Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Canada's Dirty Secret
Canada's dirty secret Despite its environmentally friendly reputation, Canada's efforts on climate change rank last among the G8 nations
Canada has come last on a WWiF scorecard of G8 countries' efforts against climate change. That news would once have elicited at least a slightly surprised response. For several decades, Canada managed to present itself as the friendly giant of environmental issues. The 1989 Protocol on CFCs, an early turning point in combating the depletion of the ozone layer, was born in Montreal, and American environmental campaigners like Al Gore are always quick to heap praise on their northern neighbour.
But these days, Canada is looking increasingly like the dirty one of G8. The WWF report noted that Canada is one of the few countries on the scorecard whose emissions are still rising, and that Canada's Conservative government isn't doing enough to combat climate change.
Maybe some of Canada's new bad-guy image on environmental issues is just a by-product of America's new green image. Obama's presidency was always going to bump the US up a few places on environmental scorecards, almost just out of gratitude that America has at least promised not to so flagrantly and unapologetically deplete the world's natural resources.
But Obama isn't why Canada is losing its green reputation. The real reason lies in the vast Alberta oil sands. In 2008, Alberta's economically recoverable reserves were placed at 173 billion barrels, meaning that only Saudi Arabia outstrips Canada on oil reserves. But unlike Saudi Arabia, in Alberta the oil is literally in the sand. To dig it up and refine it is a process far higher in emissions than the processing of Saudi Arabian oil, and is destroying much of Alberta's northern Boreal forest along the way.
The response to the report in Canada has been less hand-wringing than one might expect. Some dismiss the finding by pointing out that even other environmental organisations have problems with WWF. Others argue that surveys like the WWF's are just penalising countries like Canada and Russia for their geographic realities - smaller countries keep their emissions down by importing oil from Canada, then criticise Canada for producing it, and so on.
On top of the recession's effect on plans for the oil sands, defenders argue that Obama's cap-and-trade proposals would severely impact Canadian oil production because the proposal will heavily penalise those who ship Canadian oil sand bitumen to the United States, given that refining the raw bitumen is so energy-intensive.
But Canada isn't being punished for its geographic reality. It is finally being called out for presenting itself as environmentally friendly, while under the Conservative government green issues have been completely sidelined, if not derided. Before becoming prime minister, Stephen Harper implied that the science of climate change was "tentative and contradictory", called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" and ranted that an "army of Canadians" was needed to defeat it. While he has proposed "made in Canada" solutions to cutting carbon emissions, Harper's main actions have been to cut programmes that promoted renewable energy like wind power. Even plans for the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver risk causing environmental damage to rare forests in the nearby Eagle Ridge Bluffs.
Vancouver is consistently voted one of the world's most liveable cities, and the Canadian government intends to use the Olympics to showcase Canada's pleasant, fresh-aired way of life. But the price Canada is paying to maintain its "friendly giant" facade is increasingly being paid for by the environment.
The fact that Obama's Clean Energy and Security Act will, if passed by Congress, disproportionately hurt oil companies working with Albertan oil sands may feel like American hypocrisy to Canadians who have long watched the US's profligate environmental destruction go unchecked. But while Harper continues to disappoint on his commitments to the environment, someone has to play the bad cop to Canada.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
14 Comments so far
Show Allcanada should just be honest .. if your apart of the G8 you should not hide anything behind your fellow nations.. thats my opinion
The author notes the argument about foreign usage of Canadian and Russian petro resources, but without actually refuting it, simply declares that "Canada isn't being punished for its geographic reality."
Perhaps "punished" is the wrong word, but geographic and climatological realites in countries like Canada and Russia cannot be dismissed so easily when considering the issues involved. In addition to resource exportation, such factors as transportation distances, population distribution and basic human survival needs in cold climates aren't entirely insignificant. Nor, in Canada's case at least, are imperial influences exerted through puppets like its current "Mini-Me" government.
"transportation distances, population distribution"
Canada's poor transportation distances is a result of suburbanization, and not of being a vast country. The high oil use is not because Vancouver is so far from Halifax, it's because Port Coquitlam is so far from its Vancouver jobs, and its residents live so far from each other.
The only people Obama's Clean Energy and Security Act will punish is the American people. It's lahgfable to say it will hurt energy producers or any business.....the cost will simply be passed on.
This is a cure looking for a disease that is not there. And the worst part is, it doesn't even do anything for the believers. Nada. No effect on Climate Change, no real effect on carbon emissions.
This is part of the most shameful policy push I've ever seen. Would that I could take back my vote.
Henry8, three cheers for you plus I offer you a free pizza and a beer for not falling for all that silly climate change baloney. Hey, you can still take back your vote. Vote Libertarian in 2012 and freedom and power will be returned to the people. The power is yours !
Psst, it's not just the oil. Back in the 60s and 70s Canada worked hard to protect its water resources as well as the build the 'green' reputation it no longer deserves. Today, it's not just the oil industry that gets to use fresh water as its dumping point for toxic waste. The mining companies get to dump tailings into fresh water lakes from sea to sea.
The gov't also works hard at restricting the development of things like electric cars that could be used in cities, but as they're not that good for driving hundreds of clicks on highways they're not allowed to be sold...
They claim that they're in favour of using renewable energy, but set up barriers to those who've got the ability to use solar, wind or other technologies that prevent them from actually selling the product to the market. Only the biggest energy companies are favoured.
It's not just the tories who are pulling this crap either.
It's definitely not just the tories. It appears that even Canada's New Democratic Party has sold out many of its former principles. Its CCF predecessors and founders must be spinning in their graves. Maybe the Bloc Quebecois should widen its focus and consider running a county-wide campaign.
This is not a dirty little secret, Harper has always been pro-Alberta Oil even back before his Reform/Alliance days. Iggy seems to be kissing up to the Sands as well.
I don't think that the Environment was as big a deal when the CCF was around. "Make This Your Canada" written by David Lewis and Scott in 1943 was more about human rights issues, in door plumbing and electricity and wage issues than the environment. There was some environmental concern but not as much as today.
There is a different between the Federal NDP and the various Provincial arms of the party and between Manitoba's Gary Doer (whose focus is Hydro) and Saskatchewan's Dwain Lingenfelter, for example.
There is an SPP meeting with the Three Amigos in Guadalajara on August 8-9, pass it on!
Its no secret. The tar sands didn't become economic until oil went up beyond $40-50 a barrel. The site looks like a moonscape and the energy required for this one project totally impairs Canada's ability to reduce CO2 emissions.
I suppose we could just lock it all in, but guess where all the screaming would come from?
Canada has the largest area of protected lands in the world , some 10 percent ot its landmass.
Unfortuantley most of this was put into parklands YEARS ago by peopl eof much greater vision. Personally I would like to see these areas tripled at minimum.
People might be interested to know that the Country that has protected the most of its territory via Parklands and reserves as a percentage is Venezuala.
Fully 70 percent.
I know a lot of people here have HEARD about the Tarsands or have seen pictures of it. Neither of these can truly do justice to the scale of the utter destruction. It very likely the ugliest place I have ever been and I was 14 when I first moved up there.
WAY back then it was beautiful country.
And this is to be the "greenest" Olympics??? Too bad the IOC did not have the backbone to intervene. Everything for show and lots, lots, lots of money for the IOC. Pitty Canadian taxpayers...they'll be paying for this for a very long time. I think it is time to put an END to these expensive and unaffordable shows.
"GwNorth July 17th, 2009 9:39 pm
Canada has the largest area of protected lands in the world , some 10 percent ot its landmass.
Unfortuantley most of this was put into parklands YEARS ago by peopl eof much greater vision. Personally I would like to see these areas tripled at minimum."
Unfortunate greater vision, eh? You'd like something people of much greater vision did but which you say is unfortunate to be tripled? I appreciate greater vision and would prefer that unfortunate things didn't happen, much less get tripled. Maybe you meant fortunately, instead of unfortunately?
GWNorth:
"I know a lot of people here have HEARD about the Tarsands or have seen pictures of it. Neither of these can truly do justice to the scale of the utter destruction. It very likely the ugliest place I have ever been and I was 14 when I first moved up there."
You needn't be so negative. There have been some good very articles, photographs, and some (I suppose) video footage that's been very good. I read some good articles from a writer, an investigative reporter for SacBee a few years ago, or maybe a little longer; however, I recently did a Web search to try to find the articles and did find one or two, but I don't think they're the ones I read some years back. There reporter had written up a very good investigative report, showing some pictures, but seriously treating the topic of the widespread toxic pollution caused by this tar sands exploitation. According to his article, the toxic pollution's heaviest impact is in the vicinity of the tar sands operations, but also stretches all the way to the border with the U.S. and then down into one or two of the northern U.S. states, there. And it's extremely toxic; creating deadly ponds, waters, where the waters were previously healthy. It kills birds that use the waters there, but I think this gravity of deadliness is in the vicinity of the tar sands operations.
It'd be more shocking when we're there to see it with our own eyes, but there've been some good articles and some very good pictures, which tell readers and viewers much enough about the gravity of the situation. It's a real nightmare, horrific.
I had a similar impression when seeing some aerial photos taken from distance of open-pit gold mining in Indonesia, a part of it, and that was very destructive business going on there. Just from the photos, alone, albeit also with some explanation of what viewers were seeing, I wouldn't hesitate to be opposed to such mining operations. They destroyed a major amount of forest there, and that's something I don't support. Not being close-up pictures, however, the scene was not as shocking as the photos I've seen of the Alberta tar sands area, for those were evidently taken very close up.
There probably are some good articles and photos at www.dominionpaper.ca and surely some other websites, while I don't know what th others would be. We don't get enough news media coverage of the environmental impact from exploiting Alberta's tar sands, but that's also true of environmental destruction and pollution of serious scale in other parts of this planet.
Greenpeace and, I suppose anyway, FoE must have some good information, including photographic. Maybe even cbc.ca has some good content on this topic. CBC's Fifth Estate, f.e., should certainly cover this topic and do it well. But CBC depends on funds from government, I believe, and if this is true, then the government is corporatist-run, -manipulated, ..., so perhaps CBC wouldn't have provided a good documentary on the Alberta tar sands.
We can't possibly all go to this area of Alberta; I can't even go to Alberta, at all, not having funds for this. So we should hope that there are some good reporters providing qualitative investigative reporting on this environmental horror, as well as other environmental horrors. We get some good reports about the Bhopal, India, matter, but I don't know that we've gotten any reporting visually showing the impact; although that's only if there is visible or sufficient visible enviornmental impact in Bhopal. Maybe it's an impact that's only or mostly in terms of human health, there; while the photographic and video evidence of the impact from tar sands, open-pit mining, mountaintop removal, operations tell us a lot, because these ops majorly alter the landscape(ing).
>>Unfortunate greater vision, eh? You'd like something people of much greater vision did but which you say is unfortunate to be tripled? I appreciate greater vision and would prefer that unfortunate things didn't happen, much less get tripled. Maybe you meant fortunately, instead of unfortunately
No..the unfortunaelty is due to the fact that THOSE people who had that vision seem to be in short supply today.
Everybody went wild with cheer for Canada when it made promise after promise at Kyoto to reduce greenhouse gases. Nobody paid any attention to the fact that Canada never did anything to follow through.