Is new report a game changer for oilsands?
Alberta oil found to be less damaging to the planet than once thought, but environmentalists won’t likely shift their opinions any time soon
Most Canadians probably were taken aback this week by a new scientific report portraying the oilsands as less damaging than previously thought.
A big question is: Were Europeans equally surprised?
European Union officials are slated to vote today on a draft fuel law that would slap a higher carbon- emissions value on oilsands bitumen than on conventional oil.
This, when one fifth of Europe’s primary energy production is coal- based — far dirtier than the oilsands, according to the scientific report.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.
And, what about the environmentalists, who for so long have been rhapsodizing about the evils of the oilsands?
Will they now down placards and adjust their rhetoric?
You can bet they’re busy strategizing about those latest findings of Nobel laureate and University of Victoria climate scientist Andrew Weaver and his doctoral student Neil Swart.
The duo carried out an analysis, showing full exploitation of Alberta’s oilsands resources would raise global temperatures by no more than .36 degrees Celsius.
The researchers did not exonerate the polluting development, though. Weaver argues that all forms of fossil fuels, including the oilsands and coal, must be regulated for the world to avoid dangerous global warming. But they nonetheless concluded that exploitation of the oilsands would be far less of a problem than burning the planet’s coal deposits, which would hike temperatures by 14.79 degrees.
Even the world’s supply of shale gas, fully exploited, presents a worse scenario than the oilsands.
So then, could this new report be a game changer in the oilsands debate, so that the development no longer is labelled the “dirtiest on earth” and “a carbon bomb”?
At this point, the real carbon bomb may be Weaver’s report.
Yet, anyone expecting environmentalists to shift their rhetoric will be disappointed.
A look at Forestethics’ website shows no change.
Alongside a Donate Now button, it still describes the oilsands as “the largest oil extraction project in the world, a hell- realm of machinery and toxic waste that creates more greenhouse gas emissions than 140 nations.”
Its senior energy campaigner Nikki Skuce advised that the oilsands need to be dealt with, “not just from a climate change perspective but because of its myriad other environmental and social impacts.”
Pembina Institute climate change director Matt Horne asserts: “It’s not enough to simply choose the lesser of two high- emission sources, we need to move toward low- emission sources.”
Greenpeace climate and energy campaigner Keith Stewart blogged that the Weaver- Swart findings come as no surprise.
Stewart noted they compare a single oil development in Alberta — representing 13 per cent of global oil reserves, according to a federal website — to 100 per cent of the world’s coal supplies.
“The oilsands have become the fastest rising source of greenhouse gas emissions in Canada and the principal reason for Canada’s failure to meet international climate commitments ... We need to transition away from fossil fuels as quickly as possible.”
It will be interesting to see how the Europeans vote. But, for the environmentalists, the agenda clearly is not about to change because of this week’s partial redemption of the oilsands.
They’ll keep finding ways to demonize the development while a progrowth Conservative government will continue promoting oilsands production.
The activists want a pristine environment more than the wealth that comes from Canada’s energy projects.
However, Conservatives are more concerned about creating employment and receiving the royalties to help finance public services than about associated GHG emissions.
What’s most important, of course, is public opinion. The challenge is for folks to determine what’s reasonable between these two extremes of no- more- development and full- steam ahead.
The Weaver- Swart findings are extremely helpful in this regard, putting potential oilsands damage into a highly comprehensible and useful global context.