ccs

Tue, 2013-03-12 08:00Jeff Gailus
Jeff Gailus's picture

How Redford Can Walk the Walk, Part 2

This is the second post in a three-part series. For Part 1, Parsing Redford's Little Black Lies, click here.

As Alberta Premier Alison Redford tries her best to hoodwink American politicians into believing Alberta is leading the way on climate change, it’s worth considering where the problems lie and how they might be addressed. The solutions, of course, have nothing to do with more and better public relations, just a commitment to environmental stewardship that Alberta has yet to embrace.

As I wrote in the first part of this column, Redford’s claims about “responsible oil sands development” in her recent USA Today column are patently false. This is because Alberta has failed to implement its own climate change strategy, allowing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the province to grow significantly over the last 20 years despite a commitment to steep reductions.

There are three reasons for this failure. The first is the rampant expansion of Alberta’s tar sands development, which is the fastest growing source of GHG emissions in Canada. GHG emissions from the tar sands more than doubled over the last 20 years, and planned growth under current provincial and federal policies indicates they will double yet again between 2009 and 2020, from 45 megatonnes in 2009 to 92 million tonnes of greenhouse gases in 2020. Environment Canada knows full well that tar sands production, which is expected to double between 2008 and 2015, "will put a strong upward pressure on emissions."

Mon, 2010-01-11 14:22Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Government of Canada's Hidden Tar Sand Truths

Canwest Newspaper reported late last week that new documents have been uncovered showing a pro-industry bias in Government of Canada studies on the environmental and economic impact of Alberta's tar sands projects.

According to Canwest:

"Officials from Environment Canada who reviewed the original package, warned that it reflected the views of oil companies instead of the facts.

"The package should deliver neutral, balanced and factual information," said the analysis. "Currently, much of the language is too pro-industry, and would make the government to be perceived as bias and thus not credible or serving the public good."

Want the facts on the Alberta Oil Sands? Check our Top 10 Facts About the Alberta Oil Sands section.

Wed, 2008-07-02 11:52Ross Gelbspan
Ross Gelbspan's picture

CCS: An Idea Whose Time Is Way Behind Schedule!

Carbon capture and storage (CSS) is fast becoming the oil industry's favorite solution to the climate crisis, but the seductive simplicity of the idea masks a series of doubts about its viability.
Thu, 2008-05-15 15:44Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Clean Coal talking point: "Near Zero-Emission Free Electricity"

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (bought and paid for by the coal industry) was stumping its "clean coal" message in Huntington, West Virginia last week. If you aren't already skeptical about the notion of so-called clean coal, then check out this less-than-hopeful message from clean coal spindoctor Cathy Coffey:

We believe that technology within the next 10 to 15 years will be developed and tested so that we will be able to produce near-zero emission-free electricity from coal." (My emphasis).

The message is carefully crafted and the "10 to 15 years will be developed and tested" message is subtle enough to be passed right over. The clean coal message might even leave you feeling a little hopeful.

Mon, 2008-05-12 17:36Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Obama and Clinton's "Clean Coal" Kills Climate Promises

Both Clinton and Obama are stumping for "clean coal" up and down the coal State of West Virginia today.

And both Presidential hopefuls include the capture and storage of "clean coal" greenhouse gas emissions in their policy platforms.

Wed, 2008-05-07 15:48Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

New Report: Carbon Capture and Sequestration a Pipe Dream

Have you been feeling a little cynical about the "clean coal" lobby's claims that we can simply and neatly bury our greenhouse gas emissions and forget about them?

A comprehensive, in-depth report was released yesterday by Greenpeace International called "False Hope: Why Carbon capture and storage won't save the climate." The bottom line, as I've written here on DeSmog before, is that the timeline is just too long for Carbon Capture and Sequestration to have the desired affect on greenhouse gas emissions.

Fri, 2008-03-28 11:04Kevin Grandia
Kevin Grandia's picture

Is Burying Carbon in the Ground the Answer to the Woes of Coal?


They call it "clean coal. " They tell us that the pollution problem is "fixed" and the solution to the greenhouse gas implication is just around the corner.

They say, "Don't worry that burning coal releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than any other fuel source . We'll soon 'sequester' that stuff: we'll bury it in the ground."

How soon?

Burying the carbon produced from the burning of coal, so called Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), isn't as simple as the coal advocates would have us think. At the rate CCS technology is being developed, Richard Branson will have figured out how to send tourists to Moon before we see anyone storing significant amounts of carbon under our feet.

Subscribe to ccs