carbon to Sea, which is a non-profit, and they delivered that funding in partnership with COVE. One of the things that’s good about COVE is, honestly, the dock they have outside the building, and it is where we load all our boats, which is right next to Planetary Technologies’ addition site. That is huge. When you asked earlier about why Halifax is a good place, it’s because the infrastructure is already there in the ocean tech sector to do some of this stuff at scale.
One of the things — also, I can go out on a day’s notice. We can mobilize and go out and make field measurements immediately if we realize we have something that needs to be done. COVE is certainly a big benefit to us being able to conduct this research.
Senator Cuzner: Any others want to comment on that?
Mr. Halfyard: I’ll just quickly add, as someone in the industry, we benefit from a lot of investment in that sector through things like innovation and sensors, and our ability to measure. Companies are working on that as part of Canada’s Ocean Supercluster.
Also, there’s a huge amount of capacity, training, workforce development coming from that. Having that key foundation of this being an area where people are thinking about and working in and students are coming through Dalhousie and others that are building their skill sets specific to answering questions that we need answered in order to develop this approach to climate action. Workforce development skill sets and the benefit of having other companies thinking about the sector more broadly.
Senator Cuzner: A comment to Dr. Koweek, as the lone American on the panel, good luck next Tuesday.
Mr. Koweek: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Thanks for that reminder, Senator Cuzner.
I would like to ask a quick question, or maybe it’s a comment.
I have to say that I’m inspired by the “good news” message that you’re bringing to us today. We get a lot of bad news about climate change and the effects of carbon emissions. We need to really pay attention to that. Today, we’re hearing some hopeful news, and that really is refreshing. It is refreshing, from my perspective — I don’t speak for others in the room, but from my perspective — coming from very young and fresh faces. It looks like, with what’s happening, you will live to see the benefits of the hard work you’re doing, although it sounds like you’re ready to be patient with the balance of work, research and feedback that you’re willing to do to make sure this is a successful undertaking.
That is quite interesting.
This appears to be an incredibly impactful process. In my own brain, I’m looking at the types of ocean access Canada has and the different types of environment. That must be a bit of an advantage, as well, for us as a country in leading this charge.
In my own mind, I don’t know if this is a comment or question, but coming up is the next Conference of Parties, or COP, in November. Do you or folks like yourself have a seat at that table? Is there a conversation in the narrative at these kinds of conferences for this process internationally? I don’t know who wants to start or who has the answer to that, but whoever would like to speak up.
Mr. Koweek: My organization, Ocean Visions, has had a growing and increasing presence at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, COPs over the last several years and has been instrumental in raising the conversation about ocean-based climate mitigation, including marine carbon dioxide removal or ocean carbon sequestration.
This year, we will have representatives at COP29, and we have had representatives at each of the past several COPs. They have participated in important dialogues, panels and discussions. They have helped to elevate this on the international stage.
I think we should also not kid ourselves that this is still probably not getting enough attention relative to its potential as a climate solution. From our perspective at my organization, there is so much more work that needs to be done to elevate these technologies as part of a really important conversation about developing the tools that we need to solve the climate crisis. That requires not just talking about it a little bit more but so much more than that so that it becomes not a technical, niche or subject-matter-expert topic of conversation but one of widespread conversation.
The Deputy Chair: That leads me to my next question, and then I’ll move on to my colleagues.
We are the Senate. We’re part of government. What can we do to move that process from talking about it to making it a focus for the Canadian government?
Mr. Koweek: This study is a really great first step. Then ensure national government support for research, development and demonstration at levels that are commensurate with the potential of these technologies and the critical need for these technologies — are two immediate steps that come to mind for me.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I see Dr. Halfyard shaking his head. Do you have any other suggestions or things that we can recommend or comment upon in our report?
Mr. Halfyard: Sure.
One recommendation I may bring forward is that as we build out programs that support innovation, research and start-ups in this space, it’s important to keep CDR in the backs of minds as those programs are rolled out. I think of recent programs around carbon capture utilization, which are largely focused on reducing point sources of emissions, but there is an opportunity to keep that a little broader and allow for investigation into other technologies.
I think of Canada’s nature-based climate solutions administered by Environment and Climate Change Canada and the Canadian Wildlife Service. It’s a relatively narrow focus with very prescribed activities that are permitted and a fairly large number of activities that would not be considered. That’s not the fault of folks administering those programs. At the time, it was reflective of the current knowledge.
I think keeping this at the forefront of discussion will allow for programs to be more inclusive of the types of activities we consider and support across a nation as we think about how we’re going to move forward on climate change.
Again, I really appreciate the recent announcement of the $10 million procurement by the government. That is important. I think that offers an opportunity for more discussions and learning about the industry side, the research side, the government’s role and just working together with those smaller projects to get them off the ground is a great place to start.
The Deputy Chair: Dr. Buchwald, did you have anything to add?
Ms. Buchwald: I don’t think I have anything to add. Actually, Dr. Koweek and Dr. Halfyard put it really nicely.
Having programs to fund this kind of research and open up other types of programs to include these types of research — having this report itself is a great way for the government to help move this all forward for us.
Mr. Algar: I have two points.
My first point is maybe something Mr. Koweek mentioned: In a lot of cases, it’s been start-ups and industries that have been moving this research forward up to now. Governments are starting. I have government funding through NSERC to study this, but governments have maybe — not just in Canada — been behind the curve on this. Governments need to invest research dollars to look at solutions. It’s great that start-ups are taking the lead, but their priorities in the research are slightly different than a government’s priorities would be. Obviously, due to the nature of it when it’s scaled up, we need to work together. I think it’s important for governments to support this research as well.
The other thing is just to make the point that our governments need to be open-minded about these small, medium and larger trials because we are not going to understand the full effects until this stuff happens at scale. We don’t want to miss an opportunity by inadvertently closing doors because we’re worried about what might happen. We actually have to do these trials so that we know what’s going to happen.
It’s making sure we don’t inadvertently make these trials harder to occur or closing any doors on them.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. We’re running up against time, but a few senators are anxious to ask questions. I’m hoping our witnesses can bear with us for a few more minutes.
Senator Petten: To be quick, I’ll ask one person — maybe Dr. Algar because you’re in the room. We’ve heard all of the positive things and the potential. I’m just wondering if you can quickly indicate what the risks are. Why are people not jumping on this — or even the government? If you could indicate with the sequestration of the oceans, what are some of the concerns why this is not moving forward?
Mr. Algar: I’ll mention a few. I don’t think I’m qualified to comment on all the concerns, necessarily, but one of the big concerns that Dr. Buchwald alluded to earlier is quantifying how successful it’s going to be. As carbon markets emerge, if we start doing this, there’s going to be money involved. As we’ve mentioned, these are big, expensive operations. You need to make sure you’re actually having an impact and you do what you think you’re going to do. So it is additionality that you are changing and you are taking up additional carbon dioxide, not just moving where it’s being taken up — there is a net carbon removal, which includes life cycle analysis and how it affects all these interacting cycles in the ocean.
Although we’ll never understand all the effects until we start doing the study, I think people are generally concerned anytime you do things — when you are talking about a global scale, there’s a natural concern there. It’s good to be cautious. We do have to weigh that against the fact that we are modifying the planet to a huge degree anyway, and there are serious consequences to that.
Senator C. Deacon: Again, thank you to each of you for taking the time. It’s been really fascinating.
I wouldn’t mind a comment quickly from each of you. You’ve mentioned the term “social licence” quite a bit, and I think it’s crucial in order to keep this work going, and the contribution of independent and, at this point, academic oversight versus formal regulatory oversight — how important that is to building and maintaining social licence and keeping our academics capable of providing that oversight. We’re learning, and in order to advance this, we have to have that intense work. If we establish regulations now, they’re going to have to keep moving the ball, and so this is something where agility is needed.
If you could speak to that for a second, I would be grateful. Maybe we can start with Dr. Halfyard and move to each of you.
Mr. Halfyard: Wonderful. Thank you. It’s an imperative context and question, so I thank you for that.
Social licence is going to become the limiting factor on how this can scale up quite quickly. Technologically, we are making fast strides, but the communities around projects and the global community is, ultimately, going to be what makes this propel forward or slows it down.
Social licence comes with trust, credibility and time. It’s fundamentally a relationship where whatever we learn has to be effectively communicated in clear, concise and digestible ways. Without academic and government involvement, industry will never realize its full potential or see this through until we have the social licence to operate.
I’ll reiterate that social licence absolutely must include Indigenous views and voices here. From the onset, we can build an economy that is more inclusive and part of economic reconciliation from day one, so there’s a big opportunity.
Ms. Buchwald: I’ll try and keep this brief.
Right now, where these industries are at, they really need academics to help them. Because it’s so new and we’re still figuring out if it works, it’s really hard for a start-up right now to determine that themselves. They need the expertise of the academics and the time of these people together to prove that it’s working. That’s what will give it the social licence to keep going forward. Then as it becomes more accepted and we’ve proven in some of these trials that it’s working, then you can see that relationship changing, but I think where we’re at, they’re still having so many uncertainties in the process that we really need both together to prove that we’re sequestering the carbon that we say we want to.
This is an important thing that should be done. I think Dr. Koweek made some really good points on bringing that to fruition and understanding how important some of these solutions can be. So let’s put the time and money behind that and do that together as academics and industries so that we’re doing it responsibly and in the way that we think it should be working.
Mr. Koweek: Thank you.
We know that independent scientists are among the most trusted messengers, both for ocean and climate policy leaders and for the general public. When we want to think about building a groundswell of support for a new portfolio of climate solutions that include ocean carbon sequestration and marine carbon dioxide removal, those independent scientists are critical to enable that. They need the necessary support, they need the support from governments to be able to engage in this work and they need to be able to have the credibility and reputational prestige associated with being an independent scientist that allows them to speak from that neutral position as part of a trust-building process, both with ocean and climate policy leaders and with the general public. It’s absolutely paramount.
Mr. Algar: Thanks.
As everyone has mentioned, the social licence to do this is going to be really important. I don’t have to elaborate on that; that’s been said by others. I think governments and academics are really in a good position to provide that through research.
If you think of companies, they cannot be fully transparent for obvious reasons because they have intellectual property, or IP, that’s going to result in profits and what not, but government and university scientists can. One way we can be transparent and contribute to the social licence is making all our results and data open access — freely available — and being totally transparent in all the research we do. I think the combination of industry, academics/scientists and government-funded science is really what can provide that social licence and trust, so that there will not be the perception of other motivations. That’s why it’s important that it be there, and we can do that and be completely and fully transparent.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank each of you for taking the time to appear before us today. Us running over time is a testament that the topic we’re discussing is incredibly informative, interesting and hopeful. I want to thank you again for contributing to our session and to the study we’re undertaking.
(The committee continued in camera.)