Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Oil Sands Threaten Our Survival, Al Gore Warns
Extracting oil from Alberta's tar sands jeopardizes the survival of our species, says Al Gore.
Former Vice President Al Gore speaks during the Greenbuild International Conference and Expo, Wednesday, Nov. 11, 2009, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Rick Scuteri) "Gas from the tar sands gives a Prius the same carbon footprint as a Hummer," the former U.S. vice-president told the Star in an interview prior to a Toronto speaking engagement scheduled for Tuesday evening.
"I know that doesn't make me popular in Alberta," said the jet-hopping environmental activist, best known for the movie and book An Inconvenient Truth.
"But it's simply a fact. A lot of money is at stake, but a lot of lives and the future of human civilization are also at stake."
If Gore's warnings are heeded, expect housing prices to fall fast and far in Fort McMurray, the northern Alberta boomtown where single-family dwellings sold for a reported average of $629,582 in October thanks to the Athabasca tar sands megaproject.
If not, then you might as well pack your bags for Armageddon, because that is where Gore believes the planet is headed unless humankind radically shifts from carbon-based fuels. Time is short, he warns, and political will in the United States and elsewhere is lagging far behind what's needed.
The U.S. Senate has yet to pass a bill setting tough limits on carbon emissions, for example, something that should have been done by now, according to a prediction Gore makes in his newly released book, a blueprint for planetary salvation titled Our Choice.
Meanwhile, a global conference on climate change, set for Copenhagen early next month, is no longer expected to produce breakthrough agreements restricting the pumping of greenhouse gases into the planet's atmosphere, a practice that continues at what Gore regards as a catastrophic pace.
"Is it disappointing?" he said. "Yes. The pace of negotiations has been slow this year. The stark truth is, at present, the maximum we can imagine to be politically possible still falls far short of the minimum necessary to solve the crisis. We put 90 million tons of CO² into the atmosphere every 24 hours, and the amount is increasing decade by decade. It's not okay."
Still, as he surveys a planet in crisis, Gore also sees reason for optimism. The U.S. House of Representatives has moved to curb carbon emissions, narrowly passing a bill this summer that Gore calls "a very solid first step, if not as tough as I would like."
Republicans have mostly been absent from efforts to draft legislation limiting carbon emissions, but at least one prominent Republican senator, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, has joined the fight and is encouraging others to follow his lead.
And Gore says emerging industrial powers, including Brazil, China and India, are now seriously addressing the challenges of global warming.
"The world is in the early stages of a massive shift away from carbon-based fuels," Gore said. "Slowly but surely, leaders around the world are coming to grips with the fact it would be extremely irresponsible to impose this burden on future generations."
In his new book, Gore explores what sustainable energy sources such as wind and solar power can do to wean humankind from oil and coal, while also creating economic wealth. He is far more skeptical about other vaunted solutions, including nuclear energy and carbon-capture and storage, both of which he regards as uneconomic.
If world leaders follow his blueprint for action, Gore foresees a future that seems almost too good to be true – a planet humming on abundant supplies of clean, affordable energy, achieved at little or no net cost to global prosperity or employment.
In a recent interview, the man who nearly became U.S. president in 2000 conceded the outlook is somewhat more complex, but said he is not sugar-coating the future in order to make it politically palatable.
"Inevitably, a transition like this will advantage and disadvantage some more than others," he said. "But I don't believe it's sugar-coating to say our civilization will be more prosperous and better off."
In his campaign to save the environment, Gore has encountered plenty of critics, many of whom insist the environment is not in need of saving. Some question his use of scientific evidence.
Gore dismisses much of the opposition he faces as "artificially created by large carbon polluters."
Other global-warming deniers might be sincere, he says, but they're wrong.
"Because this crisis is so unprecedented, it triggers the natural tendency we all have to confuse the unprecedented with the improbable."
As for the Athabasca megaproject, Gore has derided Western Canada's oil-sands developments before. In a 2006 interview with Rolling Stone, he called such projects "crazy."
"They have to tear up four tons of landscape, all for one barrel of oil. It is truly nuts. But, you know, junkies find veins in their toes."
By one estimate, Canada's vast oil-sands petroleum reserves provide the country with 15 per cent of the world's oil supply, a share exceeded only by Saudi Arabia.
Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007, Gore is on the road these days promoting his new book.
Despite its title – Our Choice – Gore argues that humans really have no option but to stop treating the atmosphere as "an open sewer."
"It sounds absurdly difficult," he said, "but we really have no choice."
- Posted in
21 Comments so far
Show AllCanada- One of the Worst Environmental Polluters on the Planet and a Global Warming Time Bomb
Canada's environmental record is one of the worst in the industrialized world.
Not unrelated, Canada's treatment of First Nations people is also deplorable. Yet with so much catching up to do both environmentally and with respect to indigenous rights- the country still plans to continue to fully exploit the Alberta's tar sands. The tar sands represent what may be be the world's second largest oil reserve.
Yet, as former Vice-President Al Gore writes, "Gas from the tar sands gives a Prius the same carbon footprint as a Hummer." America's largest source of oil is fast becoming the Alberta tar sands.
Quoting from the article, H2Oil – The Story of the Alberta Tar Sands:
"If the exploitation and extraction of the Alberta tar sands continues, the environmental, social, and human impacts on Alberta will soon reach a crisis point. North America will be covered with pipelines criss-crossing the land from the Arctic to the southern United States, leaving in their wake toxic water basins the size of Lake Ontario and surface mines equal to the land area of Florida."
The world renown environmentalist David Suzuki writes: "We (Canada) are creating an environmental catastrophe that will take centuries to recover from."
However, there may be no recovery, as the extraction of oil from the tar sands makes a catastrophic global contribution to global warming.
Canada is a wealthy country, and as such, there should be no compensation if it chooses not not extract its tar sands. Further, there are no carbon offsets sufficient to address the damage that is being done by the extraction of tar sands.
What utter hypocrisy that we ask developing nations to forbear development of their forests and coal reserves- as one of the world's leading industrialized nations proceeds to engage in the worst pollution project of all times. Canada needs to be condemned for its environmental policies throughout the world. As for its greedy and oil needy neighbor to the South- no words can begin to describe its utter lack of environmental responsibility.
It is great for Gore to be clear and straight forward in condemning the vast destruction being done by the tar sands operations in Alberta. Now when will he put his focus on the vile devastation of mountain top removal for coal in the US. Or speak up about the ever creeping proposals for "oil" shale development in Colorado, Utah and Wyoming. Shale is the bedmate to tar sands in being a highly dirty and environmentally destructive operation to produce a low quality product. Thirty years ago the big oil companies and their federal buddies were pushing for a vast synthetic fuels program to be subsidized by tens of billions of tax dollars. The effort crashed as global oil prices dropped and the convoluted net energy loss of shale development became starkly clear. But shale boosters keep pushing for development financed with vast federal subsidies. The time to nip such insanity in the bud is before it ever gets funds.
So is Gore willing to be equally critical of destructive energy programs back here on his home turf?
Thank you Al Gore, for highlighting one of the worst environmental disasters of all time--tar sands oil extraction--a very unfortunate consequence of a temporary increase in oil prices.
I don't think it's fair to say Gore is pointing fingers at Canada while not addressing problems at home. One man can't focus on every problem---and he has engaged in plenty of domestic efforts as well.
gore is busted
But the power-class wants the project. So the project will be happening.
The power-class also wants you in chains or dead.
Gore is busted
ubrew12
(what's that called? alliteration? probably just repetition...)
We can criticise Gore all we like, but he is at least being heard, and he is about the only well known figure making a noise.
Regardless of his motives we should at least applaud his intent.
I like the junkie reference. Really, it is beyond reason that our leaders are still harping on about schools and child benefits (UK) when the greatest catastrophe faced by modern man is already arching over us and beginning to block the sun.
thank you...I too, have a hard time discussing, for example, 'education'...education within what narrowly defined scope? Actual education would force confrontation with, and reparations for, our suicidal business practices, not delude the young by ignoring or ridiculing valid questions about the planet or religion or politics or economics while, at the same time, encouraging them to 'come on in, the water's fine', once older...
we don't do education, we do indoctrination, and to address it as education is incorrect...
from the article:
"The world is in the early stages of a massive shift away from carbon-based fuels," Gore said. "Slowly but surely, leaders around the world are coming to grips with the fact it would be extremely irresponsible to impose this burden on future generations."
is it time to stop alluding to 'future generations' as the bearers of the burden created by our current habits? the consequences, while certainly not yet as dramatic as they will one day be, are already underway...my generation, and my parents', and my childrens', are bearing the burden, even now...and this is only the beginning of what is sure to be a very rough ride...
given the exponential nature of growth and consumption, and the devastating effects, both physically and chemically, of our current habits upon the other plants and animal sharing our only living world, it would not be foolish to ask just how many generations might be considered as yet to come...
we cannot digest oil, or plastic or rubber...we cannot survive on electricity...we need biological material...we need what was here before...
sorry to go on, but much harder to gain support for sacrifices in the name of 'future generations' than to point to damage already done and show direct connection to current habits and crises...and current citizens...
all for the ownership of property...
Al Gore is a gutless wonder. see 2000 election. He should be raising Holy Hell and has the resources to do it.
Just a big turd.
Shame on you.
You should be extremely harsh in criticizing Bush, Cheney, Rove, etc. for doing IMMENSE amounts of damage to America.
In FACT, no one EVER has done as much ACTUAL damage to America as Bush, Cheney, Rove, Gonzales, Rumsfeld and those working closely with them.
(People think of Hitler, but he did not do nearly as much actual damage to America as the above mentioned scum. Hitler DID do immense damage to many countries, but not to America.)
I am referring to damage in areas such as civil liberties, the economy (a trillion plus WASTED on the wars alone), the environment, international-relations damage, war crimes, etc.
You are upset with Al Gore? For what? Trying real hard to improve the environmental well-being of the world?
Putting it mildly, you are crazy.
Have YOU done more?
Gore is the person who has done the most for the environment.
Prescient, scientific, devoted and persevering for the environment.
It is absurd to hold him to impossible standards.
It is absurd to take the man who has done so much good and insult and degrade him for this or that flaw.
You are right about that. He never should have conceded 2000. Actually, I'm kidding. I can't know what he felt about 2000, but I felt at the time that he did the right thing. Republicans basically said they were ready to trash the country, the constitution, the Supreme Court, AND the democracy to get what they wanted. He rightly gave in to their hostage-taking.
The WRONG thing he did was try to distance himself from Clinton during the campaign: he was too proud about that, and it cost him the election (and, hate to say it to many on CD, Nader did also. Sorry folks, but what part of 'winner-takes-all' democracy do you just not get?).
His work on GW is impeccable. Honestly, given the invective that is daily thrown his way, I would have given up years ago. Like him, I would position myself (and have) to make $$$ when the sheepish American people finally wake up to the fact that without serious alternative-energy investment, they are scr***wed big-time!!!
But his yeomans work on GW? That really DOES deserve the Peace Prize. There's no way I'd continue to expose myself and my family to THAT level of hatred.
I AM sorry to hear about the Tar Sands. I actually was seriously thinking of working there about two years ago. I hope they can still extract nat gas from the sands without the CO2 costs Gore has mentioned.
One more thing, for thoughtful people to consider.......
(In the following, I include CO2, methane, etc. as a form of pollution.)
In the future, if the world, as a whole, keeps polluting the SAME amount as today (not less, and not more), then as the population of the world increases, each person (on average) would have to pollute LESS.
And, as the years go by, if the world as a whole keeps using exactly the same amount of petroleum per day, then each person (on average) would have to use less and less (per day) as the world's population increases.
The result is that if each person, on average, gets just a little better at polluting less and using less, the total of the world's pollution and using natural resources will NOT be reduced. The "slack" will be taken up by the increasing world population.
I am confused about how much CO2 is being pumped into the atmosphere annually. Gore writes that 90 million tons per day are being put into the atmosphere. 90x364=32.7 billion tons per year. The latest issue of National Geographic states that 9 billion tons per year are being put into the atmosphere. How much CO2 is being put into the atmosphere?
Neither number is good. The National Geographic article states that Earth can currently remove 5 billion tons per year.
According to the USGS, the human source is 30 billion tons
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
and its about 130 times what natural sources (volcanoes) put out.
Thank you. Is there a similar reference for the amount of CO2 that vegetation and rock are currently removing from the atmosphere? And the amount the ocean can remove without acidification?
As a Canadian, I implore Americans to stop buying oil from Alberta's Oil Sands. Albertans are a blight on the Canadian landscape: pro-gun,pro-oil, pro-Bush, and pro-war. Hurt them where it counts, and stop buying their dirty oil. I would prefer that Americans just take them over, like they did the Alaskan Panhandle, but that would not solve the environmental problem of the oil sands.
Anyway, I'm one Canadian would be happy to see a boycott-Alberta movement started up south of the border.
I agree with Mr. Gore and then ask him to speak out against the construction of the Alberta Clipper pipeline which got the go ahead just a couple months ago. This pipeline being built in the U.S. is suppsodly to carry bitumen crude from these very tarsands to the US. It is an environmental travesty and totally undermines any credibility the U.S. hopes to have in Copenhagen or anywhere else regarding being serious about addressing global climate change.