CCS worth pursuing, but not to the exclusion of surer bets

Posted by EcoFriendly

Mar 3

My Clean Break column today takes a shot at the Canadian government for repeatedly touting carbon capture and sequestration as a panacea for the oil sands, while at the same time refusing to recognize — and support — the role that renewable energy can play. It comes on the heels of an appropriately critical National Geographic feature on the oil sands called “Scrapping Bottom,” and the recently yet repeatedly expressed belief of Environment Minister Jim Prentice that technology will save the day.

Perhaps technology will helps prolong our days on this planet, but it won’t be carbon capture and sequestration, which is too expensive, unproven, inefficient and, in some applications, ineffective to tackle the ghost in Canada’s climate-change closet. By refusing to acknowledge the major role that other renewables can play to avoid these carbon emissions in the first place, and to do it more quickly and economically, Stephen Harper is sending Canada’s economy down a path that’s unsustainable.

Aside from some environmental groups, nobody is asking the government to shut down the oil sands. What they’re asking is for development to be frozen while we address the environmental concerns we face today. CCS is part of the solution, and the long-term part, so we need to put more investment and attention to technologies that make oil sand operations more efficient, or which use clean alternatives to natural gas — such as geothermal and solar thermal. Canada is not doing itself any favours by broadening the path it’s currently on. Better to build a couple of new paths that will enable a less painful transition over the long term.

Oil sands supporters like to remind the rest of Canada, particularly Ontarians, that the Alberta oil industry is the country’s economic engine and creates the jobs and government revenues that keep the rest of us happy. Yeah, and it creates a lot of jobs for foreign workers as well who take that wealth out of the country, and for foreign companies that also take that wealth out of the country. Maybe if we slowed down development, we could come to a pace that’s sustainable using our own national workforce? And why can’t we pursue other paths as well? Why is it just assumed that the path laid down is the only path for employment and GDP growth in Alberta?

To quote the end of my column:

Under an Obama administration, America is no longer in denial. Having acknowledged its addiction to oil, the United States is checking itself into rehab. Canada’s steadfast position? Renovate the crack house, use cleaner needles and continue feeding a nasty global habit. Surely we could broaden that narrow, dangerous vision.

I’ll end with this: Just what is Rex Murphy smoking? His position — that Alberta’s oil sands is bringing home the Canadian bacon so we should just shut up – borderline insulting, and ignores the fact that the oil sands — despite its job and wealth creation so far – is a generational symbol of the crossroads we are at. We either choose to go down an unsustainable path or we begin creating some other paths to make the transition less painful in the long term. Attacking National Geographic for consuming fuel in the course of making its story is like blaming the dog for eating the slop that’s put in front of him. We, as average Canadians, haven’t had much say about it.