Photo courtesy of Elias Schewel, via Flickr.

Canada’s oil sands have long been a lightning rod issue in heated debates over national energy futures, economic growth, ecological degradation, and climate change. These tensions are driven in part by the industry’s environmental characteristics: They constitute the fastest growing source of greenhouse gas pollution in Canada, generate significant impacts on boreal forests and species such as woodland caribou, and affect regional freshwater resources.

The Canadian oil sands constitute a staggering 10 percent of technically recoverable global oil reserves. Deposits of molasses-like bitumen—a viscous form of petroleum that is embedded with sand, clay, minerals, and water—underlie 140,000 square-kilometres of boreal forest and muskeg in northern Alberta. Open pit mining operations, where bitumen is found within 75 metres of the surface, are responsible for almost half of current oil sands production and generate severe and potentially intractable environmental impacts that Canadians cannot turn a blind eye to.

For instance, fluid tailings are a byproduct of oil sands mining, where large amounts of chemical laden water are used to extract bitumen from the sands. The fluid waste from this process is then deposited into manmade holding lakes called tailings ponds. More than 1.2 trillion litres of toxic sludge containing cyanide, acids, arsenic, and lead is currently sitting in these enormous open water bodies, posing significant health risks to local communities and wildlife. When oil sands mining first began, companies did not know how to treat and reclaim these tailings, so the ponds were permitted to grow. In 2009, the Government of Alberta finally made an attempt to manage them; however, every single company failed to meet these regulations, and rather than being enforced by the regulator they were simply scrapped.

In 2016 regulations were introduced a second time. But treating tailings remains both difficult and expensive, and all eight existing oil sands mines have since submitted plans to meet the new rules that are largely insufficient. Based on the submitted plans, the tailings ponds can be expected to grow to a peak of approximately 1.5 trillion litres that will not begin to decline for another 20 years. Moreover, almost all the plans rely on placing tailings in the bottom of mined out pits once operations are complete, covering them with water and creating manmade “lakes.” Companies have proposed that it will subsequently take as long as 70 years after mining operations are finished to reclaim these sites and return them back to Canadians. This approach is a microcosm of the industry’s predicament, wherein properly accounting for environmental costs of operations is deemed prohibitively expensive, so they are simply minimized, disregarded, and punted down the road into an ambiguous future.

Adding to the risk that taxpayers might ultimately be left on the hook for billions of dollars in tailings cleanup costs, the economic viability for Canadian oil sands mining in the 21st century is increasingly uncertain. Industry insiders say the 50-year era of multi-billion dollar mining megaprojects has likely come to an end. Oil sands mines are notorious for their exceptionally high start-up and operations costs, and while mega-projects were profitable with oil prices of over $100 USD per barrel, the international oil price crash in 2014 has delivered a painful blow to the industry.

Many operators have struggled to break even since the 2014 slump began. Numerous proposed mining projects have been indefinitely shelved, and international players Total, Shell, and ConocoPhillips sold off almost all of their oil sands assets to Canadian companies. Many investors are growing concerned about what the future holds for the mineable oil sands as an expensive and carbon intensive resource.

With these high economic stakes in mind, governments have undertaken several initiatives to encourage innovation in more efficient and environmentally cleaner oil sands mining technologies. The Government of Alberta’s Climate Leadership Plan (CLP), for instance, introduced an economy-wide carbon price and legislated a cap on oil sands emissions. The CLP provides a mechanism to prevent Canadians from falling off a steep economic cliff in the near future due to a potential financial bubble—or “carbon bubble”—in a world where even baseline International Energy Agency projections suggest decarbonization of energy systems will be inevitable in the 21st century.

But as demonstrated by the consistent failure of industry to adequately tackle tailings cleanup in the last 50 years of operations, reducing the environmental footprint of oil sands mining is a technically challenging and expensive undertaking that extends far beyond emissions management.

Ultimately, the future for oil sands mining is uncertain at best. Companies should account for the true social and environmental costs of their operations now, rather than assuming future revenues will be sufficient to cover them. As the dismal state of the decades-old tailings problem illuminates, current operators must be compelled to bite the bullet and clean up their immense messes while they still have sufficient income to do so. This will protect Canadian taxpayers from potentially having to foot the bill in a world where mineable oil sands produce increasingly marginal barrels and global energy transitions are well underway.

Jodi McNeill is a technical and policy analyst at the Pembina Institute.

The Euro zone has so far been unable to extract itself from a debt crisis that is expected to have a domino effect in the region. Greece, still teetering on bankruptcy, would be the first block to fall. Meanwhile, the American economy is sputtering along, struggling to boost employment. Even China, the ascending superpower, is experiencing sluggish growth.

It makes me think back to the late 1990s and early 2000s, when globalization was a dirty word in activist circles (recall the Seattle riots of 1999 in response to the World Trade Organization conference.)

Resistance to the then-emerging concept centred on environmental, human rights and income inequality issues. It bears a striking resemblance to the umbrella of issues encompassed by today’s Occupy Movement.

Economics-wise, globalization meant breaking down barriers to international trade, such as uneven regulation between countries (portrayed by activists as a slackening of rules). More generally, it was used to describe the less tangible idea of a growing global interconnectedness.

In Canada, the first sign came in the form of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Then, in 1995, we joined the World Trade Organization.

Lots of free trade agreements later, there is plenty of evidence to support the predictions protestors made: the Pembina Institute has sounded the alarm over surging greenhouse gas emissions as the development of Alberta’s oil sands steams ahead; Canadian mining giants, such as Barrick Gold, have faced allegations of human rights abuses abroad; and a Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives study has shown a rising income gap in the country.

None of this seemed to faze policymakers when economies around the globe were in a state of rapid growth. But now, with economies veering toward what appears to be a double-dip recession, they’re grappling (rather unsuccessfully) with how to course correct what is essentially a systemic problem.

Recessions happened before the phenomenon of globalization, true. But this meltdown is the most severe we’ve had since our economies became so tightly intertwined. Its effects can’t be contained within borders, and in spite of their best efforts, policymakers have yet to put us on a clear path to recovery.

Canada has been relatively insulated from the worst of it so far, thanks to a more tightly-regulated banking system. However, if the Euro zone and U.S. keep backsliding, the effects are sure to bleed across the border.

Herein lies the opportunity to effect change—a period of prolonged crisis, with all other options exhausted.

And as Lia Grainger recently reported in “Among the Rebels,” a May/June 2012 This feature, the Occupy Movement may yet see a second wave—this time with a stronger Canadian contingent.

Thousands of protesters convened on Parliament hill last Sunday as part of the 350.org International Day of Action on climate change. Photo via Paul Dewar's Flickr feed.

It was the largest lobbying event on climate change in Canadian history: thousands of Canadians from across the country united on Parliament Hill last Saturday as part of the 350 International Day of Climate Action to demand leadership on the issue. Yet our government will hold off on making its decision to prevent catastrophic global warming until after the Copenhagen Climate negotiations has already started.

“We’re going to Copenhagen with nothing,” said Hannah McKinnon of the Climate Action Network.

Bill C-311, the Climate Change Accountability Act, could be Canada’s most significant bill this decade. It is a private member’s bill that would ensure that Canada assumes its responsibility in preventing dangerous climate change. And instead of striking a strong position on climate change, we are sitting on the fence waiting for others to lead first. Until mid-Copenhagen where world leaders decide the next UN climate pact that will succeed the Kyoto Protocol.

But some say the bill has little chance of passing in Canada during Copenhagen. Partly this is because private members’ bills bear little weight in parliament. But more importantly it’s because Canada is not leading on the issue.  If anything, in global climate talks, we are increasingly gaining a reputation for sabotage and delay. Most recently, Canada publicly mulled the idea of scrapping the whole Kyoto-Protocol in Bangkok earlier this month and subsequently motivating the Group of 77 developing nations to walk out in protest.

Canada’s inaction is embarrassing, activist Lauryn Drainie says:

“Maybe Harper should just stay home for Copenhagen. It’s not our voice he is representing. We don’t need him there.” (To be clear: while Prime Minister Harper declared he is not attending Copenhagen, representatives from his government will be there, affecting the outcome of the negotiations.)

Currently, Canada’s plan on battling climate change falls short on what basic climate science calls for and the commitments made by some of the G8 countries in Italy last July: a peak in emissions by 2020 and 50-80 per cent emissions reductions by 2050. Our plan would actually put us above 2 per cent in GHG by the year 2020 and below 38-48 per cent by 2050, when compared to the 1990 levels needed (the time in history of stable carbon in the atmosphere). And somehow Canada will do this while increasing emissions with the carbon-intensive tar sands project. Which makes us a laggard, not a leader.

Despite Canada, there are signs of climate leadership: the Obama administration has spent US$75 billion to build a clean-energy economy – that’s six times more than Canada. The European Union is joining forces to reduce the most by 2020. Even China, who has been constantly tagged as a barrier to climate progress, announced policy measures to curb emissions at the New York climate talk last September.

Beyond the political arenas, strong global mobilization is taking place in civic life demanding a different direction for our planet. Last Saturday, the 350 campaign took place as a global demonstration in 181 countries with 5,200 events to unite the world around a solution — lowering our carbon emissions to 350 parts per million (that is 1990 levels, while currently we are near 390 ppm).

“[It was] the most widespread day of environmental action in the planet’s history. People gathered to call for strong action and bold leadership on the climate crisis,” a 350 statement said.

In Canada, despite media downplaying the numbers, there were nearly 3,000 Canadians united in Ottawa for the 350 event. Bringing together a diversity of people, faith-based groups, and numerous environmental campaigns including Power Shift Canada, the largest youth gathering on climate change in Canadian history.

But while many call for action, our government hides behind our relatively well-to-do economy and geographic size as a reason for holding Canada back in the most important issue of our time.

“The Canadian approach [to battling climate change] has to reflect the diversity of the country and the sheer size of the country, and the very different economic characteristics and industrial structure across the country,” Environmental Minister Jim Prentice, told the Globe and Mail.

“I have to take a realistic view that, given the amount of work that remains to be done, we’re running out of time,” he said, arguing that their should be climate commitments later, post-Copenhagen, by national leaders.

It is true, we are running out of time, possibly because of Canada’s shameful blocking in international climate affairs. But does this mean that we need more talking?. It’s time for less talk and more strides away from “thermageddon.”

“It’s not to late to seal the deal at Copenhagen for Canada,” said Geoff Green, a speakers at Power Shift Canada, who has seen the polar ice caps melting firsthand with his expedition group Students on Ice.

The House will reconvene on Bill C-311 on December 12, seven days before Copenhagen ends. There is still time for change.

Emily Hunter is an environmental journalist and This Magazine’s resident eco-blogger. She is currently working on a book about young environmental activism, The Next Eco-Warriors, and is the eco-correspondent to MTV News Canada.

Another B.C. election has passed, and the Liberals under Premier Gordon Campbell were able to hold on to power, but it was hard to tell at times which party stood where on the issues and the political spectrum. The environment was a central issue in this election, but it played out in a way that made no sense based on the historic positioning of political parties in Canada.

The Liberal Party of B.C., which since the demise of the Social Credit has been perceived by some to be more right-wing, was the party that defended the merits of a carbon tax. Meanwhile, the voice of the left, the B.C. New Democrats under Carole James, went all-out under the slogan “axe the tax.” They vowed to eliminate the green tax and, instead, embrace a system of cap-and-trade similar to the one now endorsed by the federal Conservatives.

Environment groups and left-of-centre think tanks, such as ForestEthics, the Pembina Institute, and the David Suzuki Foundation, were put in the awkward position of having to enter the campaign to challenge the NDP.

They were concerned that if the NDP was successful using this strategy it would set the environmental movement back decades, as political parties dropped crucial environmental initiatives from their platforms. While B.C. might be unique in how dramatic its provincial politics tends to be, the NDP across Canada appears to have abandoned the environmental file.

In the last federal election, Jack Layton found himself running against a much more environmentally aggressive Stéphane Dion, and even when the possibility of a coalition government emerged, it was the NDP that insisted the “Green Shift” not be government policy.

So what explains this bizarre policy positioning? The answer is the Green Party. In 1929, American economist Harold Hotelling advanced a model for business based on “spatial location.” Let’s say you want to open a convenience store on a street where there is already one on its eastern end; where would the ideal location be to open your store? As close as possible to your competitor, of course, so as to capture every customer on the street to the west. That way, when someone leaves the house to purchase, say, a carton of milk, they will stop at your store because it is closer, even if just by a few feet.

In 1957, Anthony Downs applied this spatial model of competition to politics and suggested that voters will choose political parties that are closest to them in terms of policy. This explains why, in a two-party system like that of the U.S., the policies of the two political parties end up so similar, as each party tries to grab the maximum number of votes on its side of the left/right spectrum.

The Democrats need to be only slightly left of the GOP to get everyone to their left. Where else can the voters go?

In Canadian elections, we have had a number of what we call “third parties,” such as the NDP. The benefit of this sort of competition should be that these parties can adhere to their core ideological values because they have more room to manoeuvre, while still positioning themselves strategically to capture the greatest share of the electorate.

Enter the Green Party. Now with a new viable political player on the field, the other parties have been repositioning. It doesn’t matter that the Greens have yet to score an actual electoral victory; their simple presence in the campaign has altered the other parties’ strategies. The effect has been most substantive for the NDP, which has tried to stake out new ground on the environment, the deficit, and even law and order.

Political parties, of course, are not convenience stores. Economics is modelled using homo economicus, an incredibly selfish man—a man who considers only what will make his own life better, trying to get the most for the least. That is why economists are always surprised when people walk further to get their milk and even pay a little more. The economic model does not allow for considerations economists call “irrational,” like loyalty to a local neighbourhood store and the people who run it.

But this is not the ideal citizen that democracy is predicated upon. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, for example, argued that the very nature of society would force people to rise above their own selfinterest and make decisions for the common good. It was because he believed in a “general will” greater than the individual—that people believe in democracy.

The NDP needs to ask itself what it believes in. Does the party want voters to walk the extra distance for their policies because they’re the right ones—or do they simply want to offer policies that are convenient?

Diagram of how Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) works. Image courtesy Pembina Institute and Alberta Geological Survey.

[This is part two of a three-part series of posts Emily is writing on the tar sands. Last week’s post is here.]

It’s scary sometimes how science fiction can parallel with reality. The Tar Sands dilemma has come to do just that. As we seek to find a solution to our intensive emissions, here in Canada we are putting all our eggs in one basket, with carbon capture and storage, in a scheme that resembles the story of Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series more than a realistic plan for the future.

Cover of Isaac Asimov's "Foundation" series.

The book trilogy by Asimov closely resembles that of our climate peril. In both, humans are aware that a catastrophic event is near, and attempt to plan for it (In our case, the catastrophe is the global meltdown that the tar sands heavily contribute to). In the Foundation books, they store knowledge for a new civilization to build upon. Down here on earth, we are instead attempting to store problematic CO₂ deep inside the earth where it will (supposedly) remain. In both scenarios, we don’t know if disaster is ultimately averted or not. The problem is, one is a work of fiction, and the other is a real question of urgent public policy.

Carbon capture and storage (CCS) has been proposed as a catchall solution to runaway climate change by the Canadian government. The problem is, we simply don’t know if it actually is a solution, and there are too many risks involved to treat it as the silver bullet that will save us.

The idea behind CCS is that through integrated technology, carbon dioxide can be captured directly from industrial sources — including coal plants and the oil sands — treated, liquefied, and pumped deep into the earth where it will do no harm. Something that would have seemed like science fiction 20 or 30 years ago is now seriously being considered by Canada’s political leadership.

The federal government and the government of Alberta are together pouring $3 billion collectively into this project. By 2015, the province hopes to have five or six CCS project on the run, pulling 10 million tonnes of CO₂ a year from our air.

But CCS technology is in its infancy and it could be 10 or even 20 years away from being commercialized and affordable on a large enough scale to deal with the carbon emissions of the tar sands, according to The Hill Times. Meanwhile, we are continuing and expanding emissions. And there are environmental regulations and long-term liabilities that have not even begun to be established.

The science fiction scenarios contiue, in which we’re threatened by a human-made carbon tsunami. Leakage or bursts of compressed stored carbon would be deadly, suffocating every living thing in its radius. This kind of carbon disaster has already occurred in Lake Nyos, Cameroon. In August of 1986, carbon at the bottom of the lake surfaced roaring in invisible form in a 19 kilometre death zone, killing 1,700 people, 3,000 cattle, countless birds, and insects — essentially, everything in sight.

True, carbon nightmares like these are rare. Carbon can store for millions of years underground safely in the right geological chemistry, as found in a study in Nature. Even the Pembina Institute, a tar-sands watch dog, says the chances of leakage is slim. As well, Alberta is prime land for carbon storage as the province has stored oil and gas underground for millions of years already.

“(But) you can never factor out human error, pipelines and earthquakes. So why would we take that risk when we don’t have to?,” said Emily Rochon from Greenpeace in an interview with the Canadian Press.

Disingenuous politicians are claiming CCS technology could be a panacea, with all its many uncertainties, but call renewable energies like wind and solar the “risky” ones. Sure, solar, wind and biomass are not the stuff of utopian dreams either, as Jeremy Nelson pointed out recently in This. But shouldn’t reducing GHG and promoting energy efficiently be our ultimate goal — not aiding further climate crimes?

Sure, it’s not all bad. CCS can assist positively in our tar sands and climate perils. As according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CCS could contribute 15 to 55 percent of the world’s total GHG reductions between now and 2100 if successful. In Canada, we could potentially reduce 40 percent of our emissions by 2050. This is good news. But it will still not be enough to bring Alberta’s emissions down, which at present are 58 million tonnes a year and are only expected to increase with oil sands expansion. Let’s face it: CCS is being wielded as a distraction in order to support the status quo today.

Therefore, putting all our eggs in one basket to stave off “thermageddon” is a science-fiction writer’s fantasy – not a realistic plan. At best, CSS is one of many transitional solutions to creating our green economy. It is not our one and only shining star.

[Next week: meet one activist who is fighting tar sands development, plus why a moratorium is crucial.]

Emily Hunter is an environmental journalist and This Magazine’s resident eco-blogger. She is currently working on a book about young environmental activism, The Next Eco-Warriors, and is the eco-correspondent to MTV News Canada.