Alberta Pimps Keystone In NYT Ad, But Admits It's Not Even Remotely Close On GHG Reduction Pledges

[hatrack]

EDIT

The Alberta government ad takes pains to make the case for the province’s environmental responsibility. It reiterates previous arguments that Alberta is financing more clean energy projects and is the first North American jurisdiction to charge large emitters $15 a tonne on carbon.

The ad focuses on the economic benefits of Keystone, including 42,100 jobs during the construction phase. It also makes the case, suggested previously by Redford and others, that the oil sands have become been unfairly scapegoated despite much larger emitters burning coal on both sides of the border and around the world.

“Greenhouse gas emissions from all the oil sands in Alberta, Canada, make up just over one-tenth of one per cent of the world’s emissions,” said the ad.

Provincial officials, however, have previously conceded Alberta isn’t even close to meeting its goals for reducing greenhouse gases. The province has pledged to reduce emissions by 50 megatonnes a year by 2020 but has averaged just over five tonnes a year since 2007.

Ed. - emphasis added.

EDIT

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-places-ad-in-new-york-times-to-pitch-keystone-xl-pipeline/article9854810/

[Buzz Clik]

1. If the Keystone project were to be scrapped at noon today...

... and the tar sands facility closed at the same moment, what would be the impact on greenhouse emissions?

[wtmusic]

2. A hotly debated topic.

The API and Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers have been trotting out this .1% figure, which takes low estimates about the rate at which tar sands oil will be extracted, completely ignores the likelihood that the pipeline will be "twinned" or even tripled, and doesn't include land use changes (removing the carbon sink of arboreal forest which is twice the size of Ireland).

The National Resources Defense Council has been trotting out their own figure, which is predictably higher. James Hansen argues there's enough CO2 potential in the tar sands to equal all of the coal ever burned by humanity.

As usual, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. My objection to it is based on the undeniable facts that it's pulling more sequestered carbon out of the ground that climate can't afford and it provides very little to the U.S. in the way of jobs and "energy security".

Leave it in the ground.

[Buzz Clik]

3. I agree with you philosophically but have problems with the execution.

Leaving it in the ground ultimately would force reduced consumption. That's a good thing. Less CO₂ in the air and added impetus to find new sources of renewable energy.

However, we need to pressure consumption, efficiency, and dependence early and let the dwindling resources take their course. Forcing the issue in places like Albertan and ANWR change the conversation and injects unneeded distractions to the real issues. (Trust me, I have no desire to EVER develop ANWR.)

[wtmusic]

4. There is a component to the dialogue that even many environmentalists are missing.

President Obama, the most powerful man in the world, is in the position to either move forward (whether incrementally, or not) or backward on climate change. He has apparently chosen to move backward.

When someone in Obama's position takes this stance there is a ripple effect, because the message that this sends is that moving backward a little is OK. That turning the porch light off is a nuisance, that I don't need to consider a hybrid when I could buy another flatscreen, that my carbon-dependent country can meet its CO2 commitments next year.

Wouldn't matter so much if we had time to play with, but we have none.

[Buzz Clik]

5. This environmentalist is painfully aware that the environment is not on Obama's radar screen.

I believe it started with bad advice from Rahm Emanuel who is actually hostile to environmental issues, and Obama has not gotten back on track. Starting with Bush43, we are headed toward 16 years of environment being unimportant to the executive branch.

It annoys me endlessly.

And, yes, I fully understand the urgency.