SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Scientists Call for Moratorium on Tar Sands
Group argues that North American governments must consider 'cumulative' costs to environment, human health
Jun 25, 2014
The culmulative effects of tar sands development--from environmental degradation to transportation to emissions from burning--must be determined before Canada or the United States approve any more projects, a group of scientists argue in an op-ed published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
Calling for a binational moratorium, the scientists--representing a number of North American universities including Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Northern Arizona University, the University of Calgary and the University of Waterloo--argue that governments must evaluate tar sands development projects, including the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines, "in the context of broader, integrated energy and climate strategies."
"Anything less demonstrates flawed policies and failed leadership," they write. "With such high stakes, our nations and the world cannot afford a series of ad hoc, fragmented decisions."
The group continues:
When judged in isolation, the costs, benefits and consequences of a particular oil-sands proposal may be deemed acceptable. But impacts mount with multiple projects. The cumulative effects of new mines, refineries, ports, pipelines, railways and a fleet of transoceanic supertankers are often at odds with provincial, state, federal or international laws protecting clean water, indigenous rights, biodiversity and commitments to control carbon emissions.
The scientists say that current debate which presents each pipeline proposal as an "ultimatum" between environmental costs and economic success "artificially restricts discussions to only a fraction of the consequences of oil development."
The letter comes just over a week after the Canadian government approved the construction of Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, which will carry 200 million barrels of tar sands crude each year from Alberta to an export terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia.
"Reform is needed now," the group adds, concluding: "Canada and the United States can avoid the tyranny of incremental decisions -- and the lasting economic and environmental damage that poorly conceived choices will cause."
_____________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
The culmulative effects of tar sands development--from environmental degradation to transportation to emissions from burning--must be determined before Canada or the United States approve any more projects, a group of scientists argue in an op-ed published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
Calling for a binational moratorium, the scientists--representing a number of North American universities including Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Northern Arizona University, the University of Calgary and the University of Waterloo--argue that governments must evaluate tar sands development projects, including the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines, "in the context of broader, integrated energy and climate strategies."
"Anything less demonstrates flawed policies and failed leadership," they write. "With such high stakes, our nations and the world cannot afford a series of ad hoc, fragmented decisions."
The group continues:
When judged in isolation, the costs, benefits and consequences of a particular oil-sands proposal may be deemed acceptable. But impacts mount with multiple projects. The cumulative effects of new mines, refineries, ports, pipelines, railways and a fleet of transoceanic supertankers are often at odds with provincial, state, federal or international laws protecting clean water, indigenous rights, biodiversity and commitments to control carbon emissions.
The scientists say that current debate which presents each pipeline proposal as an "ultimatum" between environmental costs and economic success "artificially restricts discussions to only a fraction of the consequences of oil development."
The letter comes just over a week after the Canadian government approved the construction of Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, which will carry 200 million barrels of tar sands crude each year from Alberta to an export terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia.
"Reform is needed now," the group adds, concluding: "Canada and the United States can avoid the tyranny of incremental decisions -- and the lasting economic and environmental damage that poorly conceived choices will cause."
_____________________
Lauren McCauley
Lauren McCauley is a former senior editor for Common Dreams covering national and international politics and progressive news. She is now the Editor of Maine Morning Star. Lauren also helped produce a number of documentary films, including the award-winning Soundtrack for a Revolution and The Hollywood Complex, as well as one currently in production about civil rights icon James Meredith. Her writing has been featured on Newsweek, BillMoyers.com, TruthDig, Truthout, In These Times, and Extra! the newsletter of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting. She currently lives in Kennebunk, Maine with her husband, two children, a dog, and several chickens.
The culmulative effects of tar sands development--from environmental degradation to transportation to emissions from burning--must be determined before Canada or the United States approve any more projects, a group of scientists argue in an op-ed published Wednesday in the journal Nature.
Calling for a binational moratorium, the scientists--representing a number of North American universities including Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Northern Arizona University, the University of Calgary and the University of Waterloo--argue that governments must evaluate tar sands development projects, including the Keystone XL and Northern Gateway pipelines, "in the context of broader, integrated energy and climate strategies."
"Anything less demonstrates flawed policies and failed leadership," they write. "With such high stakes, our nations and the world cannot afford a series of ad hoc, fragmented decisions."
The group continues:
When judged in isolation, the costs, benefits and consequences of a particular oil-sands proposal may be deemed acceptable. But impacts mount with multiple projects. The cumulative effects of new mines, refineries, ports, pipelines, railways and a fleet of transoceanic supertankers are often at odds with provincial, state, federal or international laws protecting clean water, indigenous rights, biodiversity and commitments to control carbon emissions.
The scientists say that current debate which presents each pipeline proposal as an "ultimatum" between environmental costs and economic success "artificially restricts discussions to only a fraction of the consequences of oil development."
The letter comes just over a week after the Canadian government approved the construction of Enbridge's Northern Gateway pipeline, which will carry 200 million barrels of tar sands crude each year from Alberta to an export terminal in Kitimat, British Columbia.
"Reform is needed now," the group adds, concluding: "Canada and the United States can avoid the tyranny of incremental decisions -- and the lasting economic and environmental damage that poorly conceived choices will cause."
_____________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.