Misguided Alberta Engineers

The letter in the most recent edition of the PEGG from Frank King, PEng and Rolf Karmsten demands a response since what the writers deem self evident can very easily be construed as quite the opposite.

In the introductory paragraph they accuse those guilty of criticism towards the Athabasca Tar Sands as “…self-interested, erroneous environmental activists around the world…”.  One is compelled to respond by asking the writers to be a little more specific. Do they mean only politicians (Ontario and Quebec ministers mentioned), those directly affected (First Nations people of Fort Chip), scientists (climate, neurological or geological), those directly affected by climate change (Bangladeshis and low lying Island states peoples) or simply anyone who is of a different opinion (majority of the Canadian public)?

They go on to berate dissenters by making the outrageous statement that the greenhouse gases from tar sands  “amount to five percent of total Canadian emissions”, presumably expecting the reader to say, “Well, that’s OK then, isn’t it?” But that is 5% from a single source, or 1/20th of the emissions of the entire country. Extrapolating from this outrageousness they then tell us that this is 0.06% of worldwide emissions, obviously unaware that being able to even measure the emissions from a single source with only a second decimal place is far from trivial. They top off their apparent lack of perception of the entire issue by telling us that Canada, “emits 1.7% of total world emissions” completely ignoring the fact that Canada has barely 0.5% of world population.

They proceed then to tout the nuclear option, once again an issue that the majority of Canadians oppose, telling us that such plants “have essentially zero GHG emissions”.  This is a mistake that many make when not considering the full life cycle of nuclear power. These plants are built primarily from cement which is itself a fossil product and produces GHGs in production, not to mention those generated during the mining and transporting phase. The argument that understates the destructiveness of nuclear fuels, when the full implications of 10,000 year half cycles are considered, is specious in the extreme and requires no rebuttal.

Lastly, the writers evoke the, “Our Economic Engine” argument, as if this trumps everything. We all need to recognize that the pursuit of economic growth, and disregard for its consequences, is the single most prominent reason for the troubles that face the entire planet socially, environmentally and commercially. It’s true that the more garbage we generate, the more jobs we create. The more toxins we put in the air, the more people we require to try and remove them. The BPocalypse, happening right now in the Gulf of Mexico, is great for the GDP just as its predecessor the Exxon Valdis was a generation ago. Alberta can and is sacrificing an area the size of a small country and dumping the cleanup bills onto Canadians as yet unborn, but where’s the morality in that?

To give the writers some credit they complete their letter with some valid suggestions for “tackling GHG emissions”.  It takes courage to advocate “Further introducing carbon limit taxes to encourage innovation” in the province of Alberta where the very word tax is a profanity. They also recognize the CO2 equivalence of methane, although the forcing coefficient of “four times worse than that of carbon dioxide” is way off the mark and nearer to 25 times.

As expected though, the thinking is such that carbon capture and storage is lauded as a valid technique for sequestration. The problems of CCS being totally untried, the outcomes unsure and the rewards minimal, are brushed under the proverbial carpet. Of course, the whole CCS enterprise will ensure business as usual and continued profits to boot, considering all the infrastructure that will be required to build it (and no cost to industry, of course). It is equally obvious that the writers are aligned with industry and government thinking when the $2 billion that CCS has received is compared with the paltry sum given to conservation, renewables and green technologies.