Coal is worse than oilsands
If oilsands detractors and supporters were ever of a mind to unite, it should be in their disdain for coal. That’s hardly news, since coal was long ago identified as the leading climate- change catalyst among fossil fuels. There is more confirmation of it in the recent findings of climate scientist Andrew Weaver, who claims the globe’s temperature would rise less than half a degree Celsius if all the oilsands bitumen in Alberta — proven and inaccessible — were combusted.
A study the eminent University of Victoria climatologist co- authored with doctoral student Neil Swart has been published in the science journal Nature Climate Change. It is generating buzz for its contradiction of previous doomsday estimates that gained traction within the anti- oilsands lobby.
Weaver and Swart said the impact of burning only proven oilsands reserves, estimated at 170 billion barrels, would be negligible.
Their study should not be considered the new gospel; neither should the contention of NASA climate scientist James Hansen that developing all oilsands reserves would mean “game over” for the planet. Both are interpretations based on modelling, which is by nature an inexact science.
There is no doubt that climate change is occurring and that the burning of fossil fuels is contributing to an anthropogenic warming of the Earth. The debate surely has moved on from that starting point.
But the fact- based opinions of two leading climate experts in North America have led to wildly divergent conclusions when it comes to the oilsands, something that might leave the average Albertan scratching his or her head.
What we would be much wiser to elicit from the study is momentum for a renewed commitment to developing oilsands bitumen responsibly, in part so that coal deposits stay in the ground where they do not contribute to global warming.
The science of Weaver/ Swart and Hansen obviously does not jibe on the oilsands, but each would support the elimination of coal- burning generators. After all, there is little dispute that coal extraction and combustion is one of the major potential contributors to global warming.
On the other hand, an intense global focus on the oilsands has prompted positive action with regard to monitoring their impact on air, water and soil in Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories. The federal and provincial governments recently unveiled a monitoring strategy that improves and expands upon previous efforts.
The world is not in a position to quit fossil fuels cold turkey. Swart was surely right in saying that the practically bottomless reserves of the oilsands make it all too easy for North Americans to fuel their fossil addiction.
If the oilsands were only forest or muskeg and Canada was a net importer of oil, there might well be more of an impetus here to exploit the viabilities of wind and solar power, given that coal would be our default fossil fuel. But if that constitutes a blessing and a curse, we must come to terms with it.