News Sections
Activist dismisses oilsands emissions report
Font-size:
Share
Print
Comments(35)
CTV.ca News Staff
Date: Wed. Jun. 18 2008 11:24 AM ET
A major oilsands producer claims to have reduced its greenhouse gas emissions "intensity" over the past year, but an environmental activist calls that a "shell game."
Suncor admits in a report released Wednesday that its absolute emissions rose by 3.6 per cent between 2006 and 2007.
The company did say its emissions intensity has fallen by 25 per cent across the company and 44 per cent at its oilsands operation north of Fort McMurray, Alta.
When the company refers to emissions intensity, it means the amount of emissions created to produce a barrel of oil has decreased.
"What they don't talk about that much is overall emissions and the fact that they are producing way more barrels than they used to," Mike Hudema, a climate and energy campaigner with Greenpeace Canada, told Canada AM from Edmonton on Wednesday.
"Since 1990, Suncor's carbon emissions have more than doubled, and they're set to double again by 2012."
Climate activists have taken aim at the oilsands because they are considered Canada's "dirtiest" source of oil.
Hudema said it takes anywhere from three to five times as much carbon energy to produce a barrel of oil from the oilsands as to produce a barrel of conventional oil.
A Suncor spokesman wasn't available to speak to Canada AM.
The oilsands contain proven reserves of 173 billion barrels of oil, with a potentially recoverable reserves estimated to be 315 billion barrels, according to the Alberta government.
Conventional oil reserves in Alberta are in decline.
Investment in expanding oilsands capacity has driven Alberta's economy to frenetic heights in recent years.
Alberta's Premier Ed Stelmach, who won a huge election victory this winter, promised not to put the brakes on oilsands development.
His climate plan calls for a 14 per cent reduction in total emissions, compared to 2005 levels, by 2050. The Alberta plan centres on carbon capture and storage, which isn't yet a proven technology.
"We need to see reductions based on climate science," Hudema said.
Most climate scientists say the world needs to reduce its emissions to at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050 in order to stave off dangerous climate change.
Canada's Kyoto Protocol target calls for this country to cut its emissions by six per cent below 1990 levels by 2012.
Hudema said the oilsands expansion "will make it harder to address climate change in any meaningful way in Canada."
"By 2020, the industry is predicting that over 141 million tonnes of greenhouse gases are going to be emitted into the atmosphere by the tar sands," he said.
"To put that in perspective, that's almost double all the emissions of all the cars and trucks in Canada."
User Tools
Related Stories
Related Websites
User Tools
About the tools
Need to get in touch with CTV? You can email the CTV web team using the 'Feedback' button.
-


Font-size
Print Article
Comments(35)-
Feedback
Share it with your network of friends
Share this CTV article or feature with your friends. Click on the icon for your favourite social networking or messaging system, and follow the prompts.
Most Viewed News Stories
Most Talked about Stories
I applaud the budget, even though Health Care and education may stay unscathed. Sadly this cannot last and I worry to later this year where cuts will become enviable. If anything, this provides the Wildrose Alliance plenty of ammo when an election is called.


Please Add Comments( )
Craig
0
said
0
Let's look at the big picture here, let's look long term. Suncor is reducing the intensity of their emissions drastically as they invest in new technologies and efficiencies. That means this reduction can only continue.
Hence, in the future Suncor and others will probably be able to reduce intensity so much that we will see an actual reduction in GHG emissions. Since the technologies will already be in place, that reduction will be permenant.
But no, Greenpeace wants a cut tomorrow no matter what. That's only possible if Suncor shuts down for a year, highly unrealistic. Plus, the second Suncor starts up again emissions will return to its existing levels because the technology won't be there. Then the Greenpeace cycle of complaints will start again.
The enviromentalists should stop trying out-protest each other and offer realistic solutions.
JM
0
said
0
Bruce
0
said
0
mulla
0
said
0
By 2020, the industry is predicting that over 141 million tonnes of greenhouse gases are going to be emitted into the atmosphere by the tar sands
Adam
0
said
0
Rob O
0
said
0
dave
0
said
0
This is peak oil. And people have been warned for thirty years that we would top out then go into decline.
What irritates me more than anything is that the people who have been proven right are still trivialized as hippies and kooks.
The Green Party - fiscally conservative - resource prudent - sustainable policy - HAVE SAID THIS STUFF SINCE THE EARLY 80s!!!
Now all the "real" parties steal all their platform planks way to late in the game.
It is time for Canadians to pony up and give credit where credit is do. The traditionalist got us here by selling out to the unions and the corporate lobbiests for campaign money to buy votes.
Show them you can see through it.
Asif
0
said
0
Wayne
0
said
0
bruno
0
said
0
GW
0
said
0
We need to get our priorities straight. Environmentalists should be pressing hard to force industry to do things cleanly but should not be aloud to stop development and progress. Let’s remember that a lot of the extremists we see in the news are a bunch of granola eating, unshaven, smelly cave dwellers that think we should all live in grass huts eating roots and bulrushes.
Let’s develop as cleanly as we can but let’s develop. We can adapt to Global Warming but we can’t adapt to economic collapse.
Brian
0
said
0
.
Would not most any manufacturer that produces more product use more energy, or in other words produce more carbon.
.
Are these enviromentalists suggesting we curb economic growth?
Lart from Above
0
said
0
The Kyoto Accord, ratified in 1997, implemented in legislation in Canada in 1999, with a first round of regulations in 2001, was expected to create political discussion and initial phases of regulation, followed by capital investment by polluters such that most of the improvement would be seen closer to the 2012 time frame. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pushed up the price of oil, making the Alberta tar sands economically viable, which caused a unique challenge for Canada in the early 21st century. Canada has lost ground over the past two years, just at the time when the public started to support taking real action; now we need a government with the ability to understand and deal with the problem of greenhouse gas emissions.
jeff
0
said
0
ARJAY
0
said
0
And the most ludicrous argument of all...who's responsible for our energy problems? Why, the environmentalists, of course!
Oh please!
Somehow all of these conservationists and environmentalists have become "cave dwellers" who "smell". Apparently they also eat granola. Whew! What a relief. Now I know that CO2 doesn't cause an increase in temperature, no matter what those cave dwelling "scientists" with all their facts and measurements say...cause we need more oil to fuel our lifestyle, no matter what the consequences, eh? Can't stop progress...
al from Calgary
0
said
0
As for what type of planet are we going to leave to our children, if these activists have there way, we won't have to worry about it because we won't be to afford to have kids so its a mute point. Improving technologies will take care of this without people having to go to the poor house, so rather than whine and complain come up with reasonable alternatives or keep your mouths shut.
Josh in Ontario
0
said
0
Gary
0
said
0
Dale Wilson
0
said
0
Grady
0
said
0
There are plenty of solutions already at our fingertips if we choose to use them. We need very little oil if we convert to plug in hybrids (already available). Electricity demand growth can be met by solar and wind (already economically viable). If companies insist on getting oil from tarsands they need to invest the money necessary to set up carbon capture and sequestration. Oh, I'm sorry I forgot, they are ONLY getting $135 per barrel and raking in record profits.
The real doomsayers are the ones who claim there are no solutions to climate change.
Miker
0
said
0
Trent
0
said
0
Frank from Oshawa
0
said
0
The population will only point fingers when it benefits themselves. Cut the use of plastic and oil dependance will be reduced and thus will emissions
Not about green or peace !
0
said
0
They are a political group who violate the law and cause havoc generally speaking wherever they go.
Doug BC
0
said
0
I fully accept the need to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels.I also am well aware of the need to reduce both GHG's and pollutant emmissions.
But so far,I'm not on board with those who want to tax people into poverty. At least,until they have remedies that work. So far,the loony left has few, if any.Just grab the tax money and run.
There are line-ups for hybrid vehicles. We are seeing the birth of new technologies to move forward.But they are far from being easily available,and are beyond the ability of people taxed into poverty to pay for.
We do need to change the way we do a lot of things.But it is the wealth generated by those resources that will help pay for those changes.
To reject some of the proposals put forward as solutions DOES NOT mean either the government or the citizens are "in denial". It means we need better ideas that don't have us living in poverty while we freeze or starve in the dark.
And finally, it WILL BE the developed nations and their science that will provide answers that will work. Certainly not poor countries.
Bruce is hilarious!!
0
said
0
And, of course, for Suncor it's all about the providing jobs for Canadians, helping our economy, and selling their oil at a modest profit to Canadian refineries. Nothing but our best interests at heart, and certainly nothing to do with money.....
M
0
said
0
All the greenpeace activists travel in some form of transportation that requires fuel source. They just don't talk about it. Canada's economy is being sustained from a rescession like the one in the U.S. because of the financial stability oil brings to Canada. It is known that engineers are are working on new technologies to reduce the emissions. The problem will be solved; just not overnight. Just like expecting greenpeace activists to develop a sense of balance instead of exstreamism overnight won't happen. Economy and environment need to be held in balance.
Linda in Vancouver
0
said
0
Perhaps what we should do is totally shut down everything in the country that does not meet their approval for maybe a day,or a week,or even a month.
We'd be in dire straights,but it might give them a reality check on how difficult this change will be,and how few real alternatives are readily available on very short notice.
"NO" to fossil fuels,"NO" to nuclear,"NO" to any more damms,"NO" to anything that burns anything.NIMBYISM and the BANANA mentality is alive and well in Canada thanks to fools who think we can power the whole country with windmills and solar panels and that more taxes can reduce emmissions in ways that better technology cannot.Or,for that matter,that anything we do in Canada will help at all if the really big economies do nothing at all.
IAN
0
said
0
Les J
0
said
0
Let me repeat that. All oil and gas activity, and all mining, accounted for 2.6% of Canada's CO2 energy emissions. Its about 2% of ALL emissions.
As for Greenpeace...they were delisted as a charitable organization (by the liberals, in case you are wondering), and are officially a lobbying group. This is due to their POLITICAL activity.
Les J
0
said
0
Let me repeat that. All oil and gas activity, and all mining, accounted for 2.6% of Canada's CO2 energy emissions. Its about 2% of ALL emissions.
As for Greenpeace...they were delisted as a charitable organization (by the liberals, in case you are wondering), and are officially a lobbying group. This is due to their POLITICAL activity.
chris
0
said
0
profit!
E. Burke
0
said
0
Doug
0
said
0
Believe me, they really are putting it all on the line to give us the truth. These corporations spend untold millions on spin specialists to mutate the truth.
We all owe them our respect.
Doug
Kevin - Alberta
0
said
0
I know this is a very offensive and controvercail thing to say and I fully expect some nasty name calling but I am asking in all seriousness. In my experience those who tend to be extremely right winged seem to be on average less educated and less flexible on their views.
On the other hand those that are extremely left winged seem to have less real world experience and less regard for real world economics.
Perhaps one day we can all meet in the middle somewhere and truly discuss these issues with an open mind and a willingness accept that all of us are wrong to some extent on some issues. Partisan political stances are detrimental to achieving measurable progress as they preclude the possibility of compromise and fallibility.