Canada Hides 20 Percent Tar Sands Annual Pollution Increase from UN

Mon, 2011-05-30 10:12Emma Pullman
Emma Pullman's picture

Canada Hides 20 Percent Tar Sands Annual Pollution Increase from UN

The Canadian federal government deliberately excluded data documenting a 20 percent increase in annual pollution from Alberta's tar sands industry in 2009. That detail was missing from a recent 567-page report on climate change that Canada was required to submit to the United Nations.

According to Postmedia News, Canada left the most recent numbers out of the report, a national inventory on Canada’s greenhouse gas pollution. The numbers are used to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions and prevent catastropic climate change. It is certainly not the first time that Canada has dragged its feet on its international climate obligations, but omission of vital information is a new low, even for them.

While Canada's report reveals a six percent drop in annual emissions for the entire economy from 2008 to 2009, it fails to account for the extent of pollution from tar sands production, which is greater than the greenhouse gas emissions of all the cars driven on Canadian roads.

Canada's attempts to greenwash Alberta's tar sands are increasingly brazen. Last week we reported that the Canadian government was complicit with industry in the creation of an “Oil Sands Team” to lobby abroad to aggressively undermine European environmental standards.

Emissions per barrel of oil produced by tar sands developers are increasing, despite claims to the contrary made by industry in an advertising campaign.

Overall, Environment Canada said that the tar sands industry accounts for about 6.5 percent of Canada’s annual greenhouse gas emissions in 2009, up from five percent in 2008. Pollution from the tar sands has skyrocketed 300 percent since 1990, cancelling out many pollution reduction efforts in other sectors of the Canadian economy.

Industry claims that its figures do not show any significant growth in emissions per barrel of oil produced, yet the full report noted an intensity increase of 14.5 per cent from 2008 to 2009.

In the report, emissions from a mining category, which includes tar sands extraction, saw a whopping 371 per cent increase in greenhouse gas pollution.

To make matters worse, Canada was the last country to file its report to the UNFCCC. It submitted its report even after earthquake-struck Japan, and was unable to explain in detail why its report was late.

Evidence is mounting that the Harper government is deliberately trying to scuttle international action to fight climate change.

Head over to the Montreal Gazette to read more.

Previous Comments

That actually might be of concern IF CO2 were pollution.
But since it clearly is NOT, only the AGW industry cares.

The OIL Sands are actually just a big natural oil spill that is being concientiously cleaned up.

CO2 is merely harmless plant food so it really a win win.

Except to dufus greenies.

Your argument is irrelevent. The problem is not whether CO2 pollutes, but the fact that increased CO2 in the atmosphere causes the earth to heat up. It allows more heat in than it allows to escape. And there are no plants way up in the sky, so the CO2 up there is not plant food.

“That actually might be of concern IF CO2 were pollution.”

It doesnt have to be pollution to be of concern. It just has to force temperatures up. The negative consequences flow from that.

“The OIL Sands are actually just a big natural oil spill that is being concientiously cleaned up.”

oh I get it; an underground oil spill that needs to be sucked out and burned. How ethical. Ezra, is that you?

CO2 is merely harmless plant food so it really a win win”

For which plants? Not the ones near the equator. The geologic ripple effects of C02 are not harmless, thats pure nonsense only a dufus denier would believe. Win win means bi-winning. Charlie Sheen, is that you?

“That actually might be of concern IF CO2 were pollution.
But since it clearly is NOT, only the AGW industry cares.”

There is no ‘AGW industry’. C02 doesn’t have to be a pollutant to be of concern, it just has to force temperatures up, and the negative consequences flow from there.

“The OIL Sands are actually just a big natural oil spill that is being concientiously cleaned up.”

Yeah, an underground mess of tar that is being ‘conscientiously’ sucked out and burned. How ethical. Ezra, is that you?

CO2 is merely harmless plant food so it really a win win”.

It’s win-win, or bi-winning. Charlie Sheen, is that you? You might want to read up on the PETM event 55 mya and see how absurd your comment is. C02 is ‘harmless’ only to dufus deniers.

Why do they use potassium and bonemeal and all that sort of thing in gardens if all they need to do is breathe out on the plants to give them food?

You’re an idiot.

“plant food”. Like O2 is “human food”. I.e. a big fat lie.

Please VJ…. You can do better than that.
I have see you do it.

Your rebuttle is so lame it is merely humorus.

By your silly logic, one could argue that the oceans cant absorb CO2 because they dont contact that high flying upper atmosphere CO2.

Duh….?

BTW, CO2s ability to trap heat is nearly at its max already. Doubling it will have very little effect. And that effect will be benificial anyway.

By your silly logic, no need to water plants or put your tomatoes in a grow-bag, just breathe on them and they’ll be fine.

Tell me, if the plants eat CO2 and grow bigger, why is CO2 rising? Are the plants not hungry? See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

BTW, CO2s ability to trap heat is nearly at its max already.”

Another idiot lie. See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

If it’s at max, why is Venus’ surface hot enough to melt tin?

BTW, CO2s ability to trap heat is nearly at its max already. Doubling it will have very little effect. And that effect will be benificial anyway.’

Total crap as the science demonstrates, the CO2 saturation is a myth, but then you never argue on the specifics of the science do you.

Try learning some here:

http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/index.html

and click on Sample Chapters.

Sorry Lionel but.

the Fact that CO2s ability to trap heat diminishes exponentially as the concentration increases is well established science.

Now the Myth about CO2 staying in the atmosphere for 100 years or more…. That is pure myth.

again… People .. dont accept anything you read here. Go look it up for yourselves and you will see the actual truth.

And this shows how simple-minded the thinking of your average denialist is.

The ability to trap heat doesn’t diminish exponentially with increasing concentration, the opacity to IR radiation passing through reduces exponentially. Therefore the level at which IR radiation escapes to space, never to return (the only method of removing energy from the earth that it receives from the sun) gets higher. And we all know that the higher it gets, the cooler, yes?

And the cooler it is, the less it will radiate, yes? That’s why red-hot pokers are red hot but whilst heating up to that point, they’re not glowing.

So, all you have is Beers Law which shows how IR transmits through a volume of CO2 in a box in a lab. But the earth’s atmosphere isn’t in a lab. So why do you insist that you can extrapolate what happens in a lab to what happens in the atmosphere, bigger than any lab?

Hope?

Faith? Stupidity?

You tell people to not accept anything they read on here. Then why do you read it? And why do you keep posting comments on all the pieces?

If this information is so “incorrect”, where do you find your “information”?

The actual truth put forward by 98 percent of the scientific community is that every point that you have put forward has absolutely no scientific validity.

Its all spin - but on a recent program, some official was saying that the tar sands are an environmentally friendly project because the sands are actually being cleared of oil and put back in a more pristine condition.

On the post above - it seems counterintuitive that emissions are increasing per unit of oil produced. I would expect it to be flat or decreasing because of improved methods - unless we are running out of tar sands - which we are not.

‘I would expect it to be flat or decreasing because of improved methods - unless we are running out of tar sands - which we are not.’

Problem is that energy consumption required to produce this black poison exceeds that of other sources. More energy used = more CO2 produced extracting. Simple, as a meerkat might have it.

Then there is the other problem of huge quantities of polluted and poisonous fluid wast.

Another problem is that the greater corrosiveness of the end product impacts on pipeline and other infrastructure integrity with resultant higher incidence of polluting leaks.

All in all the law of diminishing returns is exerting itself when all externals are factored in.

But of course whenever did any denier ever try to consider the bigger picture?

Tar sands cost a lot of energy to extract and purify. All that energy has to come from somewhere. E.g. tar sands or ordinary fuel oil/coal. Therefore the pollution increases and the net power reduces.

This is why tar sands are so stupid a resource. It’d be like slaughtering all the cattle to use the blood as fertiliser for string beans to then feed to the sheep.

An anymouse who seemingly cannot read wrote:

‘Sorry Lionel but.
the Fact that CO2s ability to trap heat diminishes exponentially as the concentration increases is well established science.’

Ah! Another denier cherry pick.

You think I don’t knew that?
If you had consulted the reference I cited then you would know that I do and you would also discover what happens to the CO2 absorption band as CO2 increases. A further kicker is what happens as earth surface and atmospheric temperatures rise, let alone when positive feedbacks add to the problem.
Answer me this. How does the absorption band change and with respect to what. Also is the change symmetrical about that band?
‘Now the Myth about CO2 staying in the atmosphere for 100 years or more…. That is pure myth.’

And you know that because?

You have read it on some climate change comic like We Use Wishful Thinking, Climate Despot or Climate McFraudit. Doh!

‘again… People .. dont accept anything you read here. Go look it up for yourselves and you will see the actual truth.’

Quite! I could not have offered better advice WRT your claptrap that avoids awkward facts.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Braid+Oilsands+coverup+claim+credible/4865574/story.html

Oilsands coverup claim not credible

By Don Braid, Calgary Herald
May 31, 2011

Few stories have caused as much local head-scratching as Monday’s front-page screamer claiming the federal Tories intentionally left oilsands emissions out of a report to the United Nations.

This does not seem credible. Federal bureaucrats who spend time recording greenhouse gas emissions per kilo of cow -and I’m not kidding -are unlikely to neglect a target as big and ugly as the oilsands.

It turns out that oilsands GHGs are properly recorded in the mandatory report for 2009. There is no omission of emission.

There’s a lot of money involved and the production has hardly taken off yet (compared to global consumption), so it’s easy to miss out for now.

What do you expect, its the Calgary Herald.

What is really amusing here is all the BS and silly hand wringing over a perfectly normal extraction of a valued resource.
As though the whining will ever have any effect on the projects.

The fact is, we need the oil and we will get it.
The whackos will continue to distort the facts and try to make people believe there is some unusual stuff going on and the world will be amused and continue to use the oil.

A hundred years from now, nobody will notice where the mines were and the whole silly AGW movement will be just another dumb dooms day cult that never happened.

But it is fun to pretent isnt it.

The Alberta dirty tar sands are causing, horrific eco damage.

There are deformed fish, in Athabasca Lake. There has been oil, heavy metal, mercury and cancer causing agents found in, the mighty Athabasca River. The huge Athabasca watershed is poisoned. The caribou are dying. A First Nations village, have a high rate of cancer. Even the very rare cancer, caused by exposure to petroleum. Another flock of ducks perished, from landing in the filthy sludge. The BC rain forests are now being affected by the tar sands.

And, as Canada is a cesspool of corruption, nothing Harper does surprises me. To lie about the pollution damage of the tar sands, is exactly something Harper would do. It is far from the first dirty tactics Harper uses. He wants to be a big shot, in the N.A.U.
The American people said, Harper’s election win, was rigged. That one i can believe. Well over half of the Canadian citizens, did not want Harper as P.M. The U.S. people said, there is a petition out with Presscore, to prosecute Harper and Peter MacKay for, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I also found that petition.

Harper with a minority was bad enough. With his majority, many other county’s are finding him, stubborn and impossible to work with. Harper is not very popular anywhere, especially among Canadians. The U.S. people despise him. They even said, Harper should be tried for treason. The American citizens, are going to fight the N.A.U. to the last ditch.

[x]
Vivian Krause The Province

Today Vivian Krause published an opinion piece in The Province claiming “a vote for Vision is a vote for U.S. oil interests.” So, you might be wondering: just who is Vivian Krause? We’re so glad you asked…

An essential component of all public relations campaigns is having the right messenger— a credible, impassioned champion of your cause.

While many PR...

read more