CANADA: Oil sands emissions take back seat to job concerns, Alberta officials say

Debra Kahn, ClimateWire reporter -- Job security and fuel production trump global warming concerns when it comes to Alberta's plans to exploit its vast oil sands reserves, provincial officials said today in Washington, D.C.

Alberta Deputy Premier Ron Stevens made the rounds in Washington yesterday to combat environmental groups' efforts to paint the energy resource as "the world's dirtiest oil."

While a provision in last year's U.S. energy bill pulled the sands into the spotlight, the larger issue of the sands' overall environmental impact is raging among environmental groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council, the Environmental Defense Fund and others took out a full-page ad in Roll Call yesterday warning of a "multimillion-dollar public relations campaign to tell you everything's fine" regarding oil sands' pollution potential. The sands are expected to increase production from about 1.4 million barrels per day now to as much as 5 million barrels per day by 2020.

"Like Americans, Albertans are pragmatic and realistic," Stevens said. "We recognize that a secure, stable and responsibly produced supply of oil is needed to fuel the world's economy. We recognize that cars will still be driven, that ordinary people want to see relief from high energy prices and that hundreds of thousands of workers in the energy sector do still want their jobs.

"Environmental responsibility is no longer a buzzword; it's a value that we mutually believe in, but the world we live in today requires oil and it requires gasoline. And despite what those who hope for an oil-free world would say, Alberta has a proven track record of delivering it with the highest regard to the environment."

As proof, Stevens offered up Alberta's plan to reduce its emissions 14 percent below 2005 levels by 2050 by relying primarily on carbon capture and storage. The plan is to achieve 70 percent of emissions cuts -- about 140 million metric tons -- through storage, with another 18 percent achieved through increased use of clean energy and 12 percent from conservation and energy efficiency (ClimateWire , April 4).

"Is there sense in limiting the potential for the American people to realize with their Alberta and Canadian neighbors the potential for thousands of oil-related jobs?" Stevens asked. "That, my friends, would be a shame."

At what cost job growth?

According to Simon Dyer, oil sands director for Canadian environmental group the Pembina Institute, Alberta's claim of planned reductions from carbon capture involves a "fair bit of smoke and mirrors," as there are currently no proposals on the board that would include the technology.

"They'll say it's not that much greenhouse gas in the scheme of things, but what it does represent is the crossroads of our descent into unconventional oils," he said. "The next step is oil shale in the U.S. and coal-to-liquids."

And "they'll use the argument that industry is improving and trying to reduce its footprint on a per barrel basis, which is true, but based on the massive expansion that we've seen over the past five to six years, the total amount of pollution is getting worse."

Dyer pointed to an Alberta-commissioned report issued last July that contained more than 100 recommendations for the industry's regulation, including evaluating the feasibility of cap and trade for air emissions, writing environmental plans for nearby rivers and taking aboriginal groups' needs into account. None have been implemented, Dyer said.

"It would be much more productive for governments to roll up their sleeves rather than engaging in this greenwashing PR campaign," he said.