Climate Change: Coal, Not Oilsands The Real Bad Guy Says Study

Coal Climate Change

First Posted: 02/19/2012 1:42 pm Updated: 02/20/2012 5:00 pm

One of the world's top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes from burning coal.

"I was surprised by the results of our analysis," said Andrew Weaver, a University of Victoria climate modeller, who has been a lead author on two reports from the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. "I thought it was larger than it was."

In a commentary published Sunday in the prestigious journal Nature, Weaver and colleague Neil Swart analyze how burning all global stocks of coal, oil and natural gas would affect temperatures. Their analysis breaks out unconventional gas, such as undersea methane hydrates and shale gas produced by fracking, as well as unconventional oil sources including the oilsands.

They found that if all the hydrocarbons in the oilsands were mined and consumed, the carbon dioxide released would raise global temperatures by about .36 degrees C. That's about half the total amount of warming over the last century.

When only commercially viable oilsands deposits are considered, the temperature increase is only .03 degrees C.

In contrast, the paper concludes that burning all the globe's vast coal deposits would create a 15-degree increase in temperature. Burning all the abundant natural gas would warm the planet by more than three degrees.

Governments around the world have agreed to try to keep warming to two degrees.

"The conventional and unconventional oil is not the problem with global warming," Weaver said. "The problem is coal and unconventional natural gas."

He said his analysis suggests it is an increased dependence on coal — not the oilsands — that governments have to worry about. As well, there's so much gas in the world that it will also cause problems despite the fact it emits less carbon than oil.

"One might argue that the best strategy one might take is to use our oil reserves wisely, but at the same time use them in a way that weans us of our dependence on coal and natural gas," Weaver said. "As we become more and more dependent on these massive reserves, we're less and less likely to wean ourselves away from them."

Burning all the oil in the world would only raise temperatures by less than one degree, the paper concludes.

Weaver's analysis only accounts for emissions from burning the fuel. It doesn't count greenhouse gases released by producing the resource because that would double-count those emissions.

He said his paper is an attempt to bring some perspective to the often-fraught debate over oilsands development, which continues to cause major concerns about the impact on land, air and water. And emissions from producing oilsands crude are making it very tough for Canada to meet its greenhouse gas reduction targets.

"We've heard a lot about how if we burn all the oil in the tarsands it's going to lead to this, that and the other. We thought, 'Well, let's take a look at this. What is the warming potential of this area?' and the numbers are what they are."

He said the real message is that the world has to start limiting its use of fossil fuels.

"This idea that we're going to somehow run out of coal and natural gas and fossil fuels is really misplaced. We'll run out of human ability to live on the planet long before we run out of them.

"I have always said that the tarsands are a symptom of a very big problem. The problem is dependence on fossil fuels."

null

Related on HuffPost:

Loading Slideshow...
  • Canada's Top Polluting Provinces

    As Canada begins the process of withdrawing from the Kyoto Protocol this year, here's a look at the country's top polluting provinces. (Mt CO2 eq refers to megatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is the standard international unit of measurement for reporting GHG emissions. It expresses all greenhouse gases emissions in terms of the global warming potential of carbon dioxide, CO2. One megatonne is equal to one million tonnes.) * Signatories to the Kyoto Protocol submit greenhouse gas emissions inventories to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change annually, but the data itself lags two years behind. ** Facility-reportedemissions are those reported by large industrial facilities like fossil-fuel-powered power plants, mining An activist wears a mask depicting the face of Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, during a protest in Durban on the sidelines of the UN climate talks, on December 5, 2011. (ALEXANDER JOE/AFP/Getty Images) <em>With files from CBC</em>

  • 7. Quebec - Per capita: 10.4 tonnes CO2 equivalent

    Emissions target: 20 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 81.7 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 10.4 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: -1.9 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 11.8 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 8 per cent) LEGISLATION: Cap and trade -- Quebec will be the first jurisdiction in Canada to adopt a cap and trade system for reducing emissions, effective January 2012. The first year will be a transition year in which participants are to get a feel for how the system works but are not obliged to comply with the caps. Under the system, the province establishes an overall emissions objective and then sets specific caps on individual sectors based on average emissions in that sector or on a company by company basis. Emitters whose emissions are below the cap will be able to sell emissions credits to companies whose emissions exceed the cap. Quebec will be part of the same cap-and-trade system as California since both are members of the Western Climate Initiative. Some environmental groups, including the Pembina Institute, have said the auction price for emissions credits that Quebec has set --$10 per tonne in 2013 and $15 per tonne in 2020 -- is too low to motivate significant reductions in emissions and have urged the province to raise them. Carbon tax -- Quebec was the first jurisdiction in North America to introduce a carbon tax in 2007. The tax applies to about 50 fuel producers and distributors that use a large amount of hydrocarbons. The $200 million collected annually through the tax goes to fund projects that are part of the province's Climate Change Action Plan. The tax rate varies depending on the amount of carbon released during combustion: - Gasoline: 0.8 cents/litre - Diesel: 0.9 cents/litre - Propane: 0.5 cents/litre - Light heating oil: 0.96 cents/litre - Heavy heating oil: 1 cent/litre - Coke used in steel making: 1.3 cents/litre - Coal: $8/tonne Energy -- It's no accident that Quebec is one of the few provinces to have reduced its emissions from 1990 levels: 96 per cent of the province's electrical power comes from renewable sources. While hydro power is its biggest strength, it has also invested heavily in wind power and aims to develop 4,000 MW of wind-generated electricity by 2015. (Alamy)

  • 6. Ontario - Per capita: 12.6 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 15 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 165 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 12.6 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: -6.5 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 23.9 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 20 per cent) LEGISLATION: Energy -- The province passed the Green Energy Act in 2009, which set the course for the province's transition to cleaner sources of energy and greater energy efficiency. It came with financial incentives for the development of wind, solar and biomass power-generation projects and created the feed-in tariff program by which producers of renewable energy are paid premium rates to supply the province's power grid. The Act also includes provisions to promote energy conservation and green construction in the public sector. Coal -- The province plans to phase out all of its coal-fired electricity generation by 2014 and replace it with wind, solar and other clean-energy sources. A total of 19 units at five coal plants will be shut; eight have been closed already. In the past decade, the province has gone from relying on coal for 27 per cent of its electricity needs to seven per cent. Cap and trade -- Ontario is part of the Western Climate Initiative and has the legislation in place to implement a cap-and-trade system but has not yet done so. In the last election, the Liberals said they were still committed to setting up the system but did not say when that might happen. Fuel -- Along with the federal regulations on renewable content, Ontario has committed to reducing carbon content in transportation fuels by 10 per cent by 2020. Emissions -- In 2009, Ontarioamended its Environmental Protection Act to allow greenhouse gas emissions to be regulated and laid the groundwork for a cap-and-trade system. As of 2010, any facility emitting more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent has to report its emissions annually, but there are no limits on these emissions as yet. (GEOFF ROBINS/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 5. B.C. - Per capita: 14.3 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target:33 per cent below 2007 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 63.8 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 14.3 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +28.1 per cent (2 per cent below 2007 levels) % of Canada's total emissions: 9.2 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 5 per cent) LEGISLATION: Carbon tax -- B.C. introduced a tax on fossil fuels in 2008. It started at $10/tonne and will rise by $5 a year until 2012. It is currently at $25/tonne and applies to gasoline, diesel, natural gas, heating fuel, propane and coal -- and to peat and tires when used to produce energy. Revenue raised from the tax is put toward lowering other taxes. The tax covers about 70 per cent of B.C.'s emissions. Electricity -- B.C.'s Clean Energy Act requires that 93 per cent of the province's electricity come from renewable sources and aims to make B.C. not only self-sufficient in terms of its electricity supply but also to be a net exporter of clean electricity. Some have criticized the legislation, because it reverses B.C.'s past policy of generating only enough electricity to meet the province's own needs and allows the government to exploit rivers and the environment by selling surplus power. It also mergers the generating and transmission sides of the electricity sector that past governments had taken pains to separate. This can undermine the oversight authority of the B.C. Utilities Commission, particularly its ability to reject certain hydro power projects, critics say. Coal -- B.C. has abandoned coal-fired electricity generation in favour of renewables but is still Canada's biggest exporter of coal. In 2010, it exported about 23 million tonnes. Fuel -- B.C.'s Renewable and Low Carbon Fuel Requirements Regulation has targets for reducing emissions from transportation fuels. Its overall target is to reduce the carbon intensity of fuels by 10 per cent by 2020. Carbon intensity measures the CO2 equivalent emissions of fuel per unit of energy. The regulations also stipulate that gasoline must have five per cent renewable content beginning in 2010 and diesel must have five per cent renewable content by 2012. The province is also testing a fleet of 20 fuel-cell buses that have zero tailpipe emissions. The $89.5 million federal-provincial project runs until March 2014. Public sector -- In June 2011, the province announced it had succeeding in making government operations carbon neutral, meaning that by reducing emissions and purchasing carbon offsets for reductions made in other sectors, the net contribution to the province's emissions from the public sector would be zero. Many have questioned the government's methodology in declaring itself carbon neutral, pointing out that it exempted some government-owned operations, such as BC Ferries, and didn't give credit to some institutions for reducing certain heavy-emitting activities, such as commuting. Cap and trade -- B.C. is a member of the Western Climate Initiative formed in 2007 between several U.S. states and four Canadian provinces. The members of the initiative have agreed to set a regional target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions of 15 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020, which is less ambitious than the federal target Canada and the U.S. agreed to under the Copenhagen Accord; and to establish a regional cap-and-trade program. Although B.C. has the legislation in place to implement a cap-and-trade system and had initially said it would launch the program in 2012, the Liberal government under new leader Christy Clark has not committed to carrying out the plan and is currently reviewing whether a cap-and-trade model is the best way to meet the provincial target. So far, only Quebec and California have moved forward with the cap-and-trade plan. Both are to begin a trial year of operation in 2012. Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia, Canada, speaks during the World Economic Forum - India Economic Summit in Mumbai on November 14, 2011. (PUNIT PARANJPE/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 4. Manitoba - Per capita: 16.6 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: none 2009* emissions: - Total: 20.3 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 16.6 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +9.6 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 3.1 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 1 per cent) LEGISLATION: Emissions -- Under the NDP government of Gary Doer, Manitoba passed the Climate Change and Emissions Reductions Actin 2008, which committed the government to reducing emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. It abandoned that target this December, after Canada withdrew from the Kyoto Protocol -- although, with 2012 fast approaching and Manitoba's emissions nowhere near six per cent below 1990 levels, the move was largely moot. Carbon tax -- The provinceintroduced a small carbon tax of $10 a tonne of CO2 equivalent on coal-fired electricity generation in July 2011, but it only affects three companies that are large emitters of greenhouse gases. Cap and trade -- Manitoba is a member of the Western Climate Initiative but has not yet laid the legislative groundwork for setting up a cap-and-trade system in the province. Manitoba Legislature in Winnipeg. (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/jezz/">Flickr: Jezz's Photostream</a>

  • 3. Nova Scotia - 22.3 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 10 per cent below 1990 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 21 Mt CO2 eq. - per capita: 22.3 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +10.5 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 3 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 4 per cent) LEGISLATION: Electricity -- Almost 90 per cent of Nova Scotia's electrical power comes from fossil fuels, mostly coal. In 2009, the province passed regulations limiting emissions in the electricity sector. It set caps on any facility emitting more than 10,000 tonnes of CO2 equivalent per year. Clean energy -- The province passed an Environmental Goals and Sustainable Prosperity Act that sets targets for reducing emissions and increasing energy efficiency and the use of renewable fuel sources. The province aims to get 25 per cent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2015. Two Canadian bagpipers play in front of the town clock in Halifax. (Tim BREAKMEIE/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 2. Alberta - Per capita: 63.6 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 14 per cent below 2005 levels by 2050 2009* emissions: - Total: 234 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 63.6 tonnes CO2 eq. % difference from 1990: +36.7 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 33.8 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 47 per cent) Alberta has also expressed its target as a 50 per cent reduction in emissions intensity below 1990 levels by 2020, which according to the Pembina Institute, translates to a reduction of 60 megatonnes in annual emissions below the business-as-usual level by 2020. Emissions intensity doesn't measure emissions in absolute terms but instead factors in GDP to measure GHG as a unit of production. This means that if production increases, emissions can increase and the province can still meet its target. Alberta's 2008 climate change strategy expresses its reduction targets as a cut in annual emissions of 50 Mt by 2020 and 200 Mt by 2050, a cut of 50 per cent below business as usual level. LEGISLATION: Emissions -- Alberta was the first province to implement regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions when in 2003 it passed the Climate Change and Emissions Management Act. That act gave the province the right to regulate emissions, require mandatory reporting of emissions from certain facilities and set an overall provincial target of reducing emissions intensity to 50 per cent of 1990 levels by 2020. In 2007, the province added the Specified Gas Emitters Regulation. Under those laws, as of March 2008, existing facilities that emit more than 100,000 tonnes of greenhouse gas per year had to cap their emissions intensity at 12 per cent below the average for 2003-2005. Facilities built from 2000 on have a three-year reprieve before they have to start reducing emissions intensity by two per cent a year for five years. Emitters can choose to pay a penalty for exceeding their targets of $15 for every tonne over their limit. The money goes into the Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund, which as of September 2011 had collected $257 million -- from about $40 million in 2008. In 2009, the province set up a Climate Change and Emissions Management Corporation to invest the fund money into "emission reduction technologies." They can also purchase credits to offset their own emissions from emitters that have already reached their reduction targets or from companies that are not subject to the regulations (i.e. those who emit less than 100,000 tonnes a year) but have voluntarily reduced emissions. Environmentalists have criticized Alberta's emissions regulations for several reasons: - Measuring emissions intensity instead of absolute emissions allows the province to keep increasing emissions. The Alberta Environmental Law Centre has said that studies have shown that the province will be able to meet its emissions intensity target of 50 per cent below 1990 levels even if absolute emissions grow by 60 to 80 per cent above 1990 levels. According to the Pembina Institute, between 1990 and 2009, Alberta's greenhouse gas emissions increased more than those of any other jurisdiction in North America. - The regulations apply only to large emitters. - The $15/tonne penalty for exceeding reduction targets is not high enough to motivate changes in behaviour. Electricity -- Small-scale producers of renewable energy can feed the provincial grid and are compensated at the retail, rather than wholesale, price for electricity. As of 2005, almost all of the electricity in government buildings comes from renewable sources like wind and biomass, but overall, renewables still make up only five per cent of the province's total generating capacity. About 45 per cent comes from coal, and 40 per cent from natural gas. Coal --About 59 per cent of the province's electricity generation is fuelled by coal. Alberta angered many environmentalists in August 2011 when it approved a new $1.7-billion coal plant at a facility near Grande Cache owned by Maxim Power. The company plans to build a 500-megawatt generating station next to its existing 150-megawatt H.R. Milner plant, which is to shut down in 2012. The Pembina Institute estimates the new plant will emit more than three million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year -- the equivalent of adding 590,000 vehicles to the road. Source: Canada's 2011 national greenhouse gas inventory submission to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. Aerial view of the Suncor oil sands extraction facility near the town of Fort McMurray in Alberta on October 23, 2009. (MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)

  • 1. Saskatchewan - Per capita: 71 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 20 per cent below 2006 levels by 2020 2009* emissions: - Total: 73.1 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 71 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +69 per cent % of Canada's total emissions: 7.3 per cent (**facility-reported emissions: 9 per cent) LEGISLATION: Emissions -- The province passed a Management and Reduction of Greenhouse Gases Act in 2010 that allows it to regulate emissions but has not yet implemented emissions limits on facilities or required them to report their greenhouse gas emissions. Regulations to that effect are expected to be introduced in 2012, with the first caps coming into force in 2013. The province plans to set a price on carbon and have facilities that exceed the caps pay into a green technology fund similar to the one that exists in Alberta. Saskatchewan's emissions have grown more than those of any other province since 1990, increasing by 69 per cent. This is largely due to the explosive growth in the province's oil and gas sector, which accounts for 37 per cent of its total emissions. Saskatchewan is Canada's second largest producer of oil after Alberta and accounts for about 20 per cent of the country's oil production. Potash mining and the expansion of coal-fired power generation have also contributed to the growth in emissions. Coal -- About 60 per cent of Saskatchewan's electricity comes from coal-fired generation. The province has no plans to phase out coal but instead aims to retrofit existing units to include carbon capture and storage technology to reduce emissions. (<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/justaprairieboy/">Flickr: Just a Prairie Boy's photostream</a>)

  • Canada - Per capita: 20.5 tonnes CO2 eq.

    Emissions target: 17 per cent below 2005 levels by 2020 This is the target Canada agreed to under the 2009 Copenhagen Accord, which laid out the broad outlines of a possible agreement to replace the Kyoto Protocol once it expires in 2012. It is a smaller cut over a longer period than what Canada originally agreed to under Kyoto, which would have required Canada to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012. The target mirrors the one proposed by the U.S. during the Copenhagen negotiations. After announcing on Dec. 12 that Canada will withdraw from Kyoto, Environment Minister Peter Kent said the government will stick to the Copenhagen target, even though it is not legally binding as the Kyoto target was. Canada's 2009*emissions: - Total: 690 Mt CO2 eq. - Per capita: 20.5 tonnes CO2 eq. % change from 1990: +16.9 per cent LEGISLATION: Coal -- federal emissions limits for coal-fired power plants are to come into force in July 2015. They will limit emissions to 375 tonnes of CO2 per gigawatt-hour of electricity produced per year. Emitters will be able to use carbon capture and storage to meet their emissions caps. The regulation will apply to any coal-fired unit commissioned after July 1, 2015, or at the end of its useful life -- which is the lesser of 45 years or the year 2020. Some critics say this limits the effectiveness of the law since about two-thirds of Canadian coal plants won't be subject to the regulations until 2020, and nine plants won't have to comply until 2030. Some also fear that the 2015 starting date for newly commissioned plants could prompt a rush to get new coal plants online before then to avoid being subject to the regulations. Indeed, one example of this already happened in Alberta, where Maxim Power received approval in August 2011 to build a new coal plant that won't have to comply with the emissions caps. Canada has 51 coal-burning electricity plants, which account for 13 per cent of the country's greenhouse gas emissions; 33 of the plants will be at the end of their life by 2025. Fuel -- In 2010, the government passed a regulation requiring an average of five per cent renewable content in gasoline and an annual average of two per cent in diesel fuel and heating oil. It adopted fuel emissionsstandards for passenger cars and light trucks for model years 2011-2016 that mirror those introduced in the U.S. Cars and light trucks account for 12 per cent of Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions (and 43 per cent of transportation emissions). The transportation sector as a whole accounts for 27 per cent of overall emissions. Parliament Hill is blanketed in snow 18 December 2007 in Ottawa, Canada, (MICHEL COMTE/AFP/Getty Images)

FOLLOW HUFFPOST CANADA

One of the world's top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes fro...
One of the world's top climate scientists has calculated that emissions from Alberta's oilsands are unlikely to make a big difference to global warming and that the real threat to the planet comes fro...
Filed by Lauren Strapagiel  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 234
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy
Rational human male.
05:41 PM on 02/21/2012
Please note that the article compares the damage done if all the reserves are used up. There is much more coal in the world than there is oil sands in Alberta, and so obviously the total depletion of the entire global coal supply would be much more serious. That does not mean the oil sands are cleaner than coal on a per unit basis, much less that they are 'clean' in any sense.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
06:40 PM on 02/21/2012
Yes they are.

ccording to this back in 2008:
"By 2020 the tar sands are expected to release over 141 megatonnes of GHG – twice that produced by all the cars and trucks in Canada."

http://stoptarsands.wordpress.com/

Oil sands release 141 megatons in the next 8 years. Hmm Meanwhile while US coal releases 2 billion tons in ONE year. Every year. Just US coal. Pollutes all waterways anywhere near it with radioactive ash. ->

http://www.c2es.org/global-warming-basics/coalfacts.cfm

While we're at it so is Californian Heavy among others.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy
Rational human male.
06:55 PM on 02/21/2012
Can you make that comparison relevant by comparing the amount of US coal energy supply and the amount of tar sands energy supply? The US burns more coal than all of Canada uses from all sources put together, so obviously the numbers are going to sound all lop-sided.

Also, I agree that coal is bad. Even if I also agreed that the tar sands were not as bad by unit of energy (which I doubt) or not as big a problem globally (which is obvious), what difference would that make? The tar sands are better than the single biggest source of pollution on the planet. Even the author concludes that they probably shouldn't be developed and that a pipeline is a bad idea.

Will you also admit that?

Geothermal is here today but has lots of problems like most other nascent renewable sources, including that its not cost effective in most places that aren't Iceland. Like solar and wind I think those problems can easily be overcome and steady growth can easily outpace demand and create a world where those sources are a large component of our supply. I don't agree that a world with 4x or 8x the nuclear waste we're not sure what to do with is the way to go.

But lets not go developing one ridiculously dirty non-renewable fossil fuel resource just because there's another even dirtier one already in use that we're trying to phase out - like Ontario already has.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:25 PM on 02/24/2012
Even disregarding the per-unit analysis (which probably works out in favor of the oil sands) doesn't it make more sense to try and effect even a modest reduction in a vast resource than a huge reduction in a large resource?

I.e. advocating for a 10% reduction in coal mining is more impactful than advocating fora 100% reduction in oil sands.

The anti-oil-sands people are penny wise and pound foolish.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy
Rational human male.
02:59 PM on 02/24/2012
First you have no reason whatsoever to believe that the per unit analysis favours oil sands. It's an incredible assertion that you make on faith. You should admit that.

Second, you are missing the point.

The question is whether we should start harnessing this incredibly dirty, finite resource, and specifically whether saying "well it's very dirty but not as dirty as the single dirtiest source we could find" is a decent argument in favour of doing so.

It's not a decent argument, and there's every reason to leave well enough alone instead of patting ourselves on the back for harvesting the second dirtiest source of energy on the planet.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy
Rational human male.
04:39 PM on 02/24/2012
"The arguments against the oil sands are silly. It's not even the most GHG intensive form of oil"

I'm sorry once again you're missing the question. The single worst energy source is NOT the only one we need to be worried about. it's only the one we need to be MOST worried about.

It's not silly to worry about a dirty, non-renewable energy source.
What's silly is pretending there's no need to worry because it's not the single dirtiest source.

"Replacing Saudi oil with oil sands oil would change the GHG footprint of your vehicle by 10-20% (closer to 10, but people debate it). Meanwhile, switching from an SUV to a Prius changes your GHG by more than 200%. "

Now you're catching on!
One way to say this would be to say that we should not develop oil sands while there is still Saudi oil that is 10% cleaner.
A better way to say this would be to say that we should not develop oils sands AND we should replace Saudi oil consumption with clean electric renewables.

The way NOT to say it is that we shouldn't care about oil sands because coal is worse. That's the irrational conclusion that you're drawing.

We need to reduce reliance on ALL of these dirty non-renewable forms, NOT increasing our use of ONE dirty non-renewable forms just because there's ANOTHER that's dirtier.

That's the silly distraction oil sands people are trying to pull, and you've fallen for it.
03:39 PM on 02/21/2012
According to Dr. Weaver (speaking on CBC's The Current this morning) the paper was submitted in September, peer-reviewed, then published Feb.19. I DO hoowever have a problem with reconciling Weaver's numbers with Jim Hansen [chief climatologist NASA] statement:
"An overwhelming objection is that exploitation of tar sands would make it implausible to
stabilize climate and avoid disastrous global climate impacts. The tar sands are estimated (e.g.,
see IPCC AR4 WG3 report) to contain at least 400 GtC (equivalent to about 200 ppm CO2).
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
05:06 PM on 02/21/2012
I'm giving you a standing-o.
I'm not insinuating your opinion is the same as mine but it's obvious you're not afraid to scrutinize and continually revisit the question/problem rather than commiting your opinion to written-in-stone and then going through all the rationale gymnastics required to dismiss anything that might speak against it. A lot of people on this forum talk a lot about "science", but that right there sir, your open mind, THAT is science personified.

We have a problem. The problem is GHG's and out output world wide. We will not solve that problem without divorcing ourselves from emotion and preconception and strictly stick to the facts, even if new facts emerge. Overblown rhetoric, hyperbole, finger-pointing, political grandstanding and stubborness will only assure we wil not solve this problem.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
12:55 PM on 02/21/2012
People laughing at this saying it's like comparing meth to cocaine or something should just go back to watching Twilight since you obviously can't read. The ratio is more like 50-1.

This is a study, not a "tactic" from those notorious extreme rightwinger neocons at the University of Victoria (rolls eyes). THe study actually only confirms what a plethora of other sources have been saying for years, including just the straight numbers - no study needed. US coal pollutes 44 times as much GHG's as the entire oil sands wells-to-wheels, just based on their numbers alone. Plus the radioactive ash from these power stations pollute waterways everywhere.

If you think that's like comparing cocaine to meth you've obviously done too much of both.
12:43 PM on 02/21/2012
LOL! And Angel Dust is waaaay worse than Heroine too.

What a mind numbingly obvious tactic.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
12:49 PM on 02/21/2012
It's not a tactic it's a study and if you could read you'd see the comparrison is more like 50-1, not the rhetorical metaphor you use as a tactic to deny reality.
photo
pleblian
One smart as meɪtər futūtor
01:26 PM on 02/21/2012
Everybody has an agenda...

The findings where just published sunday, now it goes through peer review

That's how science works
photo
Abigail Von Normal
Not unlike the toaster, I control darkness
11:57 AM on 02/21/2012
Translation: Canada is making a lot of money off the oil sands.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montezaro
10:30 AM on 02/21/2012
Yea, the crack cocaine is worse than regular cocaine.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
12:49 PM on 02/21/2012
The ratio is actually more like 50-1 if you bothered to read it.

Keep your head in the sand.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy
Rational human male.
05:43 PM on 02/21/2012
And what's the ratio of damage from crack to regular cocaine? You obviously think it's not 50-1 since you have been countering everyone here with that figure.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
11:35 PM on 02/20/2012
Two years ago Greenpeace and others were tellling the world that there was an England-sized strip mine in Alberta, and that this was the worlds worst ecological/climate danger.

Last year Greenpeace and Robert Redford told you that it was actually just the size of any of the thousands of cities in North America, and that this was the worlds worst ecological/climate danger. Meanwhile Jim Hensen, NASA black sheep, was telling us it will be the end of us all (for $750,000 from Rainforest alliance).

Now what does Greenpeace say?
"While coal is a huge global emissions problem, the dirty tarsands remain Canada's largest climate challenge,"*

Oh. So not the "End of Us All". Not the worlds worst. I see. I can also see why the rhetoric from Greenpeace, NASA and a dozen others would've been ramped up during Copenhagen (two years ago) and more believable today.
09:23 AM on 02/22/2012
Here's what Andrew Weaver, the AUTHOR of the study you're trying to pretend justifies the tar sands, says about the tar sands:
http://www.greenpeace.org/​canada/en/Multimedia/​Videos/​Dr-Andrew-Weaver---Climate-​Scientist-/

He describes the tar sands as "as "end-to-end environmental degredation", and notes that "0.6 degrees of warming will kill off up to 25% of all species on the planet". The spin on this story has been the biggest load of misinformation since the BS about coalition governments being "unconstitutional".
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
10:25 AM on 02/22/2012
Nope. Stop right there. You lose. I am NOT trying to pretend the author is jstifying the tar sands. Not one bit. I simply state that many have condemned the tar sands as the -single/biggest/worst- and it simply is not. There are many more threats to us. That it is still terrible is plainly stated in the article and nowhere am I denying this.

You need to argue what you wish I was saying instead of what I am saying. Exagurration, tunnel-viewing, political posturing, hyperbole, vast ideas shrunken down to a 6 word mantra so it will fit on a plackard, this is not going to help us solve this problem. THIS is my point, besides the vindication I feel for being constantly attacked for saying what they just told you.

Nowhere am I trying to "justify" the tar sands. Nowhere. At least no justification more than any other dirty oil products or dirty coal. My message is *NOT* oil sands over coal, in fact the two aren't very related on that level (you don't drive with coal), I am simply showing that to get the most accurate understanding of the tar sands you MUST have rational comparisions to put them into proper perspective, something people like you can't handle.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
10:28 AM on 02/22/2012
p.2:

Now you can go ahead and post back with your blah blah blah and simply sit there stamping your feet insisting I am justifying the tar sands all you want. I don't really care. Without an articulate rational, non-judgimental, non-fanatical, unexagurrated understanding of the problems we we are facing with global warming we won't survive it. And that *might* mean if coal is both more easily replacible and more of a danger then we need to keep that in view.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
10:46 AM on 02/22/2012
PS - GReenpeace says:
"While coal is a huge global emissions problem, the dirty tarsands remain Canada's largest climate challenge,"

And I'd like to point out that I don't disagree with that assessment, and that what I am plainly pointing out is how their rhetoric or "assessments" of what level of "climate challenge" the tar sands represents has been widdled down to something much more rational and reasonable. They should've said that 2 years ago instead of the exagurrations they, and pretty much everyone else were, and in fact still are claiming.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
11:33 PM on 02/20/2012
I've been pointing this out for years and for years I've been attacked for it from all angles. I am glad that Neil and Andrew over at the University of Victoria will finally be recieving all the accusations of being a "shill for Big Oil" that I always got for saying the same thing.

People like mysellf who manage to find things to read that *don't* prominently feature vampires or zombies have known for years that just US coal, -just- US coal is 44 times the GHG output of the entire oil sands wells-to-wheels. This means that just one state converted to nuclear or geothermal would address more GHGs then the entire oil sands. Geothermal/nuclear are are here-today replacements as well, as opposed to the solar-powered 18-wheelers of our dreams.

This just goes to show that plebeians believe what they want. One climate modeller tells you that the oil sands, a miniscule fraction of teh worlds GHG output is going to be the, "End of the Climate game" and if it fits with what they *want* to believe then it's gospel and they don't think about or scrutinize it or a second.

Another climate modeller comes out and says something actually much more down to Earth and with much less rhetorical, much less hyperbolistic; that the oil sands are bad but really not anywhere near as some people are saying, and everyone attacks them.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy
Rational human male.
05:43 PM on 02/21/2012
This has nothing to do with climate modelling.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
06:39 PM on 02/21/2012
Strange. I never said it did. I said you have two comments from two climate modellers. I never said anything else regarding climate modelling.

Please endevour to argue what I say, not what you *wish* I had said.

Thank you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
10:45 PM on 02/20/2012
Yep.

Been saying that here and other places for years and have been constantly attacked for it.
But it never really matters what kind of pathetic easily manipulated and brainwashed plebeian riff-raff come at you for your opinion when you know you're RIGHT and much more importantly, they're WRONG.

lol. I await all you conspiracy theorists to apply the same illogical attacks that they used on me at Neil Swart and Andrew Weaver, and the School of Earth and Ocean Sciences University of Victoria. I'm sure you're all writing them right now to proclaim they're lobbyests for Big Oil.

lol.

Two years ago Greenpeace claimed that there was a stripmine the size of England in Alberta, and that it was the worlds worst environmental disaster.

Last year Greenpeace and Robert Redford told us it was the size of a city and it's STILL the worlds worst environmental disaster.

Now what does Greenpeace say?

"While coal is a huge global emissions problem, the dirty tarsands remain Canada's largest climate challenge,"

Yeah. 'Canada's largest climate challenge'...so...NOT the worlds worst ecological disaster and NOT as Jim Hansen told you, the End of All of Us. Hmmm. Just like I said over and over agani.
They should've said that two years ago instead of lying for sensationalism.

Thank you very much suckers and censors - completely vindicated. :-)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LawTalkingGuy
Rational human male.
05:45 PM on 02/21/2012
"Two years ago Greenpeace claimed that there was a stripmine the size of England in Alberta, and that it was the worlds worst environmen­tal disaster."

Really? I only find this quotation on a few blogs written by people attacking Greenpeace. I don't see greenpeace saying it.

Maybe you should stick to proving your own assertions instead of just trying to crap on groups that disagree with you.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
06:46 PM on 02/21/2012
I've proved them over and over again so your comment is very strange.

I don't think you have the honest for this but you can see Greenpeaces own cached sites on Google if you use "tar sands size of england Greenpeace", you can also see they've conveniently removed the pages even though it's right there in the cache.

So you've already admitted while asking me to prove it with links that you will discount any link I provide out of hand, and it's obvious in your search you were not being honest. I don't really care. I've proven all the important assertions, and I know this one is true too. Anotehr attacking contrarian wannabie (LawTalkingguy..lol. Yeah) isn't devaluing anything I've said. This "Size of England" quote is available anywhere. Since it's obvious you refuse to see it, your demand for proof is just shallow trolling.

Bye.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
07:31 PM on 02/21/2012
Yep that's right. Bye.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lulex
Made in Canada
08:23 PM on 02/20/2012
Lead Now states: Media missing key piece of Weaver's oilsands research: consuming proven reserves spends 75% (!) of our per-capita carbon budget
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
10:57 PM on 02/20/2012
"Media missing key piece of Weaver's oilsands research: consuming proven reserves spends 75% (!) of our per-capita carbon budget "

And you're missing much much more than just the fct we couldn't consume our proven resources in 200 years.
06:33 PM on 02/20/2012
2 wrongs...
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lulex
Made in Canada
06:26 PM on 02/20/2012
For heavens sake, it's like having two beetles swimming in your soup and the little one trying to tell you the bigger one is the bigger problem. I don't care which one is the lesser of the two weevils they both should go.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
10:47 PM on 02/20/2012
Nope. It's actually much more like a barn full of fat pigs and cows pointing their hoofs at a well fed mouse (Canada).

You Canadians sure love to hate yourselves don't you? Or is it just that you love to hat Alberta so much?
photo
Liz Wilson 2
“a small group can change the world
10:25 AM on 02/21/2012
I dont hate Alberta, but I sure dont love the environmental blight that has been created in this area. The destruction of natural habitat huge and deep, poluted water ways, and disruption of ecosystems that can never be returned to the way they were before. Further, potable water is now and will continue to grow as a depleted resource. This development has already proven to have poluted and will continue to do so. And lastly, so many people just do the happy dance when oil is mentioned and think no further than that.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
02:48 PM on 02/20/2012
The U.S. produces 20.2% of the world's GHG emissions, and 27% of that comes from toxic polluting coal-fired electricit­y. China produces ~24% of the world's GHG emissions, and about 40% of that comes from toxic polluting coal-fired electricit­y. Only half of China's coal burning is for electricit­y, and toxic pollution controls in China are practicall­y non-existe­nt.

Canada only produces 2% of the world's man-made GHGs and the oilsands only produce 5% of Canada's total emissions.

The Oilsands produces one tenth of one percent [0.1%] of the world's GHG emissions.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lulex
Made in Canada
06:31 PM on 02/20/2012
Nice try but NO. Here's why: your not factoring the externalized impacts of tar sands expansion ie: the demand for steel, tires etc. and how much ghg emissions are produced to provide those goods. Canada is one of the world’s largest per capita GHG emitters. Canada ranks 15th out of 17 OECD countries on GHG emissions per capita and scores a “D” grade.3 In 2008, Canada’s GHG emissions were 22 tonnes per capita, significantly higher than the 17-country average of 15 tonnes per capita.
Get the facts from the Conference Board of Canada right here: http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment/greenhouse-gas-emissions.aspx
08:45 PM on 02/20/2012
Ignore him, he's not that swift.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Peter Burgess1
11:19 PM on 02/20/2012
"Here's why: your not factoring the externaliz­ed impacts of tar sands expansion ie: the demand for steel, tires etc."

?

Are you reading what you're writing? What happens with other oil production? No tires or steel involved? It just leaps outta the ground and into the refineries? C'mon.
photo
laymancanuck
IGNORANCE has used up its quota of TOLERANCE
01:21 PM on 02/20/2012
Of course Alberta and Saskatchewan have the highest rate of Co2 emissions they are driving the Canadian economy. Canadians are ashamed and embarrassed by the Oil Sands, at the same time enjoying one of the best economies and standards of living on the planet. Billions are going into R&D to reduce the impact of this messy resource. If this treasure was in anyone else's back yard, it would be exploited and maybe not managed as well. The oil sands are a burden,a responsibility, treasure, an embarrassment of riches, a source of national shame. I'm glad No other Country is burdened with complex problem. Canada is the best country to deal with it.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mjc
Avoid printing any..
11:19 AM on 02/20/2012
Knowing what we apparently know about the use of coal and the fumes from burning it and knowing what we know about oil and gas, especially the problems of extracting it from shale or sand, why don't these "energy" companies try to work more with solar energy solutions instead of making a few corporate interests much richer.
04:39 PM on 02/20/2012
Because the sun isn't always out, and the wind isn't always blowing.
These are not considered "firm energy". Until people are without power for a few days under the "solar or wind" banner will they quit espousing "let's use solar, let's use wind". Yes we can combine them, but to depend upon them, not yet.......................
photo
BentleysPal
We'd be better off if Springers ruled the world
07:56 PM on 02/20/2012
Correct! Wind and solar will never be able to supply our base load requirements. In Ontario tonight, wind is providing 204 MW of a total 34,700 MW of available generation. Forget wind; it will never be able to meet our demands and is incredibly horrible to look at. Solar has a future as a peak-shave source, but it will be years before we get there. We'll have to develop the technology to efficiently store the power generated by solar. Sequestering carbon and compressing it to run turbines is a potential solution and will have the added benefit of reducing GHG emissions.