<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
   <title>Elizabeth Shope's Blog: Moving Beyond Oil</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/" />
   <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/atom.xml" />
   <id>tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/eshope//226</id>
   <updated>2010-03-05T22:32:39Z</updated>
   
   <generator uri="http://www.sixapart.com/movabletype/">Movable Type Enterprise 1.52</generator>

<entry>
   <title>It’s only like adding 20 million cars to the roads, eh?</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/its_only_like_adding_20_millio.html" />
   <id>tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2010:/blogs/eshope//226.5488</id>
   
   <published>2010-03-05T22:19:14Z</published>
   <updated>2010-03-05T22:32:39Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[Some of the individuals and companies advocating that we should use more tar sands oil make the argument that tar sands doesn&rsquo;t increase our greenhouse gas emissions that much. &ldquo;The environmentalists are exaggerating,&rdquo; they say. Sometimes, we like to make...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>Elizabeth Shope</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="Moving Beyond Oil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="430" label="canada" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="2787" label="climate" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="3742" label="dirtyfuels" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="9164" label="keystonexl" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="1428" label="oilsands" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="198" label="tarsands" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/">
      <![CDATA[<p>Some of the individuals and companies advocating that we should use more tar sands oil make the argument that tar sands doesn&rsquo;t increase our greenhouse gas emissions <em>that</em> much. &ldquo;The environmentalists are exaggerating,&rdquo; they say.</p>
<p>Sometimes, we like to make people aware that producing a barrel of synthetic crude oil from tar sands causes around three to five times the carbon dioxide emissions of producing a barrel of conventional crude oil. That&rsquo;s pretty terrible. And unfortunately, it&rsquo;s true. It&rsquo;s based on data from <a href="http://www.transportation.anl.gov/modeling_simulation/GREET/index.html">GREET</a>, <a href="http://www.ghgenius.ca/">NRCan's GHGenius v. 3.13</a>, and the <a href="http://www.epa.gov/OMS/renewablefuels/420d09001.pdf">EPA</a>.</p>
<p>But what the industry comes back with is: This three-to-five times number is misleading. The <em>lifecycle </em>emissions are what you have to look at, and those are only [and let me repeat, this is an industry-proclaimed number] 10% greater than conventional oil. Canada is friendly, so we should definitely use this oil. (There are a lot of other arguments made around other issues, but this is one of the big ones around greenhouse gases &ndash; that the emissions are just not that bad.)</p>
<p>This is a poor assessment on several levels. First, while some of the most efficient surface mining methods of extracting tar sands cause lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions 10% greater than conventional oil, many of the <em>in-situ</em> operations&mdash;where the ground is heated with steam for several years in order to melt the tar-like oil enough so that it can flow out&mdash;cause lifecycle emissions that are 30% greater. Currently, about half of the tar sands production is from mining, and half <em>in-situ</em>; the trend is towards using more <em>in-situ</em>. So on average, tar sands have lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions that are closer to 20% greater than conventional oil; simply reporting the best value (10%) against the worst conventional crude oil emissions is misleading PR&mdash;not scientific.</p>
<p>Okay, so 20% still doesn&rsquo;t sound like so much to you? If you do the math, it turns out that replacing 3 million barrels per day (mbd)* of conventional oil with tar sands oil would cause 120 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year.**</p>
<p>Sounds like a lot? That&rsquo;s because it is. According to GREET, the average car travelling 12,000 miles per year contributes 5.8 metric tons of global warming pollution to the atmosphere. So adding 120 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year is <strong>equivalent to adding over 20 million cars to the road</strong> &ndash; and that&rsquo;s a low-end estimate. For some context, this is <a href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs06/htm/mv1.htm">approximately the number of automobiles in California</a> and over double the number of cars in Texas, which has the second highest number of cars in any U.S. state.</p>
<p>There are many other reasons not to develop and import tar sands oil that you can read about in my colleagues&rsquo; blogs: The <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/sclefkowitz/tar_sands_oil_trial_underway_c.html">destruction of migratory bird habitat</a> in the Boreal Forest that it causes, <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lizbb/the_tar_sands_pollution_delive.html">the increases in air and water pollution tar sands refining will cause</a>, and the fact that it will force us to continue our reliance on expensive fossil fuels to name a few. But even that aside, the climate implications are NOT negligible.</p>
<p>So next time somebody says, &ldquo;well, tar sands isn&rsquo;t that bad because it&rsquo;s only 20% more carbon dioxide emissions than conventional oil,&rdquo; ask them if they&rsquo;d be comfortable saying the following sentence: &ldquo;It&rsquo;s only like adding 20 million cars to the roads, eh?&rdquo;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p>* If the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline gets permitted by the Department of State to bring 900,000 barrels per day (bpd) of tar sands oil to the United States, we would have the capacity to be importing 3 mbd of tar sands oil (According to Pembina Institute analysis, current imports = 800,000 bpd. <a href="http://www.transcanada.com/keystone/keystone_pipeline.html">Keystone capacity will ultimately be 590,000 bpd</a>. <a href="http://www.enbridge-expansion.com/expansion/main.aspx?id=1218">Enbridge Alberta Clipper plans to have an ultimate capacity of 800,000 bpd</a>. And <a href="http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf?Open">TransCanada has requested a permit for 900,000 bpd for Keystone XL</a>. Add that all up, and you get just over 3 mbd.).</p>
<p>** For all you numerically inclined people out there, here are my calculations to get to 120 million metric tons of CO2e per year: Conventional gasoline, according to GREET, causes 91 grams of carbon dioxide equivalent greenhouse gases for every megajoule of energy (91g CO2e/MJ). Tar sands, on average, causes 111g CO2e/MJ. So the difference in global warming pollution between tar sands and conventional oil is 20g CO2e/MJ. There are around 5840 MJ of energy in every barrel of gasoline.</p>
<p>How much greenhouse gas pollution does this amount to if we replace 3 million bpd of conventional oil with tar sands oil?</p>
<p>20g CO2e/MJ * 5840 MJ/bbl * 3,000,000 bbl/day * 365 days/yr * 1 metric ton/1,000,000g = 127,896,000 metric tons CO2e/year.</p>
<p>I&rsquo;m going to be conservative, round down, and call this 120 million metric tons of CO2e per year from replacing 3 mbd of conventional oil with tar sands.</p>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>
<entry>
   <title>Avaaz Action Factory&apos;s Harper-Obama-tar sands milkshake action a success</title>
   <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/avaaz_action_factorys_harperob.html" />
   <id>tag:switchboard.nrdc.org,2009:/blogs/eshope//226.4159</id>
   
   <published>2009-09-16T23:45:54Z</published>
   <updated>2009-09-26T20:43:42Z</updated>
   
   <summary><![CDATA[President Obama sips on a tar sands milkshake through a large straw with the words "Clipper Pipeline" neatly painted onto it.&nbsp; The milkshake asks Obama, "How does it taste?"&nbsp; He doesn't think it's very yummy.&nbsp; On the other side of...]]></summary>
   <author>
      <name>Elizabeth Shope</name>
      
   </author>
         <category term="Moving Beyond Oil" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
         <category term="Solving Global Warming" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#category" />
   
   <category term="7498" label="actionfactory" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="3742" label="dirtyfuels" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="7497" label="harper" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="4123" label="obama" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="1428" label="oilsands" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   <category term="198" label="tarsands" scheme="http://www.sixapart.com/ns/types#tag" />
   
   <content type="html" xml:lang="en" xml:base="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/">
      <![CDATA[<p>President Obama sips on a tar sands milkshake through a large straw with the words "Clipper Pipeline" neatly painted onto it.&nbsp; The milkshake asks Obama, "How does it taste?"&nbsp; He doesn't think it's very yummy.&nbsp; On the other side of the milkshake stands a hairy, Carbon Bigfoot Prime Minister Harper, who grunts eagerly, in hopes that Obama will drink more of the milkshake.</p>
<p><img src="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/eshope/media/Harper%20and%20Obama%20sipping%20tar%20sands%20milkshake.JPG" alt="Avaaz action Harper Obama &amp; tar sands milkshake" title="Avaaz action Harper Obama &amp; tar sands milkshake" width="267" height="200" /></p>
<p>This morning, I observed the <a href="http://dc.actionfactories.org/">Avaaz Action Factory</a>'s street theater about tar sands and the Harper-Obama meeting that occurred this morning at the White House.&nbsp; Full disclosure: I have several friends in the Action Factory and have been hearing about their actions and skits all summer, and have been somewhat jealous that I could not participate.&nbsp; I did, however manage to bring pumpkin muffins to them at <a href="http://dc.actionfactories.org/2009/08/17/greetings-from-the-dc-action-factory-tent-city/">one of their previous actions</a>-early in the morning after they had spent a night in tents as "climate refugees" in front of the State Department.</p>
<p>They convened at Lafayette Park in front of the White House.&nbsp; The goals for the day: to create exciting photo ops in hopes that Canadian media would pick up the story and/or pictures of the action, to have Prime Minister Harper see them, and to educate passersby.&nbsp; I think they succeeded at all of these goals.</p>
<p>The visuals (described in part above) were creative, funny, and engaging.&nbsp; In addition to the Carbon Bigfoot Harper, Obama, and the larger-than-life tar sands milkshake, there were two people holding signs that asked "climate leaders?"; two people dressed as dying polar bears; several people holding signs with tarry maple leafs that read "Canada Keep Your Dirty Oil!" and passing out flyers about the tar sands; and two people walking around with laptops showing tourists DVDs called <a href="http://dirtyoilsands.org/visuals/category/dvd/">Canada's Dirty Oil: Breaking Our Addiction</a>.&nbsp; While the Prime Minister and media were entering and exiting the White House, they sang:</p>
<p>Oh Canada<br />Our home and native land<br />Global climate treaty<br />Is all that we demand</p>
<p>and chanted:</p>
<p>Harper got on the tar sands train<br />Canada's future down the drain</p>
<p>Prime Minister Harper looked at them on the way in and the way out.&nbsp; The Toronto Star included a photo of and paragraph about the action in an article within a few hours.&nbsp; And I spoke with quite a few people who seemed genuinely interested and concerned about what was going on in the tar sands-enough so that they said they would like to read <a href="http://www.nrdc.org/energy/dirtyfuels.pdf">NRDC's dirty fuels fact sheet</a>, which I gave to them.&nbsp; I even attempted to tell a French couple about the tar sands-despite my poor French and their poor English, they understood enough to agree that tar sands oil is incredibly destructive to the environment, and has no place in a clean energy future.</p>
<p>Now we just need to make sure that Obama agrees.</p>
<p>For more about how people at NRDC are feeling about the Harper-Obama meeting, and for more about dirty fuels in general, please visit: <a href="http://switchboard.nrdc.org/dirtyfuels.php">http://switchboard.nrdc.org/dirtyfuels.php</a>.</p>]]>
      
   </content>
</entry>

</feed>

