A New York Times editorial argued that the U.S. should consider the climate implications of constructing pipeline, like Keystone XL, to transport bitumen from the oil sands in Alberta. As should Canada.
The carbon emissions embedded in bitumen that would be transported by the proposed pipelines across BC would not only dwarf the emissions from the province itself, as I discussed last week. It would completely undermine not just B.C.'s emissions reduction policy, but the entire country's policy. The graph shows the estimated gap (i.e. necessary reductions) between the most recent national emissions estimate (2010, 692 Mt) and the policy goal for 2020 (17% reduction, ~607 Mt). The emissions embedded in the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline (82.5 Mt) is alone almost as great as the Canadian 2020 emissions gap (85.3 Mt). Add the Kinder Morgan twinning, and the carbon emissions embedded in using the pipelines would make a mockery of any efforts to reach the federal target.
We'd be reducing emission from the country, but increasing emissions in other countries. The climate does not care whose balance sheet lists the carbon. Maybe if the federal government wants to refereethis growing inter-provincial battle over the pipelines, it needs to be willing to talk climate.
Proposed pipelines undermine Canada's climate target for 2020
Authored by:
Simon Donner
Simon Donner is a professor in the Geography Department at the University of British Columbia who studies why the climate matters to people and aquatic ecosystems, including rivers and coral reefs.
Other Posts by Simon Donner
» Already a member? Login now to comment!
» Not a member? Register to comment!
Eskor Eyimofe Edem says:
Notwithstanding the issues brought up by counting hydrocarbons in transit towards the carbon balance sheet of the region in which they were produced; your analysis overlooks the fact that Canada has never actually met their emissions targets (see link below).
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-cha...
Given recent history, why should the construction of take away instructure raise domestic emissions concerns?
Raoul LeBlanc says:
Making BC responsible for hydrocarbons transported brielfy over their territory on their way to consumers elsewhere does not make much sense to me. I thought all CO2 targets are related to the actual point of CO2 release? If BC is responsible, does that mean that the other country (where it is burned) does not count it against their targets. Otherwise, it seems like double counting.
Is the real intent is to say that BC should effectively be a road-block on the production of tar sands production, then the article should simply state that.
Simon Donner says:
That's right, the emissions accounting is based on the source of the emissions, not the original source of the carbon. I have no dispute with the accounting, the current system may be the only workable system. I'm simply pointing out that it is wrong to be self-congratulatory about achieving or trying to acheive national emissions targets (the federal government has touted a recent levelling off of national CO2 emissions) or provincial emissions targets (BC has active policy) when the country is pushing to massively expand carbon exports to other countries.
As I've said many times on the blog and in other forums, I'm not inherently against the pipelines or expansion of activities in the oil sands. I'm against doing such things without considering the global emissions. If Canada was making an effort to seriously reduce in-country emissions to counter-act the increase in "global" emissions caused by the proposed pipelines, I'd not have much of a problem with the pipelines.
The climate doesn't care where the carbon is burned. If the concern is the climate, we need to think carefully about carbon exports, not just in-country emissions that count on our balance sheet.
Erik Robinson says:
It would make sense that each party that has any hand in the extraction, dilution, transport, refining, spilling, and use of tar sand oil count their proportional amount of carbon emissions. Tar sands creates enough emssions to go around so there will be no shortage of blame. And yes RLeBlanc, I will absolutely go on record to say that the Canadian government should be the road block to tar sands production. No one else has the ability and the market certainly isn't going to stand in the way. Why we sit here and make arguments for or against Keystone XL and the enormous emissions, risk and investment when we could stop arguing and spend the money on renewables is mind boggeling to me.
Scott Edward Anderson is a consultant, blogger, and media commentator who blogs at The Green Skeptic. More »
Christine Hertzog is a consultant, author, and a professional explainer focused on Smart Grid. More »
Gary Hunt Gary is an Executive-in-Residence at Deloitte Investments with extensive experience in the energy & utility industries. More »
Jesse Jenkins is a graduate student and researcher at MIT with expertise in energy technology, policy, and innovation. More »
Jim Pierobon helps trade associations/NGOs, government agencies and companies communicate about cleaner energy solutions. More »
Geoffrey Styles is Managing Director of GSW Strategy Group, LLC and an award-winning blogger. More »
The Energy Collective
- YOU
- Rod Adams
- Scott Edward Anderson
- Charles Barton
- Barry Brook
- Dick DeBlasio
- Simon Donner
- Big Gav
- Michael Giberson
- James Greenberger
- Lou Grinzo
- Tyler Hamilton
- Christine Hertzog
- David Hone
- Gary Hunt
- Jesse Jenkins
- Sonita Lontoh
- Jesse Parent
- Jim Pierobon
- Vicky Portwain
- Tom Raftery
- Joseph Romm
- Robert Stavins
- Robert Stowe
- Geoffrey Styles
- Alex Trembath
- Gernot Wagner
- Dan Yurman

About Social Media Today





