Liz Barratt-Brown's Blog: Curbing Pollution

$25 million to paint a tar sands black hole green?

2008-04-29T20:38:25Z

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.

New fuel economy savings marred by tar sands

2008-02-05T20:09:58Z

There has been a great deal of discussion about whether the trend towards greener energy will hold or fade away. As the price of oil goes up and stays up, greener energy – such as renewable, wind and solar energies – should flourish and efficiency should dramatically improve. But it is also true that renewable and efficiency spending, while up significantly, is in a race with so-called “unconventional fuels” – synthetic fuels like Canadian tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale – for our energy future (The New York Times). Huge investments are being made to scrape the bottom of the barrel for oil. Instead of moving forwards to develop energies for our future, the large oil companies are putting their money into developing the dirty, polluting fuels of our past.

A stark example of this is the 1.2 million barrels a day production of tar sands oil that is expected to quadruple within the next decade. With its high carbon footprint and profligate use of water and energy to make that oil (three times as much carbon dioxide/barrel is emitted compared to extraction of conventional oil), it is not about to receive any environmental awards from Al Gore. Putting aside the significant impacts in Canada, we wanted to know how much this expansion might undercut the hard fought for emissions savings gains made in the recently passed energy bill.

The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA) among other features, includes the first increase in CAFE standards – fuel economy standards – in over thirty years. The law requires new cars and light trucks to meet a 35 mile per gallon fleetwide average by 2020 and for medium and heavy duty vehicles to make “maximum feasible” and “cost effective” improvements in mileage. NRDC heralded the passage of the new law, saying that it represents real progress in achieving cleaner cars and fuels.

To do our analysis, we took a look at the fuel economy savings under EISA and calculated that together, the improvements to CAFE and to medium and heavy duty vehicles (M&HDV) yield a savings of 184 million metric tons of carbon dioxide in the year 2020 or a cumulative savings of 700 million metric tons between 2011, when the fuel economy requirements start taking effect, and 2020, the year when they are in full effect.

What we found is that, at its projected rate of expansion, tar sands oil production will take away between 19 and 27% of the annual greenhouse gas reductions of the new CAFE and M&HDV in the year 2020. The range reflects optimistic to pessimistic assumptions about greenhouse gas intensity of tar sands oil production. As tar sands are ramping up, the ding is even greater, taking away between 38-51% of these requirements. After 2020, it is likely that we will see additional carbon saving benefits as new vehicles phase into the market. However, once the phase in is complete and tar sands continues to grow, savings could be eroded further.

How did we do our analysis? We started by looking at when the additional benefits of EISA would come into play. The EISA CAFE requirements gradually ramp up between 2011 and 2020 to achieve a fleetwide average of 35 miles per gallon. We also looked at the impact on medium and heavy duty vehicles (HDV) using ACEEE assumptions about what savings the law’s “maximum feasible” and “cost effective” language might yield. Then we looked at the incremental tar sands emissions in 2011 onward– the year that the Energy Bill savings start occurring.

Using projections from the Pembina Institute of Alberta, we compared those projected emissions to full life cycle greenhouse gas reductions per gallon of gasoline equivalent avoided. We made sure we looked only at the additional emissions from tar sands production as compared with conventional oil production. We also made sure that we looked only at those increased tar sands emissions from 2011 forward.

The Pembina data for tar sands production is derived from data using forecasted annual greenhouse gas emissions from tar sands projects that have been approved, planned or announced to date – a production level of 4.8 million barrels per day in 2020. The production capacity added between 2011 and 2020 would produce an increase in annual emissions of 34 and 49 million metric tons of carbon dioxide over conventional oil.

What was most surprising about this analysis is how big a role tar sands oil production will play in making it more difficult for us to reduce greenhouse gases associated with our consumption in the United States. Roughly 75% of tar sands oil is exported to the U.S. and turned into gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Thus, a huge part of the tar sands emissions are associated with U.S. consumption. But, depending on how these emissions will be treated under future global warming measures, Canada will also be responsible for a huge chunk of these emissions. Those of us following this issue know that Canada is already having serious trouble meeting its Kyoto Protocol requirements, or its international treaty obligations, to reduce its greenhouse gases because of the tar sands, where growth of emissions is occurring faster than any other sector . Taken together, it is clear that tar sands emissions will make it considerably more difficult for us – as North America – to meet our goals.

The other surprising take-away from our anlaysis is the contrast between the decades long struggle by the U.S. environmental movement to strengthen the CAFE standards – one of the most noteworthy battles in environmental rule-making – and fuel efficiency in our country and North America more generally, and the relative obscurity of the tar sands. How can Canadian tar sands oil production – production that most Americans south of the border know nothing about – potentially take such a big bite out of our new CAFE standards? At a minimum, it requires our two countries to take a hard look at the role of dirty fuels in our collective energy future.

At 1.2 million barrels per day, the tar sands is already supplying 5% of our ravenous consumption of 21 million barrels of oil a day . But other dirty fuels – liquid coal and oil shale – are not far behind. What is clear is that we have a long road ahead to really secure the CAFE gains made by the passage of the historic Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 and to make the deeper cuts that are required of us as North Americans if we are to get serious about stemming the devastating implications of global warming.

Can we dare to imagine a world where the money currently being invested in the tar sands, some $100 billion over the next decade, is invested instead in technologies to reduce emissions, in public transportation and in truly greener fuels?

Can we dare not to?

[1] Elliot, Langer and Nadel, “Reducing Oil Use through Energy Efficiency: Opportunities Beyond Cars and Trucks,” ACEEE Report EO61, January 2006.

NRDC asks airlines to oppose dirty fuels and cut global warming pollution

2008-01-10T21:37:07Z

Today we are sending letters to 15 U.S. and Canadian airlines asking that they participate in a new campaign we are launching called “Cool Fuels.” We’re asking participants in “Cool Fuels,” to adopt their own corporate “Low Carbon Fuel Standard” and to publicly oppose the expansion of what we are calling “dirty fuels.” Dirty fuels are fuels derived from the tar sands, liquid coal, and oil shale and they may well be our “fuels of the future” if we don’t get serious about developing greener, cleaner alternative fuels. Already over 1 million barrels of tar sands oil is shipped to the U.S. every day. To get this oil, all the big names in the oil industry are up digging the heart out of the Canadian boreal forest, our largest terrestrial storehouse of carbon and home to lynx, bear, caribou, nearly half of our nesting songbirds, and most importantly, aboriginal communities that have lived in peace with the land for millennia.

And getting this oil is dirty business. It has to be strip mined or boiled out of tons of gravel, dirt and peat that was once a beautiful, natural landscape of old growth trees, fens and wetlands. What was once miles upon miles of green and blue forest is now one of the world’s largest industrial landscapes. For every barrel of oil that is produced. 2-5 barrels of water must be used. And for every barrel, over two tons of dirt – or what is euphemistically called “overburden” – has to be disposed of. Massive amounts of natural gas is used, which means using clean fuel to create a dirty fuel, which is like throwing good money after bad. And now they are seriously debating building two dozen nuclear reactors to do the job. Is this what it takes to fuel our addiction to oil? How do we feel about that? As a biologist was quoted saying in a recent, excellent California SacBee piece, what disturbs her the most is that we are destroying their forest to produce this oil and not even trying to conserve. That’s where the airlines come in. Our research shows us that our biggest U.S. carriers, United Airlines, American Airlines, and Southwest, are already using tar sands oil in the Chicago and Denver airports. Northwest is also a big carrier and is likely fueling from tar sands oil at its largest hub, the Minneapolis-St. Paul airport. We traced this oil back from the airlines, to the airports, to their fuel distribution terminals, to the refineries and then back all the way to Alberta. It’s a spider web of addiction and it’s growing larger and larger. This doesn’t have to be the case. The airlines have lots of opportunities to substitute fuel efficency and alternative fuels for dirty fuels.

Airlines can reduce their fuel use – through improved air traffic control, routing, descent practices, and moving to electric towing at airports. They can modify their existing planes and, when they need to increase their fleet, to buy new, more efficient models, such as Boeing’s 787 Dreamliner. And they can get serious about developing the next generation of jet fuels – from biobutanol to algae derived fuel. Unfortunately, some of our major U.S. airlines are going backwards, not forwards. United Airlines and American Airlines are on record supporting the expansion of the pipelines bringing tar sands crude to the Chicago region and Jet Blue is on record supporting the development of liquid coal, albeit a “greener” variety. What is alarming is that this seems to be going on below the radar.

Most companies are busy signing on to statements and groups about reducing their global warming impact, but in practice the airlines and the major oil companies, like BP, Chevron, Conoco Philips, Exxon Mobil, Murphy Oil, Shell and Suncor, are all digging themselves deeper and deeper into the dirtiest of dirty carbon dependent future. BP, of the expensive branding campaign, “Beyond Petroleum,” just announced in December that it is investing in the tar sands. So now they must more rightly be called the “Bitumen Polluter,” for the gooey-tarlike substance they’ll soon be mining in what was the home of loons and caribou.

When I think about all this, I feel both despondent and hopeful. Despondent, because I wonder when some of our biggest U.S. companies are finally going to get it beyond ‘greenwashing’ about global warming. And hopeful, because we are all customers of these companies and can let them know loud and clear that we want them to clean up this part of our carbon footprint. A start is by urging them to participate in “Cool Fuels". So let’s get them aboard and get them moving forward, not backwards!