Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Obama's Tar Sand Trap
The tar sands of Canada constitute a deadly threat to our planet. The US and Canada must agree not to develop them
President Barack Obama has committed to fight global warming. In just his first few weeks in office, the president has already taken steps to move America in a direction that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The most important step so far is the indication that tailpipe emissions will be regulated as needed for improved fuel efficiency. Similar steps will be needed to improve energy efficiencies in buildings and homes.
In my opinion, and in the view of most economists, these steps must be accompanied by a rising price on carbon emissions, if we hope to stabilise atmospheric composition. Incentives must be provided for economic development that steadily replaces outdated fossil fuel based energy infrastructure. Such transformation is needed if we are to preserve for future generations the remarkable planet that we inherited from our elders.
Now Obama is on his first foreign trip - destination Canada. Few realise that Canada is America's number-one source of oil. And, unlike energy conversations in prior administrations, science and the environment are expected to be an important part of the agenda. Let us hope so.
The Canadian press is full of speculation that the Canadian government will push for special treatment and protections from global warming regulation of its fastest growing source of greenhouse gas emissions: the tar sands oil development in Alberta, where much of Canada's oil is derived. Such protection would be disastrous for life on our planet.
The tar sands of Canada constitute one of our planet's greatest threats. They are a double-barrelled threat. First, producing oil from tar sands emits two-to-three times the global warming pollution of conventional oil. But the process also diminishes one of the best carbon-reduction tools on the planet: Canada's Boreal Forest.
This forest plays a key role in the global carbon equation by serving as a major storehouse for terrestrial carbon - indeed, it is believed to store more carbon per hectare than any other ecosystem on Earth. When this pristine forest is strip mined for tar sands development, much of its stored carbon is lost. Canada's Boreal Forest is also the reservoir for a large fraction of North America's clean, fresh water, home to some five billion migratory birds, and some of largest remaining populations of caribou, moose, bear and wolves on the planet.
As a climate scientist, I am focused on what levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide can be considered safe. In the past few years, based on increasingly detailed information about the history of the Earth and observations of ongoing climate change, a startling conclusion has become apparent. The safe level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is no more than 350 parts per million (ppm), if we wish the diversity of other species on the planet to survive - as well as "amenities" that humans require, such as fresh water supplies, stable coastlines and a normal degree of extreme weather events.
Unfortunately, because of our fossil fuel use, our planet is already at 385 ppm. It is still practical, with improved agricultural and forestry practices to get future carbon dioxide levels below 350 ppm, provided we phase out emissions from the largest source, coal, in coming decades. It is a tough challenge to develop the needed renewable energies of the future, but it is doable. Together with improved energy efficiency we can move to the clean world of the future, beyond fossil fuels.
So an underlying fact has become crystal clear. The horrendously carbon-intensive unconventional fossil fuels, tar shale in the US and tar sands in Canada, cannot be developed. The carbon emissions from tar shale and tar sands would initiate a continual unfolding of climate disasters over the course of this century. We would be miserable stewards of creation. We would rob our own children and grandchildren.
Now is a critical moment in the history of our planet. The US and Canadian governments must agree that the unconventional fossil fuels, tar sands and tar shale, will not be developed. They will thus send a message that their statements recognising "a planet in peril" are not empty rhetoric. They will provide hope to young people and nature. We can preserve our heritage with its remarkable diversity of life.
- Posted in
11 Comments so far
Show AllI think it an impossible goal to ignore new sources of oil given our addiction to the stuff, unless and until we put great effort into the alternative energy sources in new and emerging technologies.
Just as Jack Kennedy mobilized the nation to get an American on the moon Obama should use a similar tack to get our green energy needs moving forward. I believe that the economy and the planet will both benefit greatly from a new industry based upon greening our planet. The USA could become a world leader in such technologies, restoring a manufacturing base sorely needed and receiving great infusions of needed cash. Putting many, many folks to work is a very nice biproduct as well.
Will this be done? I have my doubts.
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell
While I agree the oil sands projects are "dirty", I disagree with stopping oil production in the sands. Currently, production is what - about 1 to 1.2 million barrels per day with the hope of getting to around 3.5 to 4 million barrels per day by 2020. The problem with the oil sands is the energy required to produce something resembling oil, it takes the equivalent of 1 barrel of energy (natural gas) to produce 1.5 to 2 barrels of oil. The carbon footprint of this is awful. A normal, conventional well in the Middle East requires only 1 barrel of energy to produce 30 barrels of oil. As it stands right now, there isn't enough energy available to reach the lofty production goals with the resources and technology currently available. An option being considered may help solve some of these conditions - the nuclear option.
In short, oil production in the oil sands is absolutely necessary, whether we like it or not, for many, many reasons. Oil production is in decline throughout the non OPEC nations, even within OPEC the only nation having any meaningful swing production is Saudi Arabia. Until the miraculous oil alternative(s) comes along, it is what it is. Currently there is nothing even remotely ready on the horizon which can replace or augment oil in any meaningful way.
They're TAR SANDS, and developing them using nuclear power to cook the tar is insane.
Environmentalists prefer Tar Sands, oil companies prefer Oil Sands but really - they are the same thing. Considering nuclear power is NOT insane, it is on the table as an alternative to natural gas.
You've contributed nothing with your above post - give us something that addresses the problems of oil production AND environmental concerns for the oil/tar sands.
It's called "Bitumen":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitumen
Here is "Tar":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tar
A month or so ago, Harper was ganged up on by four party leaders during two televised debates - and Harper looked much more comfortable under those circumstances than during his visit with President Obama. Sometimes during the scrum that followed their meeting (see video especially reporter questions), Harper looked like he was practicing the dance moves for Mr Roboto - he did not look comfortable.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090218/obama_visit_090219/20090219?hub=TopStories
Furthermore, as Ish pointed out, Harper was appearing to agree with things that he had vehemently opposed all his life (no small accomplishment on Obama's part):
[QUOTE]The wildly-popular Obama used his trademark charm and openness to repeatedly maneuver Harper into saying, or at least appearing to agree with, things for which he would have blasted domestic opponents. To appear onside with Obama, he even had to say a few things that stretched truth or credibility.
The focus on clean and renewable energy was unusual for Harper, who, despite his own close ties to the oil industry, painted himself as a champion of climate change action in the face of American obstruction. "Canada has had great difficulty developing an effective regulatory regime alone in the context of a integrated continental economy," he said. "It's very hard to have a tough regulatory system here when we are competed with - competing with an unregulated economy south of the border."[/QUOTE]
http://www.harperindex.ca/ViewArticle.cfm?Ref=00192
The last comment has led some to accuse Harper of throwing Bush under the bus in an attempt to get close to Obama. The only explanation for Harper's about face came later in the day with the following comment:
“It doesn’t matter whose right or wrong in a Canadian and American dispute, we lose.” – Stephen Harper, during interview after visiting with Barack Obama
http://www.cbc.ca/national/blog/special_feature/the_obama_visit/interview_with_stephen_harper_1.html
>>>Vaudree wrote: Furthermore, as Ish pointed out, Harper was appearing to agree with things that he had vehemently opposed all his life (no small accomplishment on Obama's part)....
Harper: "It's very hard to have a tough regulatory system here when we are competed with - competing with an unregulated economy south of the border."
It's astounding - only a politician can do this kind of about-face. I wonder if he was counting on Obama's apparent "lack" of international experience and the short memory of people.
"Since those fools produce nuclear power without having the slightest idea of what to do with its toxic by-products"...
"The Final Warning" by James Patterson
Extracting oil from tar sands is even more stupid than feeding vegetables to animals to extract protein from their sizzling, succulent carcasses.
It's worse than sacrificing corn to make ethanol.
Listen to Dr. Hansen, and study his work.
I think he's being generous to say we might have a few decades to figure it out and fix it. I hope I'm wrong.
I have evaluated "Heavy Oil" projects for 3 decades and can confirm Hansen's figure for the carbon footprint being 2-3 times that of conventional (light) oil.
However, not all Heavy Oil deposits are as poor quality as that in Alberta, nor do they necessarily sit under Boreal Forests (e.g. California Kern River or San Joaquin deposits). It is not exactly fair to compare them with the Canadian Oil Sands.
Coal has a carbon footprint significantly worse than that of Heavy Oil. Hansen can hardly criticize the exploitation of Heavy Oil deposits, as long as the US continues to utilize coal or, IMO, nuclear energy, the use of which has different, though equally horrendous consequences.
Having said all that, the above controversy will soon become MOOT because there is a new "Messiah" technology at hand which can capture and convert so-called "waste heat" as well as other forms of renewable energy into electricity at costs significantly below any alternative, renewable or otherwise.
Read about it at this URL:
scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=14&idContribution=1338
If any of you has Dr. Hansen's ear, please bring this technology to his attention, because somehow I doubt he will be reading this comment, nor will the average Email get in front of his eyes.
For those interested in what was, for me at least, a new technology, and, again like me, are less than competent to read and understand "heavy shit" I would suggest this url as a place to find comprehensible explanations in layman's terms:
http://www.vortexengine.ca/index.shtml
"Most people would sooner die than think, in fact they do so." Bertrand Russell