Oil sands leave dirty footprints on world's environmental stage
- November 12, 2009 5:00 PM |
- By Quirks
By Bob McDonald, host of the CBC science radio program Quirks & Quarks
Bob McDonald
With climate talks in Copenhagen looking more like a pre-ordained failure, in part due to Canada’s resistance to the terms of the agreement, the optics were not good this week as Lisa Raitt, Minister of Natural Resources, convinced business and political leaders in New York City that the Alberta Oils Sands are the best choice to meet a growing U.S. energy demand.
In other words, our country is resisting action on climate change while promoting the dirty technology at the root of it.
Minister Raitt reminded the Americans that Canada holds the largest oil supply in the world, after Saudi Arabia. And it’s secure. There is little danger that Canada will hold back on its largest trading partner. She also pointed out that expanding the oil sands operations would create American jobs because much of the heavy equipment to dig the sand and extract the oil comes from the United States.
A secure oil supply and American jobs, that’s a pretty easy sell.
So, while other nations are rallying to reduce their carbon emissions by significant amounts, Canada is contributing more and more to the problem itself. The oil sands are the largest single source of emissions in North America – and the dirtiest.
The Government has devoted $1 billion to clean energy, but most of that is for carbon capture and storage, aimed precisely at the oil sands to keep them operating. The amount of carbon captured by this yet-to-be-proven technology is a drop in the bucket compared to the overall emissions from the oil that comes out of Ft. McMurray.
During a speech at Rideau Hall this week, Prince Charles complimented Canada on hosting the Olympics in 100 days, but then he said we must focus on the next 100 months before catastrophic climate change happens. There was applause among the government leaders in attendance, but in reality, the Prince was speaking to a government that is in the oil business, a government that puts short-term economic benefit ahead of long-term vision.
If the U.S. does buy into the oil sands, there will be even more profits for an already profitable business. So here’s an idea. Perhaps there could be a rider to the agreement with the Americans that a percentage of those profits go directly to the development and installation of clean alternatives, so we will have something to fall back on when the oil runs out or so-called dirty oil becomes unpopular.
When the Olympics open in Vancouver, we will put forth our traditional image of pure white snow, pristine lakes and clean air. That’s how we like to promote ourselves on the world stage. But on the global environmental stage, Canada is, in reality, a dark spot.
Categories
All News blogs
Most Commented
Most Recommended
Quirks and Quarks
Most Commented
Most Recommended
Recent Entries
- Underground lab may solve cosmic mystery
- A new astronomical observatory opened this week - one more than 2 kilometres below the ground in Sudbury, Ont. - that may finally answer the mystery of Dark Matter in the universe. SNOLAB will attempt to capture the elusive Dark Matter particles as they pass right through the Earth. Continue reading this post
- Robots in space are worth every penny
- The Dawn probe mission to the asteroid Vesta proves once again how robots, using the highest technology for spaceflight, can cheaply explore where no one has gone before. And this mission is far from over. Continue reading this post
- Canadian science writers given freedom of speech award - in Canada
- This past week, the Canadian Science Writers Association, and its Quebec equivalent, Association des communicateurs scientifique received the Press Freedom Award from the Canadian Committee for World Press Freedom and Canadian Commission for UNESCO for their efforts to stop the muzzling of Canadian federal scientists. The award was given on May 3, World Press Freedom Day. Continue reading this post
Comments (40)
Focusing on the oilsands as the big elephant in the room is pretty slanted, when even in Alberta, more greenhouse gas emissions are created from burning coal for electricity than the entire oilsands.
Coal power around the world is the elephant in the room, and almost every nation, even environmental leaders like Germany are having a hard time breaking their addiction to coal.
Bob, define what you mean by source of emissions. If you mean they produce more oil than any other place in North America you may be correct. But oil is not the only source of CO2 emissions. There is coal, natural gas, the peat stored in the North of Canada, and even forest fires and volcanoes emit a lot of CO2.
Not all of that oil from the tar sands is burnt. A lot of it goes to make gas, but lots goes into the roads, into lubricants and into manufacturing.
But all this concentration on oil and CO2 as pollutants also ignores the environmental impact of nuclear power plants and the tons of radioactive waste they produce every year. Would you prefer a warmer world or a more radioactive one?
For all the emphasis you placed on the US buying into the oilsands you ignored some of the major players already involved such as China and Sweden. Sweden is held up by many in the "green" community as being a model to follow, but they bought into the oilsands. Not to mention the amount of nuclear waste they produce and the nuclear accidents they have covered up. Try googling Sweden and Nuclear Accidents. They're as bad as France for hypocracy. "Green" and glowing in the dark.
And when they hold the summit in Copenhagen can they tell the Dutch to tear down those dikes so the land can return to a more natural "greener" form? Then tell the Danes to remove their artificial islands from the sea, stop drilling in the North Sea for oil, and stop being such hypocrits.
By the way, Bob, The US produces 8.5 million BBL per day of oil and Canada in total produces only 3.35 million BBL per day. That is according to the CIA world factbook. The tar sands are a third of Canada's oil output (1.3 million BBL a day). Some greenies even make wild assertions that the tarsands are the biggest source of emissions in the world. They haven't looked at the Gulf of Mexico which also produces about 1.3 million BBL of oil a day and which may increase due to recent discoveries in the Gulf. Quote from the Oil Barrel, :"Although the USA GoM is only producing about 1.3 mbd, it remains the region of the biggest future capacity additions for the entire USA."
In addition the US has 6,731 billion cu m of natural gas compared to Canada's reserves of 1,630 billion cu m. In addition the US has the worlds largest coal reserves, even larger than CHINA. So where are your "emission" numbers coming from? Or are you swallowing propaganda?
At the Wed. Oct. 21 SDTC Clean Tech Summit, Mr. John D. Podesta, co-chair of Obama's transition team, discussed the new USA "Green Bank" injection of $10 billion in stimulus funding to assist companies engaged with sustainable energy initiatives with loan guarantees to help get their products to market.
Canada has had a similar agency in the SDTC at arms-length from the government but funding ends in November and it appears unlikely that the Conservative government will inject new funds, clearly preferring to support the fossil fuel industries and unproven CCS (carbon capture and storage) technology.
Minister of Natural Resources Lisa Raitt gave a kickoff speech to the conference blowing the government's horn but hypocritically making no mention of what could be the demise of a highly effective agency, one that has assisted sustainable technology development in Canada. We're kissing off technology export opportunities to let the rest of the world "eat our lunch".
Meanwhile the November issue of Scientific American has an article showing the feasibility of using exclusively wind, water and solar energy sources for 100% of the world's energy needs by 2030.
The fossilized Alberta dinosaurs in the Conservative party are leading us irresponsibly down the wrong path.
You also betray an ignorance of fact by calling the tar sands a point source or "single source". The tar sands are an oil producing region with many plants operating within the region, much like the gulf of Mexico is a region with many oil wells in it. If you lump the tar sands as a single source you also have to talk about regional output when considering other CO2 sources. Or are you simply bashing the industry? Since the oil sands produce about 1/3 of Canada's oil I suppose you would be content with 1/3 less revenues and 1/3 unemployment in the oil industry?
I think that everyone in the world agrees that oil is dirty business Bob, and i'm sure if you polled the folks in Alberta they would be for any solution that would make the oil sands process cleaner. The bottom line is until there is either no oil/coal left or it isn't worth anything anymore it will still be sucked out and sold.
If globally we simply stopped destroying our planet by no longer using non-renewable resources we would have a lot more severe problem short term like, no heat, no effective transportation, no computers to write blogs or to comment with, etc. Basic survival is practically non exsistant, how many people would die if the power/heat were to go out for a week?
Oil is as dirty as it is allowed to get. So are large citys with huge areas covered with cement and pavement. Energy is a requirement, not an option for todays society. Kindly stop snivelling about the problem and come up with economial, practical, workable solutions. Giving large amountgs of money to carpet bagging carbon credit salesmen is not part of anythng other than a cheap scam.
It's great that the other comments have brought up other important issues like coal, nuclear power, other oil sources, etc. I think that all of these issues need to be addressed, in addition to the issue of continued development of the oilsands. I also have to agree that we can't simply pull the plug on the oil industry - civilisation would collapse! I do think, however, that we need to be making continuous efforts to reduce our dependence on oil as quickly as possible. We need incentives to encourage sustainable energy development and regulation to protect the environment from an economy that is still thirsty for oil. Showing some leadership in our domestic policy prior to the Copenhagen talks would set the stage for effective international agreements to take place.
I have to agree with you Bob, promoting the oil sands to American investors doesn't sound like a step in the right direction.
The only way Canada is going to move forward on the environmental file is with new leadership at the federal level. The Harper government is still stuck in the failed Reagan era of tax-cut and deregulation schemes that came crashing down with the finance meltdown and the great recession.
I would vote Green, but then that would be a vote against the environment because it further splits the center-left vote and allows the neo-conservatives to win more seats.
Ignatieff is walking on eggshells around the whole issue because he doesn't want Harper to make it a wedge issue like with Dion's failed "Green Shaft". But he is obviously going to do a lot more than Harper and is the best bet for getting something done.
The European Union will have to lead by example on environment responsibility and social justice in the 21st century.
They have a much more progressive economy that will produce more wealth more efficiently as North America lags further and further behind. They will be leaders in high-value-added green technology and will end up shutting out North America from their burgeoning market place with green tariffs because of our backwards, 20th-century, smokestack industy.
As we dig bigger holes in the ground as our living standards decline with never-ending cuts to taxes and social spending, living standards will skyrocket in the EU as they invest in human capital and reap the rewards of growing social and technological infrastructure.
North America is doomed to become the USSR of the 21st century.
Bob,
I have frequently heard the comment that "Big Oil" is only interested in making a profit. I'm curious to know if any major oil companies are engaged in the development of new technolgy to produce clean, sustainable, renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. As citizens of this poisoned planet, we must certainly be aware that the supply of our favorite non-renewable resource is dwindling. The companies at the forefront of developing this new technology will be reaping the rewards in our future.
The oil-sands only exist when oil prices spike. Lower oil prices and viola, Ft Mac isn't profitable because of high production costs.
Creates a small paradox but high energy prices are fuelling the need for dirty oil, dirty coal and cheap energy to get it to market.
I was always proud to be Canadian.
I am ashamed of the way our country is selling out, blocking progress, and killing the planet intentionally.
Our grandchildren will never forgive us for the grave mistakes that we, today, insist on repeating.
The dollars earned for producing and selling this oil will one day be worthless, and we will have essentially been duped for free.
I'm glad that federal politicians can play ball with each other. I think that's really great. Maybe after all of the air in the world has been burned in combustion chambers, maybe after all the oxygen has been profitabally converted into Sulfur Di-oxide, maybe then the federal politicians will roll over and die. Along with the rest of us.
I found it interesting 3 weeks ago, when an anti-greenpeace poster on the CBC website said that he(she?) idled his/her truck for an hour each day as a silent protest against "greenfreaks."
What I found interesting was that my retort to the comment was blocked by the moderator.
I had suggested that the poster idle their truck inside their own garage, and don't forget to close the door.
I imagine that the post was blocked due to the threat of harm to his/her well-being.
So even the censors can admit that in a closed environment, car exhaust is fatal.
The Earth is no different. There is a fixed, measurable volume that is our atmosphere. If we turn it into exhaust, we die. Period.
why not grow our fuel?
an acre of hemp makes 4 barrels of oil. what a way to put farmers to work, what a way to not only remove our dependence on oil but at the same time clean our air.
thats right. oil creates not only co2 but sulfar. sulfar is suffocating our planet. hemp uses up c02 and doesn't produce sulfar.
think about it.. fossil fuel are dead items. dead provides for more death while a living plant supplies life for so many things.
hemp will provide jobs and YES the technology is there.
can hemp do it alone. no that is where wind, sun and other sources of renewable energy come in.
you may laugh or say i'm wrong but to stay on the same course that we are on will only lead to the end of the world. is that what we want?
think about it people...
whats more important? oil or the planet we live on.
Bob, your column uses words like dirty to describe the oilsands and unproven to describe the technologies to help clean up the emissions from those oilsands, yet in the next articles you advocate support for NASA and Canadian involvement in space programs, which in and of themselves could be seen by some as dirty and using unproven technology.
We all have a part to play in minimizing our environmental impact but the best hope we could have of actually making a difference is setting a realistic and achievable goal, promoting "unproven" technologies, developing long term viable strategies which minimize environmental damage and admitting to ourselves that our economy is dependent on, and will be dependent on, manufacturing big ticket autos, long distance transport, and selling our resources, until such time as we invest in new technologies. Our governments are dependent on oil and gas revenues to support health care and other public goods.
I have met professionals who are dedicated to solving environmental issues, using techniques such as carbon capture and sequestration, better SAGD and less open strip mining, better water usage, focus on ecology, and better reclamation practices - I hope, for my kids sake, that we will see someone cheering for these first attempts to address the environmental consequences of our energy dependence, rather than labelling them an "unproven" stop gap, just as we cheer whenever the space shuttle sends us off into space.
Its just too easy to lament about dirty oil and lack of government action as we wait for our lattes with engines running in the drive through en route to buy subsidized plastic goods imported from Asia from the big box retailer, then popping by the office which has its lights on 24/7.
The main problem isn't dirty oil, which is somebody else's problem, it is that as Canadians we need to develop a culture of minimizing environmental impact across the board, of perceiving that as a competitive advantage (sustainability) and making that our solution, our responsibility, and our accountability, using that to design a smart country and model civilization.
All this typing has me thirsty, I'm off for a coffee...
I find it funny how profits and selfishness are getting in the way of implementing proper long term solutions. Bob's right, our focus on supplying immediate short-term demand has unfortunately diminish any emphasis on long-term sustainable projects for future generations. Why not adapt and fund green technologies now? It's frustrating how there is such a lack of initiative on our Governments part.
I agree with Andy. We need domestic leadership that does more than rally around the oil sands. We have the oil, but there's a high environmental price to be paid for exploiting it. We can't ignore our responsibilities as global citizens because there's a quick buck to be made.
We can change our habits. LEADERSHIP is needed and Canada and other wealthy nations need to show the way. Check out the sciam.com website for how we can change the future for the benfit of future generations.
Promoting the oilsands a month before Copenhagen seems insane. I still have hopenhagen...
As long as the US is bucking the system about climate control and still want our oil, we are getting nowhere.
The oilsands may or may not be a blessing in disguise, as newer cars are already running on electricity (hydrogen fuel cells. The latter, while still needing carbon compounds to manufacture the fuel cell itself and capture (liquid) hydrogen to feed the fuel cell; means that the vehicle will not use the amount of gasoline that is necessary today to achieve the same mileage.
The present transition is not unlike in centuries past, when the world passed from the pure horsepower (carriage) phase into the mechanical era with steam cars, then internal combustion with models from the early 1900s on.
That's where it's at now, two centuries later. Some industries have gone into the energy-saving phase (costs less money); so generally there will less and less demand for carbon products, though they will still be needed.
It remains to be seen if oilsands will play a major part, replacing oil drilling, which seems to be on the wane.
The main issue into all this is POLITICAL, i.e. keeping the US supplied with a "safe" partner (one to which she never hopes to be at war with), and in the style which every American has become accustomed to.
The idea that any Canadian government, under any circiumstance, wouldn't be scrambling to peddle our oil to whomever will buy seems to me stunningly naive, except perhaps to posit the argument as a religious sensitivity of a kind that requires me to check my wits at the door. In full awareness of the wrath attended upon heretics, might I suggest that All our efforts at reducing oil based energy dependence won't amount to a hill of beans unless growing economies, including those of India and China, can be stopped in their tracks. But then I suspect the real environmentalists already know that..
The central problem with the federal government promoting the oilsands export opportunities is that it creates an environment where the official line of the country is to cast uncertainty on global warming, slow adoption of any carbon tax or tariff, and miss the critical opportunity to adjust to peak oil.
The tar sands aren't going to produce enough to provide Canadians with the means to continue as we are today in the face of peak oil.
As a rich country we can actively participate in the transition from fossil fuels that is motivated not only by climate change but also non-renewable resource depletion.
Certainly every Canadian will be at least a passive participant in the effects of peak oil.
We can imagine a future where Canadians and Canadian companies are more efficient and competitive than today with less reliance on oil, or we can imagine continued and repeated shocks to our country with each jump in oil prices.
I've been fortunate to hear David Suzuki speak on a number of occasions, and I will always remember him saying, powerfully, "I believe there is no bucket that can't be filled with enough drops." But thanks to our capitalist free-market economy, it's totally unreasonable to think that individuals will be generally altruistic.
We need to build green incentives into our economy, and we need to protect those incentives.
The power of the drops is in lobbying for political change to force conservation. Thanks Bob for your work toward this end.
Oilsands emissions are actually small. Natural gas is used to separate the oil from the sand. Much more gas is used to heat homes in Alberta. In any case, CO2 is good for plants because they are starved for CO2. Also, more CO2 cannot cause more global warming because infrared absorption is already at the maximum. CO2 absorbs light at 10.5 microns. More CO2 cannot absorb more light at 10.5 microns.
Yet again, a miss-leading left-wing anti-Western liberal slant from the CBC.
The Alberta tar sands have a low foot print than the clear oil crude. Less water and energy is required to extract and transport this oil to the US than from the Middle East.
If you drive a car Bob, you're the cause of pollution not the Alberta tar sands.
The oil sands are not the largest single source of emissions in North America nor in Canada, and not the dirtiest either. The largest source of carbon emissions in Canada is Toronto and the largest single source in North America is Ontario's Nanticoke coal fired power plant. The largest point source of carbon emissions in Alberta is Wabamun's power plant.
As for the dirtiest, again Ontario wins. Nanticoke does not have scrubbers to remove sulphur and nitrogen oxides from its stacks, unlike just about every other thermal power plant in Canada. So if you are talking dirty, Sudbury, Flin Flon and the Ontario coal plants are our biggest polluters.
What is the carbon footprint to launch the Space Shuttle into orbit?
According to Virgin Galactic, the shuttle launch produces about 28 tonnes of CO2 plus 23 tons of harmful particulate matter and nearly 13 tons of hydrochloric acid kill fish and plants within half a mile of the site. The environmental cost per launch is the same as that of New York City over a weekend.
Keep the oil sands and the jobs and can the space program until Virgin finalizes their Spaceship II.
Booperhead,
Shell has invested in Iogen (http://www.iogen.ca/), an Ottawa company that specializes in cellulosic ethanol (non-food feedstock), and Choren (http://www.choren.com/en/), a Germany company working on Biomass-to-Liquids/Fischer-Tropsch/Next-Gen Biodiesel.
Citizen1
The only reasons that the oil sands cannot provide enough for the Canadian economy is because of the NAFTA proportionality clause, and the lack of domestic supply chains (pipelines to the east). Go check your numbers, peak oil doesn't have to affect Canada the way it could affect other countries, but it will for the aforementioned reasons.
the problem is - our carbon energy based economy is not sustainable, anything that can't go on will not go on despite the denials and fervent prayers of the vested interests.
the proponents of the status quo are saying - we will not budge one inch - not on production, not on consumption, not on pollution, not on population (the root cause).
they're saying we need more people on the planet buying more stuff which takes more energy which we are happy to sell you -- the future be damned.
well, the future is damned.
Bob, my god, have you lost all leave of your senses? China and India have all ready said no to signing the pact, and you suggest that we are some how climate criminals.
These damming revelations of how corrupt the IPCC is will not go away. As in watergate follow the money. You will find the corruption.
This whole global warming is a hoax! This is nothing more than a gaint tax grab!! The Global Warming people have been cooking their books for years and now we have the evidence with the leaked papers. Stop wasting our time and money with this stupidity!
Thank you for drawing some attention to an alarmingly ignored issue.
The negative responses to this posting just illustrate the effectiveness of the tar sand/ Canadian oil industry propaganda. It would be most helpful for many of these posters to read up on what is actually going on in Alberta these days.
Since he is the child of an oil man, I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that our Prime Minister is all for expansion at the cost of the environment. I guess this is what he means when he says he supports family values?
Holy Cow! Only 100 months?! Geez, we'd better get to work.
Also, it's nice that it wasn't 103 or 239 months left, 'cause that wouldn't have looked near as pretty on paper. But 100, there's a soundbite.
There seems to be some confusion among the commenters as to the cause of CO2 emissions from tarsands. Firstly, the tar is separated from the sand in process that uses heated water (usually heated by burning natural gas). As well as making large amounts of CO2 from the heating process this produces massive amounts of very polluted water that is currently in unstable holding ponds that leak into the Athabaska River.
Secondly, the "oil" released from the sand is really more like tar, i.e. long chain hydrocarbons, and must be broken down ("cracked") into shorter chains to produce substances like gas. This process also creates very large amounts of CO2, much more than cracking conventional oil. Oil is not only used for fuel: it is the raw material for plastics, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, and many other products. The tar sands may within a generation be the last large source of oil left on Earth. It would be far wiser to leave most of it in the ground for now. Even from an economic point of view, why fire-sale it now for $80 a barrel and destroy the environment when you could conserve the resource and sell it maybe 50 years from now at $300 or $400 a barrel?
Such amazing spin and distortions from a so called "science guy" are disturbing.I suspect a political motivation.
Wendal Grant;
Grow our own fuel? you hippie. And it's Sulfer. Think about how much land will be needed in order to grow enough hemp to feed into the amount of fuel that is consumed, not only by canada, but by the rest of the world. We'd have to tear down major cities to do this haha. Also, with the wind energy and solar panels you need alot of these, look at places that have them set up. It's what 1 wind turbine in toronto powers a block, and look at the size of it.
Lovely. Bob of course, doesn't drive to work and apparently isn't concerned about our standard of living in Canada. All those lovely transfer dollars from Alberta will cease immediately if Bob and his friends (no doubt sipping cappucinos in swank Toronto cafes) have their way about driving the economic engine of Canada into the tank. Of course, who will pay for health care, education, social services and our quality of life? Oh yes - we'll all be employed as tour operators for whale watching......right.
Oil Sands are not the worse element in Canada or the world - but they are in Alberta and for the CBC, ENGOs and social activists - that's all the matters. Drive Alberta's economy (and Canada's lifeline) into the ground at your own peril.
Bob is just another left wing hack employed by the CBC. He wouldn't have a CBC job if he did not criticize Alberta or the Conservative Party. Shame!
" Due to Canada's resistance to the terms of the Agreement". What nonsense! Canada one among 180 countries and with 2% of emissions would not have such influence.
This kind if extreme partisan silliness is childish.
" Due to Canada's resistance to the terms of the Agreement". What nonsense! Canada one among 180 countries and with 2% of emissions would not have such influence.
This kind if extreme partisan silliness is childish.
Pretty interesting blog you've got here. Thanks the author for it. I like such topics and everything that is connected to this matter. BTW, try to add some pics :).