It is very clear that pollution causes harm… Broadly speaking, direct human costs are measured in the value of lives lost, the cost of treating pollution-related illness and the lost production due to sickness-related work absence. For example, a 2021 Health Canada report on the health impact attributable to air pollution in Canada — mostly arising from the combustion of fossil fuels — noted that in 2016 there were 15,300 premature deaths, 8,100 emergency-room visits, 2.7 million asthma symptom days and 35 million acute respiratory symptom days per year. The total economic cost of these health impacts in 2016 due to medical costs, reduced workplace productivity, pain and suffering was about $120 billion, or roughly six per cent of GDP… So carbon pricing is really a health measure.
With record wildfires ravaging much of Canada again this summer, the imperative to reduce GHG emissions grows. Oil companies have been rightly called out for their significant contribution. But another sector, which to date has been mischaracterized by government and industry as carbon-neutral, is also playing a major role in driving the climate crisis. A new report, 
People with common sense only agree to spend huge sums of money if they are sure of getting a worthwhile result. Logically, you’d expect Canadian government websites would have the information we need to make a common-sense decision: how much will Net Zero cost us, and what benefit in “global cooling” will our spending achieve?… For Canada alone, the Royal Bank of Canada suggests reaching 75 per cent of Net Zero by 2050 will cost $60 billion Cdn a year, which works out to about $1,500 a year for every Canadian, or $6,000 a year for a family of four… Faced with these numbers, a person with common sense asks: if we make ourselves poorer by $6,000 or more per household a year, how much “global warming” will our sacrifices prevent?
You’ve probably heard that the Biden administration’s signature climate law, the 
Inspired by an ancient buried log, researchers present a novel method to remove and store atmospheric carbon for hundreds of years or more. It involves locking woody biomass away in “wood vaults.” The approach could provide a cost-effective solution to mitigate climate change. …It is unknown whether carbon-storing woody biomass can be preserved long enough (hundreds of years or longer) to have an appreciable effect on reducing anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. Here, Ning Zeng and colleagues explore the viability of a carbon dioxide removal strategy involving burying sustainably sourced wood in an engineered structure called a “wood vault” to prolong the duration of carbon storage by preventing decay and decomposition. This novel method was inspired by the discovery of a remarkably preserved 3775-year-old Eastern red cedar log buried in clay soil in Quebec, Canada – a find that demonstrates the potential for long-term carbon storage through wood burial within certain environments. 
CALIFORNIA — Construction is moving forward on a biomass plant in California that has been trying to get greenlit for the past decade. In addition to generating energy for Californians, the plant is intended to help reduce the risk of wildfires spreading. The new plant will receive wood and other plant materials from nearby forest restoration and maintenance projects in the Yuba River watershed. …Biomass is not necessarily the cleanest form of renewable energy. Cutting down trees just to turn them into biomass, for example, is not environmentally friendly. However, in California’s case, the biomass would come from plant materials removed to aid in wildfire prevention, making the entire process much less wasteful. …The plant, which will cost $30 million in total, is being funded in part by $7 million and an $8.3 million low-interest loan from the Yuba Water Agency.
GEORGIA — State regulators on the Public Service Commission on Tuesday approved a Georgia Power plan to source more energy from burning wood known as “biomass,” despite criticism from consumer advocates about its relatively hefty price tag. An independent evaluator found the trio of contracts for which the monopoly utility was seeking approval would cost customers two to three times more than other sources of energy. The biomass proposal had been opposed by environmental and consumer advocates, who said it would cost Georgia Power customers billions of extra dollars on top of already-approved rate hikes. …In hearings about the biomass proposal over the past few weeks, regulators acknowledged the high cost for Georgia Power customers, but said they were motivated by a desire to give an economic boost to rural parts of the state that rely on the timber industry. The vote Tuesday was 4-1 in favor.
Wildfires are burning through the carbon budget that humans have allocated themselves to limit global heating, a study shows. The authors said this accelerating trend was approaching – and may have already breached – a “critical temperature threshold” after which fires cause significant shifts in tree cover and carbon storage. …Forests are going up in smoke in Brazil, the US, Greece, Portugal and even the Arctic Circle amid the Earth’s two hottest years in recorded history. Each fire has a double impact on the global climate: first, by emitting carbon from the burned trees, and second, by reducing the capacity of forests to absorb carbon dioxide. …Other research showed the Amazon is undergoing a “critical slowing down”, with more than a third of the rainforest struggling to recover from drought after four supposedly “one-in-a-century” dry spells in less than 20 years. These compounding impacts are turning forests from carbon sinks into carbon sources.
Forest carbon credits, which pay governments and private landowners to conserve carbon-rich forests as a way to slow climate change, face mounting criticism for being less effective than advertised. Brazil’s top climate official is pushing back on their dubious reputation… In Brazil, fighting deforestation is synonymous with fighting climate change. The country has about 60% forest cover and is home to the majority of the Amazon rainforest. More than half of Brazil’s emissions are tied to changes in land use and deforestation… Companies, governments and others can sell forest carbon credits to groups looking to offset their own emissions. But the credits have not always worked as intended: Investigations have pointed to flawed accounting and exaggerated claims.
