$25 million to paint a tar sands black hole green?
- Liz Barratt-Brown
- Senior Attorney, Washington, DC
- Blog | About
- Posted April 29, 2008 in Curbing Pollution , Moving Beyond Oil , Solving Global Warming
Canada has sent its fourth delegation in so many months to Washington D.C. to convince Americans that there is no need to worry about the tar sands oil extraction in northern Alberta. This barrage of visits reminds me of when a colleague of mine in the state department looked at the four-color brochure in three languages meant to dispel concerns about British Columbia's clear cut logging and said, "Boy, they must have a really big problem up there."
The visit coincides with the launch of a $25 million campaign by Alberta to dispel the "myths" that there are environmental problems in the tar sands. When the Alberta Premier was in Washington D.C. in January, he made this claim before a Senate committee, likely stunning even those in the industry who know full well there are many serious problems there. Mark Cooper, who is travelling with the Deputy Premier this week, was a bit more upfront when he told the Globe and Mail yesterday that there's "no doubt" Alberta needs to do more on the environmental front in the tar sands, but that their mission aims to "correct the myths, inaccuracies, and distortions" about the province's record.
We asked for a meeting with the Deputy Premier, whose vague schedule was only announced mid-week last week (are they worried about the protesting polar bears that plagued the Premier on his January visit?) but were declined. We would have asked what Alberta is doing to clean up this oil source and to have had the chance to tell him why conservation groups on both sides of the border are so worried. Instead we ran this ad today in Capital Hill's Roll Call magazine, which we hope will get the attention of Deputy Premier Stevens and other decision makers in Canada:
We would have asked his views on the critique that in spite of Canadian Federal and Alberta government plans to address global warming pollution, carbon dioxide emissions in the tar sands are expected to nearly triple (29 MT to 80 MT) by 2018 and then to reduce to 49 MT by 2050, according to the Pembina Institute's analysis. This is akin to saying you were going to eat a gallon of ice-cream but because you are going on a diet, eating two quarts instead. Not much of a diet.
We would also have asked about plans to clean up the enormous toxic tailing lakes that are being held back by the world's largest dam and can be seen from space. And finally we would have asked about the government's efforts to meaningfully address the cancer fears of neighboring aboriginal communities.
We asked the Deputy Premier today in a press statement to slow down development so that these serious environmental concerns can be addressed. We are not alone. The majority of Albertans want a slow down, including the mayor of the town that is the epicenter of tar sands mining.
But instead of tackling these serious problems back at home, Alberta is here in Washington trying to undermine a newly passed provision of the Enegy Independence and Security Act, Section 526, which prohibits our Federal agencies from purchasing unconventional or synthetic fuels that have higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional fuels. There is some irony here. If the global warming plans touted by the Canadian and Albertan government will really control greenhouse gases effectively, why are they seeking an exemption from this law?
This turn of events from a country that was once the self-appointed "greenie" of North America saddens me. Having worked along side Canada on the acid rain issue in the 1980s and to put in place the treaties on Climate Change and Biodiversity at the Rio Earth Summit in the early '90s, I feel that we have lost a partner in the race to save the planet.
We will await their reply. But I am afraid it will be more greenwashing, rather than a true coming to terms with what is not only a growing black hole in Alberta but a black eye to Canada's reputation.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
We close comments on a blog post when it's clear the conversation has moved on -- click on the tags (above) or on our homepage to see if we've got fresh news and views on this post's topic.
Comments
Guido — Apr 29 2008 04:18 PM
Is this a contributor to the highest carbon emissions per capita in the world,,,21 mt/capita?
A. Martin — Apr 30 2008 08:31 PM
As a Canadian I find it truly offensive that Americans feel the need to help us out in regards to environmental issues. Perhaps Ms. Brown you should turn your attention to what goes on in America. I suggest your attention would be better spent on your own country. Trying turning your attention to the Great Lakes. That should keep you busy for a while. I've traveled down around Buffalo and Cleveland. Talk about a toxic waste. America fess up - you are the biggest polluters on this planet.
A. maratin — May 1 2008 09:03 AM
As I was reading our local paper this morning I came across comments made by Ms. Brown again. I find it extremely disturbing that she has spent her career worrying about OUR natural resources. Ms. Brown your time would be better spent directed towards what is toxic in your own country. Stay home Ms. Brown and look around. It is obvious your eyes are closed as to what has gone on in your own country.
Where do you think the oil goes from here Ms. Brown? I used to be pro American when it wasn't fashionable to be. Not now. The tendency to look outside your own country at others is disturbing and seems to be an American trend. As a Canadian I find this offensive.
Liz Barratt-Brown — May 1 2008 10:30 AM
Thanks for your comments. NRDC has over 350 staff working mainly to clean up our environmental problems in the U.S. so we are very much involved in focusing on the U.S. challenges first and foremost. But one of the main reasons we have worked for years in partnership with Canadian groups (and often with the Canadian government)is because we have an extremely interlinked economy and environment with Canada. Sadly, U.S. demand for Canadian natural resources has left terrible scars in Canada. In this case it is oil. We import over 70% of the oil produced from the tar sands in Alberta. You remind me that I should make this link clearer in my blogs and I will do so in the future. Again, thank you for your taking the time to comment.
A. Martin — May 1 2008 10:58 PM
Thank you for your response. However in reading the above article I wonder where you get the idea that the majority of Albertans want a slowdown in tar sands development when in reality if it effects them on a economic level they will not be so willing I'm sure. You also talked about the mayor of Fort McMurray wanting a slow down as well. Ms. Blake (the mayor) is concerned about the socio-economic problems and the lack of infrastucture to deal with the continued growth. This is not just an environmental issue for the mayor.
As an Albertan I too am interested and concerned over what kind of legacy we are leaving behind. However I wonder what exactly you would like to see happen here? With an economy heavily dependent on the oil industry what would you have us do? I know maybe we could grow more corn.
LTS — May 2 2008 01:02 AM
I very much appreciate Ms.Brown's continued reporting on the Albertan Tar Sands. The tar sands are a shocking development with worldwide environmental consequences. The Albertan and Canadian governments (practically the same thing these days) aggressively push the industry and roll back Canadian environmental commitments allowing the manic growth to proceed. The American consumer makes it all possible, often out of ignorance. Hopefully, posts like Ms. Brown’s will begin to change that. One of her recent posts linked to the Globle and Mail's series on sands development, an excellent link. According to their reporting, there are significant Albertans with reservations about the boom. Other sectors of the Albertan economy--wheat farming for example--are hurt by the development and the higher prices for labor and inputs.
I'm from Colorado. The tar sands may be the most destructive development on earth, but when oil shale kicks in, we might just steal that claim to fame. Sorry, Alberta. Or, perhaps more to the point, Sorry Alberta.
A. Martin — May 2 2008 09:10 AM
Don't think for one minute America that your or the Globe and Mail out of Ontario know what most Albertans are thinking.
Hey if you don't want the oil, fine. Great. Hopefully you won't want the water either.
Liz Barratt-Brown — May 2 2008 11:00 AM
I defer to Alberta's leading energy organization, the Pembina Institute, whose's polling shows that the vast majority of Albertans, while supporting the tar sands development, are still "very" (36%) or "somewhat" (49%) - total 85% - concerned about the environmental issues surrounding their development and that an even stronger majority believe that the greenhouse gas emissions must be dealt with. A majority also believes that development is happening too fast and that an 88% majority believes that new leases should not be approved unless the land can be restored to its original character. Pembina can be contacted through www.pembina.org.
The issue this week is the awful story about the 500 ducks that died after landing on the toxic sludge ponds that cover 50 square kilometers and are held back by the world's largest operating dam. Until these wastes are dealt with, how can the land be restored and North America's waterfowl protected? As Americans, we need to understand the ramifications of our oil addiction, including the loss of our backyard songbirds and waterfowl that migrate to have their babies in the Boreal forest where the tar sands are being developed. Many of these species are already in sharp decline.
Shirley Starke — May 3 2008 12:03 PM
North Dakotans are fighting the Keystone Pipeline, which would carry tar from the Tar Sands into the Midwest, by means of a ballot initiative that was filed on Wednesday, April 30. Our group is called Save Our Soil (SOS), and our website can be found at www.saveoursoil.net. We need all the help we can get to gather 13,000 signatures by August 8 to put it on the ballot, and then to fight TransCanada before the November election. You can contact me at coordinator(at)saveoursoil.net.