TORONTO SUN COLUMN: Use CO2 As A Material To Make Cool Things Instead Of Taxing Us For It

CO2 SecondStreet.org


Late architect and futurist R. Buckminster Fuller said, “pollution is nothing but the resources we are not harvesting. We allow them to disperse because we’ve been ignorant of their value.”

A new report released by the Canadian think tank SecondStreet.org shows that items ranging from diamonds to soap are being created using captured carbon dioxide and methane – rather than letting the gases float into the atmosphere.

Carbon-captured vodka is even a thing. Air Company, a New York-based business, is producing alcohol by using captured CO2 and water. That’s it.

In Canada’s oilsands, energy companies share technology they develop to reduce emissions instead of keeping them as trade secrets. That has reportedly helped the firms reduce their emissions by 28% between 2000-17.

A Calgary company called CleanO2 was founded by a plumber and gas fitter. The firm removes carbon dioxide from a building’s heating system and converts it into potassium carbonate. The white powder is mixed into soaps, making them feel silky and smooth.

In Markham, Ont., a company takes CO2 from smokestacks and feeds it to algae, which are then turned into cosmetics, biofuels and even phycocyanin – the colouring for many foods, including blue M&Ms candy. Another Canadian company puts inserts into smokestacks that capture CO2 and turn it into everything from pharmaceuticals to fertilizers.

While politicians routinely refer to CO2 as “pollution,” entrepreneurs are harnessing the gas and using it as a building block to make useful products. The approach taken by entrepreneurs is a much smarter plan than governments punishing people with carbon taxes for using the oil and gas resources that are essential for their daily lives.

One can’t ignore the fact that B.C. has had the highest carbon taxes in North America since 2008 and emissions are going up. Government data shows that emissions have gone up 10% since 2015 and they’ve gone up in five of the last seven years.

There are many ways governments could encourage more carbon tech research to reduce emissions and reuse these elements.

Perhaps the simplest is for governments to talk more about what entrepreneurs are doing. This would not only potentially inspire young students to enter the carbon tech field, highlighting this work could help some start-ups earn more exposure and venture capital investments.

Also, if elected officials believe we’re facing a crisis, then maybe they could spend more on post-secondary research funding towards carbon capture technology instead of things like the $11 million Ottawa spent on the Mission Cultural fund from 2016-19. That’s the pot of taxpayers’ money that the feds use to fly chefs around the world and pay for artistic sex toys to be put on display in Germany.

Back in the late 1800s, the world faced a very different kind of environmental problem – the “great horse manure crisis.” Horse manure and even horse carcasses were piling up in city streets such as London and New York. Swarms of flies buzzed around in the filth, spreading typhoid and other deadly diseases.

But it wasn’t governments and their global conferences that solved the problem. The solution came after  Henry Ford began mass-producing vehicles for everyday people and businesses to use instead of horses.

The 19th century’s environmental and transportation crisis was solved through new technology developed by smart people.

Thankfully, today’s entrepreneurs are well on their way to solving the problem of uncontrolled greenhouse gas emissions.

Kris Sims is a contributor for SecondStreet.org and is the B.C. Director for the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

Article originally published in the Toronto Sun.

Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter

You can help us continue to research and tell stories about this issue by making a donation or sharing this content with your friends. Be sure to sign up for our updates too!

Prevention – reduce demand in the first place

If Canadians lived healthier lives, we could reduce demand for emergency services, orthopaedic surgeries, primary care and more. 

For instance, if you visit the Canadian Cancer Society’s website, you’ll read that “about four in ten” cancer cases are preventable. The Heart and Stroke Foundation notes that “almost 80 percent of premature heart disease and stroke can be prevented through healthy behaviours.” A similar number of Diabetes cases are also preventable. 

Many joint replacements and visits to ERs and walk-in clinics could also be avoided through healthy living. 

To be sure, not all health problems can be avoided through healthy living – everyday the system treats Canadians with genetic conditions, helps those injured in unavoidable accidents and more.  

But there is an opportunity to reduce pressure on the health care system through Canadians shifting to healthier lifestyles – better diets, more exercise, etc. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this column. 

Partner with non-profits and for-profit clinics

European countries will partner with anyone who can help patients. 

It doesn’t matter if it’s a non-profit, a government entity or a private clinic. What matters is that patients receive quality treatment, in a timely manner and for a competitive price.  

In Canada, governments often delivery services using government-run hospitals instead of seeing if non-profit or private clinics could deliver the services more effectively. 

When governments have partnered with non-profit and private clinics, the results have often been quite good – Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia are just a few examples of where partnerships have worked well. 

Canada should pursue more of these partnerships to reduce wait times and increase the volume of services provided to patients.  

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see the links above. 

Make cross border care more accessible

In Canada, citizens pay high taxes each year and we’re promised universal health care services in return. The problem is, wait times are often extremely long in our health system – sometimes patients have to wait years to see a specialist or receive surgery. 

If patients don’t want to wait long periods, they often have to reach into their own pocket and pay for treatment outside the province or country. 

Throughout the European Union, we also find universal health care systems. But a key difference is that EU patients have the right to go to other EU countries, pay for surgery and then be reimbursed by their home government. Reimbursements cover up to what the patient’s home government would have spent to provide the treatment locally. 

If Canada copied this approach, a patient waiting a year to get their hip operation could instead receive treatment next week in one of thousands of surgical clinics throughout the developed world. 

Governments benefit too as the patient is now back on their feet and avoiding complications that sometimes come with long wait times – meaning the government doesn’t have to treat those complications on top of the initial health problem. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or this shorter video. 

Legalize access to non-government providers

Canada is the only country in the world that puts up barriers, or outright bans patients from paying for health services locally. 

For instance, a patient in Toronto cannot pay for a hip operation at a private clinic in Toronto. Their only option is to wait for the government to eventually provide treatment or leave the province and pay elsewhere. 

Countries with better-performing universal health care systems do not have such bans. They allow patients a choice – use the public system or pay privately for treatment. Sweden, France, Australia and more – they all allow choice. 

Why? One reason is that allowing choice means some patients will decide to pay privately. This takes pressure off the public system. For instance, in Sweden, 87% of patients use the public system, but 13% purchase private health insurance. 

Ultimately, more choice improves access for patients. 

To learn more, watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or watch this short clip on this topic. 

Shift to funding services for patients, not bureaucracies

In Canada, most hospitals receive a cheque from the government each year and are then asked to do their best to help patients. This approach is known as “block funding”. 

Under this model, a patient walking in the door represents a drain on the hospital’s budget. Over the course of a year, hospital administrators have to make sure the budget stretches out so services are rationed. This is why you might have to wait until next year or the year after for a hip operation, knee operation, etc. 

In better-performing universal health systems, they take the opposite approach – hospitals receive money from the government each time they help a patient. If a hospital completes a knee operation, it might receive, say, $10,000. If it completes a knee operation on another patient, it receives another $10,000. 

This model incentivizes hospitals to help more patients – to help more patients with knee operations, cataract surgery, etc. This approach also incentivizes hospitals to spend money on expenses that help patients (e.g. more doctors, nurses, equipment, etc.) rather than using the money on expenses that don’t help patients (e.g. more admin staff). 

To learn more about this policy option, please watch our Health Reform Now documentary (scroll up) or see this post by MEI.