The tar sands as a major source of oil for North America looks most favorable when oil prices are high and oil companies have cash to invest.  That has meant a resurgence of interest in tar sands development over the past several years. But now Canada faces a triple whammy - oil prices have dropped, capital for projects has dried up, and Canada faces charges of obstructing progress in tackling global warming because of the carbon intensity of strip-mining and drilling oil from the Boreal forest.  Arguably oil prices will rise again and capital will become available (or oil companies will invest their own profits) but the real question is whether the Canadian government and oil industry have the social license to continue.

Fidel Castro weighed in this week, stating that tar sands development was as big a condemnation of capitalism as the wreck that is now Wall Street.  Whatever you might think of this critique, it does raise some important questions.  Can development such as the tar sands (which is, by the way, the world's biggest capital project) go forward even if society at large is against it?  Is the availability of technology and access to capital an unstoppable force, especially when it comes to oil?  What will the new Administration do about tar sands oil (the US is the major consumer)?  These questions are very much at play right now as Canada struggles to redefine its arguments for developing the tar sands.  The global warming impact of moving tar sands carbon into the atmosphere has made a large dent in Canada's energy security claim. 

Sadly, Canada remains far from acknowledging the problems that are diminishing global receptivity to the tar sands.  At the recent climate talks in Poland, Canada garnered the "Colossal Fossil" award for 10 "fossils" in as many days. This award is given by the Climate Action Network to countries deemed most responsible for obstructing the negotiations.  Most of the obstruction came from Canada's insistence that it had the right to pollute more because of the tar sands and their role in energy production.  There seemed little capacity to reflect on whether that form of energy production belongs in a carbon constrained world.

And the concerns are widening. Not only is tar sands development a cause for alarm when it comes to the climate, it now appears to be a major impediment to sustaining North America's bird population and is polluting one of North America's largest river networks that spills into the Arctic.  NRDC, along with the Boreal Songbird Initiative and the Pembina Institute, released a report on December 2 entitled "Danger in the Nursery" about the impact of tar sands oil extraction on millions of nesting songbirds and waterfowl in the Boreal forest.  Environmental Defence followed with its report "11 Million Litres a Day" on December 10th about the leaking tailings ponds and potential link to cancers downstream.  Then, the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation filed a series of law suits over permits granted for tar sands operations, challenging the very right of the government to issue them on traditional territory of native communities.

In response, the Canadian and Albertan governments have belittled the findings at best and, at worst, have tried to cover them up.  One of Alberta's most prominent scientists, David Schindler, criticized the Alberta government for "dishing real oilsands propaganda" and not subjecting its own claims to non-partisan scientific scrutiny, noting that the two reports cited above - and criticized by the government - relied on data from peer-reviewed scientific papers and were themselves peer-reviewed.

Instead of promising the international community that Canada would look into these issues, the government delegation in Poland ordered a tar sands display torn down. The display was posted by a group of young Canadians expressing their views, which is normal at these international meetings.  A prominent Canadian Scientist, Don MacIver, resigned as the chair of a working group involved in the negotiations because the federal government revoked his permission to speak in Poland. One of Canada's leading climate change experts, Gordon McBean, tied this directly to the government's advocacy of the tar sands.    

On the heels of these incidents, the Alberta Culture Minister held a news conference to decry the short movie "Downstream" and announce that from now on proposals for public funding will go through a rigorous "content screening" for anything offensive to Alberta.  The film is up for an Oscar in the short category and portrays a voice seldom heard in the energy debate - the voices of the Fort Chipewyan community which is struggling against the tar sands and to cope with cancer deaths, including among its children, from suspected contamination.  Wouldn't any sensible government embrace a film that does just what documentaries are designed to do - to make us think about the ripple effect of our actions in this world?  Has Canada let its love affair with the tar sands cut into it tolerance and freedom of expression, the very civil rights that underpin discourse in a democracy?  

The latest Government of Alberta press release about a tar sands promotional trip has the Premier heading to Texas. He and his top team have visited Washington D.C., California, Chicago, Wyoming and Europe this year, spending a substantial portion of the government's $25 million PR kitty to push the tar sands globally.  But it is telling that his last trip of the year is to Texas. It underscores how much receptivity to the tar sands has shrunk. If you have to "sell" the tar sands to Texas, you are undoubtedly in trouble. 

Meanwhile, the rest of the world is waiting for some honest answers.