Savings made by lifestyle choices show how much carbon dioxide (CO2) is being removed from the atmosphere for each of the 16 categories shown on the graph. If it serves your purpose, you may want to look at the list and see how each of your life choices compares in terms of CO2 saved. I know I did a quick inventory and compared my wife and me to the items displayed on the graph.

These are my conclusions about our lifestyle choices and reducing our CO2 output:

• We are not living car-free. We use it far less and try to take public transit when going into Toronto. When we do use the car we make each trip fulfill multiple tasks.
• Our car is a hybrid, not an electric one. Before we moved to Oakville, our apartment had no EV charge stations. The place we live in now does and when we get our next vehicle we will look at either a hybrid plug-in or pure EV.
• We are using the regional GO train to go to Toronto and accessing mass transit to go to medical appointments and to meet friends.
• The building we live in is powered by a heat pump. Our apartment uses a heat pump.
• Our kitchen appliances are all new energy-efficient models.
• The power provider to the building is delivering green electricity.
• In our recent move, we have downsized the space in which we live. At the same time, we have decluttered, repurposed and given away technology we no longer are using rather than trash or recycle it.
• After our dog, Maya died, two years ago in August, we no longer have plans to get another pet.
• We haven’t been on an airplane since December 2022. It was our first trip in three years by airplane. I must confess we have a wedding in the Rocky Mountains this summer and will have to fly to get there. For next winter we would like to go to Southern Spain for a month next winter to somewhere sunny and warm.
• We eat less meat, especially red meat, but cannot claim to be leaning toward a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle, although we are eating far smaller portions than ever before. Maybe smaller portions mean less of a carbon footprint.
• We don’t throw out old clothes but clean them and give them away.
• We reuse and recycle almost everything that comes through the front door including newspaper, plastic, aluminum, paper products, and kitchen organic waste.
• We shop locally having moved to a place with a grocery and drugstore next door.

I don’t consider myself low-carbon virtuous although I aspire to attain a low-carbon lifestyle whenever possible.

My wife and I’s personal vice is an addiction to reading things in print, which means we subscribe to two daily newspapers and a weekly news magazine. One hopes the paper used is recycled. I know we recycle all of it after reading.

About other reading materials, we stopped buying hardcover books some time ago and now only get e-books.

Our one other vice is using Amazon for stuff unavailable at local shops.

Making lifestyle choices based on our carbon footprint is not easy. That’s because reducing personal carbon footprints is hard work. What we have done is the bare bones because we both are retired and at a stage in life where stuff no longer defines us. For others, however, getting the carbon footprint smaller is much harder.

I’ll give you an example of carbon footprint challenges. My daughter and son-in-law bought a more than 100-year-old home in Toronto two years ago. It needed upgrading of the insulation, windows, doors, heating, cooling, and more. These were significant investments even though the federal government had launched an energy efficiency grant and low-interest loan program to help with energy efficiency upgrades for residential homeowners. One challenge of being dependent on government incentives like these is that you have to do a lot of paperwork, wait for approvals, and pay out-of-pocket before you get reimbursed. That can put a lot of stress on a family budget.

Other family considerations when making decarbonizing decisions include visits. Today, virtual visits have become more common after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. These online visits are not the same as seeing family in person. The difference between them has psychological consequences. Going for a visit often requires the use of a car, particularly if public transit requires multiple transfers and a significant amount of extra time.

What was not on the list of the 16 CO2-saving lifestyle choices that surprised me was carbon savings from planting a food garden. Victory gardens were planted during World War 2 because of food shortages. The tradition of having a small vegetable patch, or a fruit tree in the backyard continues. Another confession: we have a grapefruit tree in our apartment with a near-full-size grapefruit hanging off a branch.

Does planting a vegetable garden reduce our CO2 footprint? Apparently not. It turns out it is an urban myth. A January 22, 2024 article in the journal Nature Cities, provides evidence that shows CO2 contributions from urban agriculture are six times greater than that produced by conventional farms or greenhouse operations.

Only tomatoes and peppers when grown in backyards and on balconies can help reduce CO2 footprints. There is good news. Urban vegetable growers love tomatoes. They constitute 25% of what we plant in our city backyards and on balconies. For urban gardeners who love tomatoes, if you add composted organics and use rainwater you can reduce your carbon footprint even more.

A recent publication, “The State of Carbon Dioxide Removal: A global independent scientific assessment,” a collaboration of research done in the United States, United Kingdom, and the Europe Union calls for the need to remove between 450 billion and 1,100 billion tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the atmosphere by 2100 if we hope to keep mean global temperatures within the Paris Climate Agreement goal of 1.5 Celsius (2.7 Fahrenheit) or even 2.0 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit).

Artur Runge-Metzger, of the Mercator Research Institute, states in the State of Carbon document that CO2 removal “will not fall from heaven like manna.” Manna may have delivered the Jews of the bible from starvation after leaving Egypt, but there is no godly intervention to save us from ourselves. We need negative carbon emissions technology now.

How significant is the challenge? Across the globe, currently, we remove 2 billion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere annually. Carbon Dioxide Removal (CDR) is accomplished largely through reforestation, forest maintenance, and soil carbonation, not from novel technologies. The technologies that do exist, Direct Air Capture (DAC) and Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS) remove a mere 0.1% of the total CO2. But it appears that, short of cutting off all sources of CO2 emissions with all the consequences that would entail, it is DAC and CCS that will likely if ramped up help us to remove the 450 to 1,100 billion tons which means a 1,300 times increase in CDR technologies.

The Challenges We Face to Remove Carbon Emissions

What steps are needed to make 450 to 1,100 billion tons of CO2 disappear? Here’s my list:

• Stop fossil fuel companies from developing new oil and gas resources.
• Ramp up renewable energy using solar, wind, tide, wave, storage and satellites.
• End fossil fuel use in making steel, aluminum, concrete and in other heavy manufacturing.
• End fossil fuel use to power transportation.
• Close coal, oil and natural gas-fired power plants or, if still needed, convert them to become negative CO2 emitters.
• Fund and build DAC and CCS projects rather than talk about building them.
• Find safe underground permanent storage capacity to take all of the CO2 we capture.
• Get wealthy countries, businesses and individuals to pony up the money needed to aid those most affected by climate change now and in the future.
• Get the United Nations or an equivalent with clout to measure, report, verify, and hold countries and companies to account regarding emissions and CDR.

A Canadian Case Study: The Oil Sands Promise CDR With A Catch

In Canada, we have the oil sands, a significant producer of CO2 emissions. The current amount is 70 million tons of CO2 annually which is 12.8% of the country’s 545.6 million total. The number is deceiving because it only covers emissions from operations and not from the consumption of its products.

The five largest producers recently formed the Pathways to Net Zero, an alliance that has been filling the airwaves in our country promoting a solution and CDR plan to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. The Alliance wants to capture CO2 at the point of production and transport the gas via pipeline to a permanent underground storage site 400 kilometres (approximately 250 miles) away. When up and running it claims this will reduce CO2 emissions from operations by 40 million tons annually. By the century’s end, the Alliance states that it can remove more than twice the amount of CO2 the country currently produces annually.

There is, however, a hitch. The Alliance promises if it gets regulatory approval and permits in place it can start capturing, transporting, and storing CO2 as early as 2026. All it needs from two levels of Canada’s government is money over and above existing tax and financial advantages offered to it. In other words, it wants the government to mitigate its financial risk. This is an old fossil fuel industry act which during earlier CDR projects saw governments partner with operators putting in hundreds of millions of dollars and providing loan guarantees only to have the companies walk away leaving public debt.

A recent CBC article talks about how Canada’s governments have been very generous to the fossil fuel industry providing all kinds of financial contributions which the World Trade Organization defines as subsidies, “a financial contribution by a government or any public body… that confers a benefit.”The industry doesn’t consider tax deductions and credits to be subsidies. Yet that’s what the latest round of Canadian federal largess has delivered in addition to the many grants, direct funding, loan guarantees, royalty credits and royalty reductions for leases of government-owned land where producers operate.

So the Pathways Alliance is playing a game of blackmail. Give us more money and we promise to build something that promises to be the CDR answer we need in Canada to fulfil our global commitment to net zero by 2050.

These same companies have made record windfall profits since the outbreak of the Russian-Ukraine war and supply chain challenges, have compensated their executives lavishly and issued dividends to shareholders. What they haven’t done is taken those profits and put them into CDR. One of the oil sands executives in an interview today stated that oil sands companies are being aggressive in addressing emissions but are “not yet at the point where we can invest billions in these projects.

The Alliance claims to have spent a half billion dollars on planning for the CDR project and now they want matching funding because with the Inflation Reduction Act recently passed in the U.S., that’s what is being offered fossil fuel companies on similar projects south of the border. Canada’s Environment Minister has responded stating that with record-level profits “If not now, then I don’t know when,” in hearing the interview. Stated a spokesperson from Greenpeace Canada referring to the request for more federal money, “They’re still waiting for the government to come and pay for them.”

If the rest of the fossil fuel industry is as equally unwilling to meet the challenge of climate change then maybe governments should be rethinking how these companies operate within their countries. After all, the people of the planet and all the other life that calls Earth home need to see 450 to 1,100 billion tons of CO2 removed to mitigate global warming. It is pretty clear that fossil fuel companies like those in the Pathway Alliance will have to be either shamed, coerced or dragged kicking and screaming into doing their part to make the planet whole.

Guntae Kim, of the School of Energy and Chemical Engineering at UNIST states, “Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration technologies…recently received a great deal of attention for providing a pathway in dealing with global climate change. The key to that technology is the easy conversion of chemically stable CO₂ molecules to other materials…Our new system has solved this problem with CO₂ dissolution mechanism.”

The Na-CO2 cell contains a cathode made of metallic sodium, a sodium superionic conductor, or NASICON, and an anode immersed in water. A lead wire connects cathode to anode. When CO2 is injected into the water the electrochemical reaction eliminates the greenhouse gas at a conversion rate of 50%. In testing, as of the January 21, 2019 publication date of their research, the cell has remained stable more than 1,000 hours without showing deterioration in any of its components.

What is the significance of this invention?

Carbon capture, utilization, and sequestration (CCUS) is a preferred technology for eliminating CO2 from the atmosphere. Unlike carbon capture, and sequestration (CCS), there is no need to find a stable storage medium for the CO2.

If a Na-CO2 cell were to be sufficiently large and attached to existing coal-fired power plants it could conceivably eliminate all of the CO2 emissions from the source while improving the energy output of the facility. The byproduct, H2, could be used as an energy source in fuel cells or for transportation.

Kim believes that the system design and electrocatalysts can be further improved to make the Na-CO2 cell even more efficient. It will be interesting to see if this invention makes it out of the laboratory to help to mitigate the climate change impact of CO2 while becoming a reliable energy source.

For the fossil fuel industry, I would suggest giving Kim and Jaephil Cho, his colleague at the Georgia Institute, all the money they need to make the Na-CO2 cell commercially viable. It could save their industry and allow the current energy mix to continue to be used along with clean renewable energy sources.

In a recent study appearing in the journal Science, scientists measuring the cumulative impact of CO2 on the ocean predict by 2100 that pH levels will have fallen by 0.4, a 150% increase in ocean acidity since the mid-19th century when we first began keeping comprehensive records. For marine animals from corals to shellfish, and from fish to whales, acidification at this rate of change will have a negative impact. Animals dependent on shells and exoskeletons (crustaceans) when exposed to increasing acidification will likely become extinct. For other marine species acidification combined with ocean warming will alter seasonal behavior changing when spawning occurs and fertility rates. With extinction of crustaceans and zooplankton food sources will be impacted putting additional pressure on many marine species. Warmer oceans will alter migration patterns something already being observed off California where 43 fish species have been studied for almost six decades.

Extinction is the greatest threat posed by ocean acidification. The geological record supports this. The end of the Permian marks the greatest extinction event in the geological record. What caused it? Volcanic eruptions in Siberia 252 million years ago released CO2 in sufficient quantity to alter ocean pH levels. Known as the Siberian Traps, this catastrophic event unfolded over 60,000 years. The end of the Permian saw 95% die off of ocean species and 70% of species on land.

Will anthropogenic contributions of CO2 over two centuries produce the same results as found in the geological record?

A number of scientists think so. Some are calling for a “plan B,” using technology to get the CO2 out of the ocean and atmosphere. Sir Richard Branson is offering a $25 million U.S. prize to anyone who can demonstrate a method to suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and thereby to halt progressive ocean acidification.

Three years ago I wrote about an American businessman, Russ George, who dumped 100 tons of iron sulphate off the British Columbia coast in a personal geoengineering experiment. The end result was a temporary algae bloom that George argued would reduce ocean acidity. He believed if ramped up globally such a seeding effort would work. George is not alone in suggesting a technological fix. In addition to iron fertilization, some have proposed nitrogen fertilization. In both cases the geoengineers hope that resulting algae blooms will serve two purposes.

1. Create sufficient phytoplankton to draw CO2 from the surface water as well as from the immediate atmosphere above.
2. The biomass upon death will sink and the captured carbon will then become sequestered permanently in the deep ocean.

The seeding experiments such as the one George tried do not necessarily produce the intended results. Two such experiments to date have shown that expected phytoplankton growth is suboptimal with less than 30% of the ocean a suitable target. In addition the biomass created largely recycles the CO2 which gets re-released into the surface water and atmosphere.

Unintended consequences of this type seeding include:

• toxic algae blooms (red tides)
• changes in the species within the phytoplankton community impacting dependent species seeking food
• de-oxygenation of ocean water in proximity to the bloom upon its death
• increased releases of methane and nitrous oxide

In a new publication, Climate Intervention: Carbon Dioxide Removal and Reliable Sequestration, scientists writing on behalf of the National Research Council have looked at a range of ocean geoengineering schemes and concluded that any attempt to add alkalinity to the ocean will have deleterious impacts.

States Sabine Mathesius, a lead author in a study published in the journal Nature Climate Change, “even if the CO2 in the atmosphere would later be reduced to the pre-industrial concentration, the acidity in the oceans could still be more than four times higher than the preindustrial level. It would take many centuries to get back into balance with the atmosphere.”

So what can be done?

Some scientists and engineers argue that removing CO2 from the air is the ocean’s panacea. But a recent computer simulation with a target removal rate of 5 gigatons of CO2 each year showed a marginal change in ocean acidity over 150 years. The exact number, a reduction in surface pH of 0.05. Of course such technology does not currently exist. Theoretically however if we were to develop it we would have to deploy thousands of units at a cost of as much as a trillion U.S. dollars.

Twenty marine scientists approaching the upcoming COP2015 meetings in Paris have come together to talk to policymakers so that they understand the consequences of not addressing ocean acidity in addition to climate change. They want to add ocean to atmospheric CO2 reduction targets. They argue that the 2 Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) atmospheric target limit needs to be accompanied by a sea surface temperature target of no more than 1.2 Celsius (2.16 Fahrenheit). They haven’t established a pH target because the science indicates the impact of current CO2 levels is already irreversible for the next several centuries. That means adaptation is the only strategy of choice.