The Globe and Mail is reporting today on how Environment Canada predict that expanding the tar sands will single-handedly undo greenhouse gas gains made by weaning the country’s electrical supply off coal.
This is a problem, because that same Environment Canada report reminded federal environment minister Peter Kent that existing federal and provincial measures to reduce the pollution that causes global warming will only achieve 25 per cent of the reductions his government has committed to under the Copenhagen Accord.
The key obstacle to closing that gap is, of course, the tar sands. They are not only the fastest rising source of greenhouse gases, but (in the absence of Kent doing something about the situation) will soon pump out more greenhouse gases than any provinces not named Alberta or Ontario.
The solution proposed by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers is to ignore the absolute quantity of green house gas emissions (even though that is what determines the impact on global warming), and focus instead on reducing emissions per barrel. Which is why they make solemn promises like: “We will continue to reduce greenhouse gas emissions per barrel of production by improving our energy efficiency and by developing new technologies.”
But if you look closely at the numbers from Environment Canada, it sure looks like they are blowing smoke. The emissions intensity of the tar sands are projected to drops by less than 2 per cent over the next ten years (improved technology is offset by the fact that they developed the easiest and least energy-intensive deposits of bitumen first). Meanwhile, the greenhouse gas emissions from the average barrel produced in Canada is projected to rise by 18%, as the more energy-intensive tar sands make up a larger share of total production.
This is a projection, based on current government policies and as such isn't inevitable.
Greenpeace has pointed out that there is only demand for expanded tar sands production in a world where global warming is in the red zone, and offered up our Energy [R]evolution plan for breaking our addicton to fossil fuels as a way to a different future.
But given the evidence now provided to Peter Kent by his own staff, the question remains: What will he do?
Note: both graphs in this blog are based on the data Tables 6 and 7 of Environment Canada's July 2011 report Canada's Emissions Trends. The intensity graph assumes that bitumen upgrading operations in the United States have comparable emissions per barrel of bitumen upgraded in Canada.