Eco Chamber #14: Science Fiction and Fact collide in Alberta’s tar sands

It’s scary sometimes how science fiction can parallel with reality. The Tar Sands dilemma has come to do just that. As we seek to find a solution to our intensive emissions, here in Canada we are putting all our eggs in one basket, with carbon capture and storage, in a scheme that resembles the story of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series more than a realistic plan for the future.

The book trilogy by Asimov closely resembles that of our climate peril. In both, humans are aware that a catastrophic event is near, and attempt to plan for it (In our case, the catastrophe is the global meltdown that the tar sands heavily contribute to). In the Foundation books, they store knowledge for a new civilization to build upon. Down here on earth, we are instead attempting to store problematic CO₂ deep inside the earth where it will (supposedly) remain. In both scenarios, we don’t know if disaster is ultimately averted or not. The problem is, one is a work of fiction, and the other is a real question of urgent public policy.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been proposed as a catchall solution to runaway climate change by the Canadian government. The problem is, we simply don’t know if it actually is a solution, and there are too many risks involved to treat it as the silver bullet that will save us.

The idea behind CCS is that through integrated technology, carbon dioxide can be captured directly from industrial sources — including coal plants and the oil sands — treated, liquefied, and pumped deep into the earth where it will do no harm. Something that would have seemed like science fiction 20 or 30 years ago is now seriously being considered by Canada’s political leadership.

The federal government and the government of Alberta are together pouring $3 billion collectively into this project. By 2015, the province hopes to have five or six CCS project on the run, pulling 10 million tonnes of CO₂ a year from our air.

But CCS technology is in its infancy and it could be 10 or even 20 years away from being commercialized and affordable on a large enough scale to deal with the carbon emissions of the tar sands, according to The Hill Times. Meanwhile, we are continuing and expanding emissions. And there are environmental regulations and long-term liabilities that have not even begun to be established.

The science fiction scenarios contiue, in which we’re threatened by a human-made carbon tsunami. Leakage or bursts of compressed stored carbon would be deadly, suffocating every living thing in its radius. This kind of carbon disaster has already occurred in Lake Nyos, Cameroon. In August of 1986, carbon at the bottom of the lake surfaced roaring in invisible form in a 19 kilometre death zone, killing 1,700 people, 3,000 cattle, countless birds, and insects — essentially, everything in sight.

True, carbon nightmares like these are rare. Carbon can store for millions of years underground safely in the right geological chemistry, as found in a study in Nature. Even the Pembina Institute, a tar-sands watch dog, says the chances of leakage is slim. As well, Alberta is prime land for carbon storage as the province has stored oil and gas underground for millions of years already.

“(But) you can never factor out human error, pipelines and earthquakes. So why would we take that risk when we don’t have to?,” said Emily Rochon from Greenpeace in an interview with the Canadian Press.

Disingenuous politicians are claiming CCS technology could be a panacea, with all its many uncertainties, but call renewable energies like wind and solar the “risky” ones. Sure, solar, wind and biomass are not the stuff of utopian dreams either, as Jeremy Nelson pointed out recently in This. But shouldn’t reducing GHG and promoting energy efficiently be our ultimate goal — not aiding further climate crimes?

Sure, it’s not all bad. CCS can assist positively in our tar sands and climate perils. As according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CCS could contribute 15 to 55 percent of the world’s total GHG reductions between now and 2100 if successful. In Canada, we could potentially reduce 40 percent of our emissions by 2050. This is good news. But it will still not be enough to bring Alberta’s emissions down, which at present are 58 million tonnes a year and are only expected to increase with oil sands expansion. Let’s face it: CCS is being wielded as a distraction in order to support the status quo today.

Therefore, putting all our eggs in one basket to stave off “thermageddon” is a science-fiction writer’s fantasy – not a realistic plan. At best, CSS is one of many transitional solutions to creating our green economy. It is not our one and only shining star.

[Next week: meet one activist who is fighting tar sands development, plus why a moratorium is crucial.]

Canada failing the Climate Battle

There is a sense of progress in the air. For the first time in over a decade, G8 countries and developing nations, including China and India, have agreed to reduce their emissions in absolute numbers. But as this global parade marches on, Canada is being left behind as our emissions continue to climb.

The G8 Summit, lead by President Obama, last week finished talks in Italy with industrialized nations and emerging economies agreeing to an 80 per cent emissions cut by 2050, as well as a 2° C threshold. There is still much work to be done, including establishing the essential base year for reductions, the debate ranging from 1990 to 2006 levels. However, for the first time there is American leadership on our climate peril that is driving change not only domestically, but internationally.

“I know in the past, the United States has sometimes fallen short of meeting our responsibilities. So, let me clear: those days are over,” said Obama last week in L’Aquila, Italy.

In the United States, since Obama took office, C02 has been declared officially a danger; $60 billion is being pumped into renewables; and the House recently approved the Waxman-Markey climate bill that will change American fossil fuel reliance, as well as spell out action internationally at the Copenhagen Climate Conference in December. Which is not to say there hasn’t been criticism of the Obama administration and the climate bill itself, but these are the first signs of action by a political leader on our global meltdown.

But where does all this political change in climate change leave Canada? According to the WWF’s 2009 Climate Scorecards, dead last.

Canada ranked last out of all the G8 countries for its climate performance. In 2008, the U.S. held this spot. But since Obama took the lead in climate initiatives, Canada is now the one stalling progress.
“Canada’s per capita emissions are among the highest in the world (next to Russia)” states WWF.

We currently emit 24 tonnes of C02 per capita and, despite being one of the first countries to sign the Kyoto Protocol, we are one of the furthest from our Kyoto target. The Kyoto Protocol required a 6 percent emissions decrease by 2012. Since the Accord was established, we have increased emissions by 26 percent. One of our biggest emitters is the Alberta Tar Sands project.

“The Alberta Tar Sands are becoming Canada’s number one global warming machine,” says Tony Clarke, Polaris Institute Director, in his book Tar Sands Showdown.

With Middle East and African oil presenting problems of price fluctuations and political uncertainty, Alberta’s unconventional but secure sources of oil are looking increasingly attractive to global markets. However, production of one barrel of oil from these bitumen deposits produce three times more greenhouse gases (GHGs) than conventional oil. The project pumps out 27 million tonnes of CO2 emissions per year, or 16% of the total emissions of Canada.

And the government only has plans for expansion. The project is expected to multiply as much as four to five times by the year 2015 to meet growing demand. That’s 108 to 126 megatonnes of GHG poured into the atmosphere annually. That would make the tar sands the single largest industrial contributor of greenhouse gases in North America.

Reducing GHGs by 80 percent, as Canada pledged last week to do, while planning to expand the tar sands project, is simple math that does not add up. We can’t have our cake and eat it too – or in this case, have our bitumen cash crop and claim sustainability. Even if our only emitting producer were the tar sands project and we lived in some eco-utopia otherwise, we are still overextending our GHG emissions with further development of this project.

Singlehandedly, the tar sands sabotage any possibility of Canada fulfilling a Copenhagen climate agreement.

Yet in last Saturday’s Globe & Mail, in an interview with Prime Minister Stephen Harper, he said: “A realistic commitment (in the battle against climate change) is consistent with growth in the oil sands.” Frankly, no, it’s not.

[Next week in Part 2 of 3: why carbon-capture and storage is no silver bullet solution for the tar sands]

Eco Chamber #12: Solving our Garbage Footprint

The buzzword around Toronto for the past two weeks has been “garbage.” The garbage that is pilling up around public canisters into miniature CN Towers. The garbage that is filling parks and arenas a quarter full arousing smells and attracting pests to local neighbors. And the garbage Torontonians left behind after the celebratory mess of the Pride Parade and Canada Day.

Its day 12 of a public workers strike in Toronto and already there are signs of our livable-city utopia coming crashing down as garbage stinks up our homes, city and, apparently, attitudes. Some argue the city is keeping its cool. But like all things under smoldering summer heat, it can only keep so long until it ferments. This summer Torontonians will need to face the problem festering in the bins outside our houses: the enormous amount of waste we make.

According to the Toronto Star, Ontario produces 12.4 million tonnes of garbage annually. That is the equivalent weight of more than 80,000 fully loaded Boeing 707 jetliners. Out of that, only 3 million tonnes—just 20 percent—of garbage is diverted into recycled goods despite our aggressive recycling system. Many Ontario landfills will reach full capacity in less than 20 years.

Much of our waste is plastic water bottles, packaging and coffee cups. In Toronto alone, there are 1 million plastic water bottles discarded daily and another 1 million coffee cups, says the Star.

But we can’t blame Starbucks and the Coca-Cola water brand Dasani for this. We are the consumers creating this waste. And while climate change is the umbrella issue of our time, there are other issues that get veiled over. Like the big smelly elephant in the room that nobody likes talking about – our consumption and the waste that follows it.

As individuals, there are many ways to reduce our trash footprint. Adria Vasil promotes several ways to do this in her EcoHolic column, including: composting, going meat-free, package-free, as well as things we commonly don’t think about—such as separating our condoms and “hygiene products.”

GarbageRevolution.com is a film and website that experiments with keeping one’s garbage for an extended period of time to assess our individual garbage output.

There are plenty of additional ways we can redirect our waste into more useful means outside of dumpsites. Treehugger reports that Broward County, Fla., for example is using garbage as a resource in waste-based energy production, creating alternatives for our energy crisis. And Houston’s Waste Management will be converting garbage into fuel and electricity with waste gasification in a joint venture with InEnTec, says Kevin Bulls in Technology Review.

There are plenty of ways of slimming down and transforming our waste streams. But the one thing we can’t do is continue to think of garbage as a simple summer inconvenience with the public workers strike. Otherwise we will literally sink communities and the oceans with our Timmy’s coffee cups. Let’s be bold and face our own stink.