CTV News | Activist dismisses oilsands emissions report

Top Stories -   

Activist dismisses oilsands emissions report

Viewer

CTV News Video

Canada AM: Mike Hudema, Greenpeace Canada

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."

Please Add Comments( )

Craig
said
0 0

The problem with the environmentalists at Greenpeace and Pembina etc. is that they have unrealistic expectations. They make lots of noise about needing to reduce emissions but when you ask how that is to be done they shrug their shoulders and complain more.

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
said
0 0

Intersting how people are losing jobs and the word recession is used a lot these days and they want to put the brakes on the most vibrant economy in the country? When I get one shred of proof of global warming I say full steam ahead on the oil sands, I hate cold winters anyway!


Bruce
said
0 0

It's not suprising that those who blindly follow the mantra of the AGW scam willfully ignore the actual data that's been collected by agencies such as NASA, but instead base their position on manipulated computer models. For Greenpeace, the Suzuki Foundation and Gore it's all about the money. For the Liberals it's all about a tax grab opportunity from which the pork barrel gravy train will leave the station.


mulla
said
0 0

Since 1990, Suncor's carbon emissions have more than doubled, and they're set to double again by 2012.
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
said
0 0

Oh oil companies give so many good laughs....


Rob O
said
0 0

I wonder has anybody every investigated Greenpeace and see how they travel around the world in their fuel powered boats and cars or do they just put up a sail or out oars to row to these events. Maybe they should take all the monies they get and invest it into better resources to power the world. Wait, then they will have nothing to complain about!


dave
said
0 0

Let the name calling begin. The drones will line up on this message board to say Greenpeace=Kook. But you know what? They have been right all along.

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
said
0 0

Well i do believe suncor and the oil sands need to clean up, i don't believe anything greenpeace says anymore.


Wayne
said
0 0

The politicians must have their heads in the (oil)sand(s) if they think emmissions would not rise with increased production. Of course to the politicians, political advantage must be gained by this disclosure from Suncor and I expect to see each parties' spin shortly.


bruno
said
0 0

It is smoke and mirrors by the oil company. Reducing the intensity comes about due to economies of scale, however, in the end more GHGs are being released into our atmoshpere.


GW
said
0 0

Even with a massive world wide alternative energy push, the world is still going to desperately need every drop of oil the world can produce and not fast enough. Our economies run on energy and when economies start to tank because of energy shortages, Global warming will be the last thing on people’s minds.

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
said
0 0

Not to sound anti-environment, but...
.
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
said
0 0

The Liberal plan for a carbon budget will transfer wealth from producers to consumers. The NDP plan for a cap-and-trade system is flawed because it depends on industry-reported statistics, but still can create an effective market-based incentive to all industries that should help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. As noted, the Conservative plan seems to be empty press releases, avoid leadership or action until developing countries take action first, and attack ads against the opposition. "Intensity" targets just make it easier to bring new production online, and fiddling with numbers and dates creates an illusion of progress without any substantiation in fact.

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
said
0 0

Something really needs to be done about the Oilsands. They still have 50 some odd years worth of toxic pollution to clean up. Counting on future technology to help the mess is idiotic and foolish. The only way to make the Oilsands profitable in the near future is with nuclear power. Which leaves more of a problem. Cancer rates and various health problems have risen in the area....that can't be denied. Take a tour of the Oilsands it's enough to make a person sick. It takes a lot of oil to keep the war machine churning to the south of us. I say curb all future Oilsand expansions until they can figure out a way to take care of the tailing ponds and other health issues. Use the oil to power Canada's economy. if oil is so rare, maybe we shouldn't be exporting any.....especially to the States. All these new pipelines directly to the States have me extremely worried. Canada is giving their future away, when it should be for Canadians to decide.


ARJAY
said
0 0

Why is it that conservatives and climate-change deniers are always reduced to name calling, sweeping generalizations and unsubstantiated claims to make their "argument"? Greenpeace warned us about over fishing and pollution of the oceans 30 years ago- and they were right. Fish stocks are in desperate straits. Suzuki warned about global warming and resource depletion- and he was right. Heard of Katrina? Floods in the U.S.? Drought in the Sahara? Al Gore has been tirelssly campaigning to wake the world up-- somehow he's making a fortune from this? Really? How? How much? And that Nobel prize thing...con game?
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
said
0 0

Just a question to all these global warming fear mongers. If we cut out all our ghg emmissions and the China's, India's increasing will global warming stop at the border? I for one do not believe in global warming being man made or that we can stop it if we wnat to.
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
said
0 0

Craig is absolutely right. They decreased emissions per unit production (barrel) but had an overall increase because of a large increase in demand/production of oil. Just think of how much their emissions will decrease when this oil boom slows.


Gary
said
0 0

Its funny to see everyones short sightedness...of course that is the oil companies strategy...continue screwing everything in the name of profits in cloak and dagger reality of energy needs until there is no recourse but continue this destructive path. I am concerned Greenpeace has overstepped but the reality is that only through new innovative technology will the real problem be solved.....clean energy. We cant destroy the world for short term effects..but we cant crumble the economic engines either..would seem to be obvious that we must invest heavily and immediately in R & D to fast track new technolgies, develop new energy sources and alternative energies. The oil companies are not doing nearly enough of this type of investment and our governments have their heads in the oilsands What I compliment Greenpeace for is to promote the citizens of the world to take their planet back and ensure we all do the ' right thing'. Now there's a refreshing concept !!! " Do the Right Thing"


Dale Wilson
said
0 0

So what is Kyoto if its not a shell game? C02 emitters in the "developed" world will pay the "developing" world for C02 credits. Nothing gets reduced, nothing gets resolved...just a transfer of funds from one group to another...Suzuki, Pembina, Greenpeace...all running the world's biggest three card monte game...and guess who gets to lose? Vous et moi.


Grady
said
0 0

I'll ignore the denialism propaganda spouted in some of the comments, but I will pay attention to one point. Some comments claim the "loonies" say we have to cut emissions but have no ideas for solutions.

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
said
0 0

There are many elements that are working in sequence here. NAFTA prohibits the use of barriers to trade. Society has developed an obsession for energy. In the meantime, the US is attempting to secure energy and has looked to the north to do so. And finally, oil companies are becoming filthy rich. This has left Alberta (and Canada) powerless and un-interested in regulating the rate of development of the oilsands...which is the main reason for higher GHG emissions. Break any one of these elements in this sequence and the rate of production will decrease hence reducing GHG.


Trent
said
0 0

As pointed out, the message presented by Greenpeace is a good but entirely unrealistic. The human race whether we like it or not is currently tied to oil, no current alternative is feasible. The price of oil has doubled in the last year primarily due to specultaion and demand, what Greenpeace is demanding is that we essentially decrease the supply. This is something tangible and will ensure that the price of oil will spike up even higher as producers will not be able to meet demand. If you don't like the current price of fuel at the pumps how owuld you like it to double again in the short term, how would you like the price of everything you purchase to skyrocket due to increased shipping costs. This would come on the heals of the Canadian economy going into a deep recession (or depression) as Greenpeace would want us to shut down the one industry that is currently keeping Canada afloat. Yes what they say is novel but totally unattainable! The only current solution is for people to try and conserve as much as possible and get out of our wasteful habits. This may even help alevtiate the record oil prices through lower demand.


Frank from Oshawa
said
0 0

It amazes me that everyone is pointing fingers at the automobile as the main use for oil when it appears that we are surrounded by plastic. Do people realize that plastic is made from oil? This includes shopping bags, computers, car parts,, the list goes on. I believe that as people are complaining about our dependance on oil, they are typing on their one of 2 home computors, have a plastic TV in every room and talk on a plastic cell phone.

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 !
said
0 0

With all due respect Greenpeace does not represent the voice of moderation and reasoned response to what once was called "Global Warming" issues now being called "Climate Change" issues.

They are a political group who violate the law and cause havoc generally speaking wherever they go.





Doug BC
said
0 0

"Arjay".Why is it everyone who disagrees with Greenpeace's proposed remedies is labels as being in denial regarding climate change, or fossil fuel usage?? You do it regularly.
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!!
said
0 0

Bruce writes: "For Greenpeace, the Suzuki Foundation and Gore it's all about the money".

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
said
0 0

greenpeace = Chicken Little (the sky is falling)
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
said
0 0

I don't place a lot of faith in "activists" or "lobby groups" any more.Even though I see a need to find different sources to move our economy along.
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
said
0 0

is Arjay a real person or just made up for comic relief? Arjay cannot figure out how Al Gore is making a fortune off his carbon trading companies and blames global warming for a drought in the SAHARA DESERT!!!


Les J
said
0 0

According to StatsCan latest emissions report, Oil and Gas Extraction (including oil sands) and mining, accounted for 2.6% of Canada's emissions in 2006.

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
said
0 0

According to StatsCan latest emissions report, Oil and Gas Extraction (including oil sands) and mining, accounted for 2.6% of Canada's emissions in 2006.

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
said
0 0

you can manipulate any report to show a good or a bad spin, if you think these emissions are bad look across the pond China, India where the emissions are ten times higher, diseases caused from polution are higher and why?
profit!


E. Burke
said
0 0

Why doesn't this story mention the current plan to reduce GHG's by 20% by 2020? Both the Libs and Cons have said we aren't going to meet Kyoto. No matter who forms the next Government Kyoto is dead in Canada.


Doug
said
0 0

You know, there sure are a lot of folks out there that really do want to have their cake and eat it too. We all, I'm sure, want to live in a nice clean toxic free environment, so I find it interesting that so many are so inclined to dump all over any environmentalist or group that comes along. Case in point: Greenpeace. These people have been going up against the big (as much black ink as you can soak into a bottomline at any cost)bad companies for decades. They have had to resort to some very unsavoury activities to get the message out there inspite of the huge PR and advertising budgets of these corporations.
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
said
0 0

Has anyone else noticed the educational/intelligence divide that exists between the right and the left?

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.


Share with your social Network:

 

Advertisement

Contest

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.

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.

Share this article with Facebook

Share this article with Digg

Share this article with Newsvine

Share this article with delicious

Share this article.
Send Email

Share this article with Twitter

Share this article with StumbleUpon

Share this article with Reddit

Share this article with Yahoo! Buzz