By Danielle Droitsch
Director, U.S. Policy
Pembina Institute
WASHINGTON, DC, July 8, 2010/ Troy Media/ - A
vigorous debate is occurring in the U.S. over the use of oil from
oil sands and particularly about a proposed pipeline, the Keystone,
that would transport that oil from Alberta to the U.S. Gulf coast.
As the debate unfolds, an appropriate question to be asking is: How
should Canada respond?
A few days ago, one of the most powerful members of the U.S.
Congress House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Chairman Henry Waxman, issued a letter expressing concern that the
proposed Keystone pipeline "would have a major adverse impact on
the carbon intensity of U.S. transportation fuel."
Less than a month earlier, 50 members of the U.S. Congress
issued a similar letter stating that "numerous scientific studies
have found tar sands oil to produce much higher lifecycle
greenhouse gas emissions than conventional oil." The letter came at
the same time John Podesta, former Chief of Staff to former US
President Bill Clinton and friend of the Obama administration,
delivered a blistering speech suggesting "oil extraction from tar
sands is polluting, destructive, expensive and energy
intensive."
Mounting concerns
Clearly, concerns are mounting in the U.S. over the impacts of
oil sands and our direction on climate change. Are these U.S.
decision-makers ill informed? Or is it that the U.S., in the wake
of the BP oil spill, is now asking tougher questions about its
reliance on Canadian oil sands? Undoubtedly, questions will
continue to be raised about the environmental impacts associated
with a continued dependence on oil.
Just as undoubtedly, Canada's relationship with the U.S. will
continue to be an important one. U.S. energy policy will continue
to influence and be influenced by Canada's energy policy. This is
one of the reasons the Pembina Institute opened an office in
Washington - we realize the significance of Canada-U.S.
relations.
Just as clear though, are the rising tensions over Canadian oil
sands. While the U.S. begins to question the potential risks, the
Alberta and Canadian governments along with oil sands producers are
responding.
Indeed, the growing scrutiny over oil sands in the U.S. isn't
coming without push back. Last week, the Alberta government paid
for a $55,800 advertisement in the Washington Post defending the
oil sands as "a safe, reliable and responsible energy [source]."
Canadian Environment Minister Jim Prentice is, in the same vein,
arguing that Canada already has the highest possible environmental
standards in face of growing international scrutiny.
Meanwhile, The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
(CAPP) has just issued a full menu of print and television
advertisements complimenting their other ongoing public relations
efforts across Canada and the U.S.
Amidst the war of words about oil sands impacts, the truth is
sometimes lost and no doubt, some people are getting a little
confused. Todd Hirsch, an economist with ATB Financial (and Alberta
Business Columnist for Troy Media), suggested in a recent column
that both corporations and "environmental lobbyists" are only
telling half-truths; one telling a story of economic bonanza and
the other telling a story of environmental apocalypse."
For example, Hirsch raised doubts over the validity of Pembina's
recent fact sheet on in situ extraction techniques, which states
greater greenhouse gases (GHG) emissions per barrel of bitumen
produced than that of surface mining. Based on solid research, even
the Cambridge Energy Research Associates (a resource used by many
oil sands operators) agrees in situ has higher GHG emissions.
Hirsch failed to provide evidence for his doubts.
He also raised doubts that "the tailings ponds problem is
actually getting worse, rather than better." Again, he failed to
refute the evidence that indicates tailings are growing at a rate
of 200 million litres, or 80 Olympic-sized swimming pools, every
day. Nonetheless, he raised doubt.
The Canadian public may or may not be confused by all of this
information but they are clear about their concerns. According to a
CAPP survey of Canadians, the vast majority, when considering a
list of six health, environmental and wildlife impacts of oil
sands, rated the challenges as "very significant" or "pretty
significant."
The public must distill through a lot of information to obtain
factual and truthful information about the oil sands. Fortunately,
it seems most Canadians can separate fact from fiction.
As the debate in Canada and the U.S. grows, there is one thing
that remains constant: an interest from the Canadian public to
reduce oil sands impacts.
Pembina has published several reports outlining specific actions
that would address such air, land and water impacts - some of these
measures coming straight from industry's own best practices.
But as with many environmental issues, the onus is on both
industry to employ best practices for responsible development and
government to create a regulatory system that raises the bar and
ensures compliance. Without a concerted effort by both parties,
little progress can be made. While some small steps have been
taken, they are far outweighed by the growing amount of toxic
tailings, lost caribou habitat and wetlands as well as growing
greenhouse gas emissions.
Taking
responsibility
It will remain challenging for the public to sort through the
barrage of information coming out on oil sands. For the Pembina
Institute, this is not a lobby effort. There is a substantial
volume of factual information that verifies the oil sands have a
significant environmental footprint. Thousands of hours have been
dedicated to careful research with an eye to specifically outlining
actions that can be taken to reduce this environmental footprint.
Unfortunately, the vast majority of the actions we have identified
to reduce the environmental footprint have not been adopted.
These are actions that should be advanced forcefully by the
Governments of Canada and Alberta with the full support of
industry. When meaningful action begins to occur, we trust the
public - both in the U.S. and Canada - will notice. Lack of
meaningful action will also, no doubt, be noticed.