Tar Sands Don't Fit in the Clean Energy Economy

Byoliveridley

On February 19 President Obama will visit Canada. Prime Minister Stephen Harper has asked to discuss a North American agreement on global warming and energy, and it has been widely reported that under such a deal he will seek to shelter the tar sands in Alberta from the same greenhouse gas cuts that other polluters must make.

We can not be on be on the path to fight global warming and build a clean energy future by ignoring the facts. The tar sands are one of the most destructive projects on earth. They produce oil that has three times the carbon impact per barrel in the production process as regular oil while leaving a long term legacy of toxic tailings lakes and Boreal forest destruction.

There is a better way. Both the U.S. and Canada have tremendous economic potential in new energy industries and energy efficiency. The tar sands industry must do its fair share in reducing emissions as we make the transition to a new energy economy in North America.

Tell President Obama that he needs to stay on course to a clean energy future.

via Obama2Canada

This is a new cross-border effort by a whole host of Canadian and US environmental big guns including Greenpeace, Environment Defence, the Dogwood Initiative, etc. aimed at lobbying Obama on the Oil (Tar) sands of Alberta.

A few years ago, only 4% of all Americans knew that Canada was the their largest supplier of oil. So, any efforts aimed at educating Americans on where their oil comes from and the dirtiness of the process involved is welcome.

Once again, I will say that the future of the Oil Sands is not in Canadian hands, but in American hands. No Canadian government will turn off the tap, not now in this recession, not 3 years from now when we are on our next boom. It is going to take American pressure and the institution of a robust climate change mitigation program in the US. We shall see what happens in 2-3 years time.

I do not believe this campaign will make any difference whatsoever, Obama is in Canada for something like 3 hours, and presumably will have other things to talk about.

Similar Posts

  • Biofuels are Eviil, Part 233223

    Byoliveridley

    The biodiesel boom has a high environmental cost, however. Critics say it’s contributing to global warming. Tropical forests help remove millions of tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year. Burning and clear-cutting not only eliminates one of the planet’s crucial air-filtration systems, the process also releases even more carbon dioxide into the air, in smoke or as gases released during the decomposition of forest waste. Annual clearing of Indonesia’s carbon-rich peatlands alone releases some 1.8 billion tons of greenhouse gases, according to a Greenpeace report. Indonesia is the world’s third largest emitter of greenhouse gases behind the U.S. and China, says the World Bank. “We liken what’s going on [in Indonesia] to pouring petrol on a fire,” says Martin Baker, a Hong Kong–based communications officer for Greenpeace International. “It’s completely ridiculous to produce green fuels from places like this.”

    When Biofuel is Bad for the Environment – TIME

    This just makes we want to jit my head against the wall. Tropical forests are some of the most efficient sinks of carbon, and countries that hold these sinks should be paid as well as countries that are sources of carbon. Yes, this means setting a realistic carbon pricing scheme that can eliminate this perverse incentive to destroy tropical rain forests so Western nations can claim to be environmentally friendly.

    This is not a bribe, or an incentive, it is recognition of the fact that carbon sinks have a monetary value.

    Blogged with Flock

    Tags: ,

  • Today is World Water Day

    Byoliveridley

    World Water Day – World Water Day

    As opposed to every other day when water’s not all that important! But seriously, the site is a good compendium of resources. This year’s theme is coping with scarcity. I remember when Madras had severe water shortages in the late ’80s until a couple of years back. You had to be either very lucky to live in the right neighborhood/rich enough to buy water from private tankers to fill up your water tank. Running water was off and on, we had giant buckets of stored water, it was quite an adventure for me (and a great deal of stress for my parents, of course). Those days still leave a big impression on me. Everytime I leave the tap running for more than 30 seconds, or stand in the shower for longer than necessary, I can hear my mom yelling!

  • New Device could make internal combustion 15-20% more efficient

    Byoliveridley

    Improving engine efficiency and reducing pollutant emissions are extremely important. Here, we report our fuel injection technology based on the new physics principle that proper application of electrorheology can reduce the viscosity of petroleum fuels. A small device is thus introduced just before the fuel injection for the engine, producing a strong electric field to reduce the fuel viscosity, resulting in much smaller fuel droplets in atomization. Because combustion starts at the droplet surface, smaller droplets lead to cleaner and more efficient combustion. Both laboratory tests and road tests confirm our theory and indicate that such a device improves fuel mileage significantly. The technology is expected to have broad applications, applicable to current internal combustion engines and future engines as well.

    Electrorheology Leads to Efficient Combustion.

    According to the press release, this is a very simple device. It has one small advantage over the usual snake oil, it is academic research and has been peer reviewed.

    Good stuff, hope this is an easy after market addition to any vehicle with fuel injection. However, the press release also notes that the prototype is being developed for diesel engines only, and that the research was based mainly on diesel, wonder why…

  • |

    Gaping Reminders of Aging and Crumbling Pipes – New York Times

    Byoliveridley

    Gaping Reminders of Aging and Crumbling Pipes – New York Times

    Local and state officials across the country say thousands of miles of century-old underground water and sewer lines are springing leaks, eroding and — in extreme cases — causing the ground above them to collapse. Though there is no master tally of sinkholes, there is consensus among civil engineers and water experts that things are getting worse.

    The Environmental Protection Agency has projected that unless cities invest more to repair and replace their water and sewer systems, nearly half of the water system pipes in the United States will be in poor, very poor or “life elapsed” status by 2020.

    Yes, sewers are unsexy, there’s no new fancy science involved. But water and sewer systems are the very basis of public health, and the biggest reason why Americans don’t die of sleeping sickness and dengue fever (or their subtropical equivalents) in large numbers evey year. People who want to cut taxes and limit government need to keep this in mind. There’s no money to be made out of building and maintaining sewers, it’s a dirty job and government has to do it, or else nobody will, and money is required. We produce the waste, we need to be taxed appropriately for it. It’s that simple.

  • Dear American Public Media, Coal is not clean!

    Byoliveridley

    Overheard this morning on The Marketplace morning report…

    “The use of scrubbers have made coal fired power plants much cleaner”

    Umm, this only refers to the scrubbing of particulate matter and sulfur dioxide. Unless some marvelous scrubber has been invented and perfected (top secret, the coal fired power plants don’t want you to know about all the good things they do!) that picks up all the CO2 belching out of those smokestacks, no claim can be made that coal is cleaner.

    Dear Marketplace, your own website says the following:

    KAI RYSSDAL: And it’s official. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant. The Supreme Court says so. The Bush Administration had been arguing the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases

    To argue this from a strictly legalistic standpoint, coal is dirtier now than it has ever been because we finally count CO2 as a pollutant (Yes, I know, Supreme Court only ruled on automobile emissions because that was the case in front of it, but gas is gas!).

    Dear Marketplace, please stop using the words clean and coal in the same sentence unless and until CO2 emissions from coal are scrubbed!

    Update 30Aug07: Apparently (see comments!), NPR does not like the use of the word NPR in the blog title because (and I quote)

    “Marketplace” is not an NPR show. It is produced by American Public Media, a separate company, and has its own news operation”

    True, so it’s not dear NPR anymore, it’s “dear American Public Media”. There, that takes care of that. My point obviously stands, coal is not clean!!

  • |

    Jeffrey Simpson and Lazy Writing aka I wrote a letter to the editor

    Byoliveridley

    Jeffrey Simpson wrote an interesting article on the politics of tarsands pipelines that had some good insights:

    • Harper lecturing Obama on playing politics is a bit rich
    • The opposition is multi-faceted, not just based on the carbon footprint
    • The opposition is widespread, and opposition is not tarsands specific, but against expanding fossil fuel in a world poised to warm at an ever increasing rate
    • Tarsands oil is dirty oil, and no amount of lobbying can take that away
    • Alterate pipeline routes such as Enbridge’s Northern Gateway are not going to be easy to construct given significant First Nations’ opposition

    It was on the last point that Jeffrey Simpson’s otherwise useful Op-Ed degenerated into what can be charitably described (by a PR hack) as an “unwise choice of words”.

    The route must traverse huge tracts of land claimed by aboriginals who, for a variety of reasons, don’t want a pipeline. Maybe they’re pigheaded. Maybe they don’t want to join modernity.

    This is insulting and ignorant to begin with. Surely Jeffrey Simpson does basic research before he writes these columns, and google searches will reveal many many articles, including one in the newspaper that pays his salary that clearly explain the rational reasons behind First Nations’ concerns on pipelines. Simpson seems to have no trouble finding rational reasons to buttress other opposition claims. He says Nebraska’s opposition was due to the pipeline passing over environmentally sensitive areas. He also uses a Royal Society of Canada report judging Canada’s green house gas mitigation efforts as inadequate to make a larger point about the pollution caused by the tarsands and fossil fuels.

    However, for First Nations’ concerns alone, he resorts to the irrational, tired and racist tropes of First Nations people being “pigheaded”, or “opposed to modernity”. What exactly is Mr Simpson trying to imply?

    I was angry enough to dash a letter off to the Globe and Mail, which they promptly published, thanks folks.

    Here’s what they published

    Jeffrey Simpson’s column (Pipe-Altering Lessons – Nov. 16) offers some good insights into pipeline politics and government hypocrisy and states accurately that people are opposed to most fossil fuel expansion, not just the oil sands. However, his speculation on First Nations’ opposition to the Northern Gateway project as “pig headed” or not wanting “to join modernity” are offensive and misstate the valid concerns voiced by more than 60 indigenous communities. They are concerned about irreparable damage to the land and salmon migration routes and are well aware how little of the large profits made by energy companies accrues to the First Nations whose land these projects are frequently based on. Their reasons are well founded and well documented by many First Nations, including the Wet’suwet’en.

    Here’s what I wrote.

    Jeffrey Simpson’s Opinion, Pipeline-altering lessons offers some good insights into oilsands pipeline politics, government hypocrisy and states accurately that people are opposed to most fossil fuel expansion, not just the oilsands . However, Simpson’s speculation on First Nations’ opposition to the Northern Gateway project as “pig
    headed”, or “not wanting to join modernity” are offensive and misstate the valid concerns voiced by more than 60 indigenous communities. They are concerned about irreparable damage to their land, and salmon migration routes. They are well aware that little/none of the large profits made by Enbridge and other oil companies accrue to the First Nations whose land these projects are frequently based on. Their reasons for opposing are well founded, and well documented by many First Nations including the Wet’suwet’en.

    If Mr Simpson were a little less “pig headed”, or “more willing to join modernity”, he would fire up that marvellous modern invention, the web browser and look up wetsuweten.com. His unnecessary slurs take away from what is a otherwise a sensible and well written article.

    They did leave out my rather snarky last paragraph 🙂

    Pig picture from jm999uk’s flickr stream used under a creative commons licence.